Kaepernick's Grievance

[untermensche]

The anthem promotes nationalism which in the hands of people like GW Bush and co. can easily be turned to rabid jingoism.

It has no place.

It is like the pledge of allegiance.

Something a totalitarian nation might do.

 

[dismal]

Not in the minds of anyone who knows anything about the sport. There was near unanimous consensus among NFL analysts that he was more talented than many of the QBs who started for teams in each of the last 3 seasons, including several 2nd and 3rd string level QBs who got their staring jobs while Kaep was on the market. And not in the minds of the NFL legal team who would never have agreed to this very damaging settlement if there was a case to be made that Kaep was clearly no longer an NFL level QB.

Now that the NFL's hush money payout shows beyond reasonable doubt that their was evidence of collusion (and likely racism) among NFL owners that they wanted to hide, you are trying to rehash the already well refuted nonsense that he simply was not good enough to start in the NFL. The objective evidence (and the subjective evaluation of nearly every respected NFL expert) makes it clear that he was a far better choice for numerous teams than the person they hired, leaving just 3 possible reasons why he was not hired:
1) Every owner of a team that brought in a new QB during that time independently decided that they cared less about winning and therefore about profit, than they did about punishing this uppity negro who dared to complain about cops murdering blacks.
2) Every owner of a team that brought in a new QB during that time independently decided that the massively increased profits that inherently come with having a better team was not worth to potential loss in profit from their racist fans who might boycott the team b/c they hired an uppity negro who dared to complain about cops murdering blacks.
3) Those owners engaged in some level of coordinated effort (possibly with other owners who didn't hire a QB but wanted to protect the brand) to ensure no one hired him and provoked further boycotts by the leagues many racist fans.

BTW, the NFL's settlement and gag order that they demanded also proves that Kaep was never offered a contract for any reasonable amount of $. Because if they had, there would be record of that which would emerge in the depositions and make it a slam dunk easy and quick defense in court in the court of public opinion. This settlement which they already spent many millions and 18 months trying to fight cost the NFL tons in both $ and brand damage and precedent of future suits. They would have to be the most incompetent organization and lawyers imaginable to have done that to themselves, unless they knew there were facts the trial would make public that would cause them even more immediate and long term damage.

Holy fuck I don't need the opinions of politically biased sports idiots on sports.

The guy was benched for Blaine Gabbert. Twice. When you've gone lower than Blaine Gabbert there is not much lower to go.

Benched by coaches that failed. One that got his butt kicked back to the college game.

You don't have a clue.

I see little point in having a religious debate with you.

I don't know anyone in the world of sports who thinks Kaepernick would have been a starter anywhere.

Not unreasonable after displaying extreme suckitude and getting benched on the worst team in the league.

Everyone who thinks Kaep was a good player seems to reside in the world of hyper partisan politics.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

“I don't know anyone in the world of sports who thinks Kaepernick would have been a starter anywhere.”

Evidence of total denial on your part. Plenty of people think that. Many more think he can be an effective backup.

 

[dismal]

“I don't know anyone in the world of sports who thinks Kaepernick would have been a starter anywhere.”

Evidence of total denial on your part. Plenty of people think that. Many more think he can be an effective backup.

Well, I carved out deranged leftists. They think he's the greatest player ever. Who somehow got benched on the worst team in the league because coaches.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

“I don't know anyone in the world of sports who thinks Kaepernick would have been a starter anywhere.”

Evidence of total denial on your part. Plenty of people think that. Many more think he can be an effective backup.

Well, I carved out deranged leftists people I don't agree with.

FIFY

 

[untermensche]

Benched by coaches that failed. One that got his butt kicked back to the college game.

You don't have a clue.

I see little point in having a religious debate with you.

You can't actually look at prior stats of Jesus.

I don't know anyone in the world of sports who thinks Kaepernick would have been a starter anywhere.

Your limitations are not an argument.

Not unreasonable after displaying extreme suckitude and getting benched on the worst team in the league.

Benched by coaches who failed with the QB they picked.

While Harbaugh rode Kaepernick to a Super Bowl.

Everyone who thinks Kaep was a good player seems to reside in the world of hyper partisan politics.

Better than other QB's on rosters and other QB's signed.

No protests he would be somewhere.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

You can't actually look at prior stats of Jesus.

I'm pretty sure Jesus was a goalie.

 

[ronburgundy]

Not in the minds of anyone who knows anything about the sport. There was near unanimous consensus among NFL analysts that he was more talented than many of the QBs who started for teams in each of the last 3 seasons, including several 2nd and 3rd string level QBs who got their staring jobs while Kaep was on the market. And not in the minds of the NFL legal team who would never have agreed to this very damaging settlement if there was a case to be made that Kaep was clearly no longer an NFL level QB.

Now that the NFL's hush money payout shows beyond reasonable doubt that their was evidence of collusion (and likely racism) among NFL owners that they wanted to hide, you are trying to rehash the already well refuted nonsense that he simply was not good enough to start in the NFL. The objective evidence (and the subjective evaluation of nearly every respected NFL expert) makes it clear that he was a far better choice for numerous teams than the person they hired, leaving just 3 possible reasons why he was not hired:
1) Every owner of a team that brought in a new QB during that time independently decided that they cared less about winning and therefore about profit, than they did about punishing this uppity negro who dared to complain about cops murdering blacks.
2) Every owner of a team that brought in a new QB during that time independently decided that the massively increased profits that inherently come with having a better team was not worth to potential loss in profit from their racist fans who might boycott the team b/c they hired an uppity negro who dared to complain about cops murdering blacks.
3) Those owners engaged in some level of coordinated effort (possibly with other owners who didn't hire a QB but wanted to protect the brand) to ensure no one hired him and provoked further boycotts by the leagues many racist fans.

BTW, the NFL's settlement and gag order that they demanded also proves that Kaep was never offered a contract for any reasonable amount of $. Because if they had, there would be record of that which would emerge in the depositions and make it a slam dunk easy and quick defense in court in the court of public opinion. This settlement which they already spent many millions and 18 months trying to fight cost the NFL tons in both $ and brand damage and precedent of future suits. They would have to be the most incompetent organization and lawyers imaginable to have done that to themselves, unless they knew there were facts the trial would make public that would cause them even more immediate and long term damage.

Holy fuck I don't need the opinions of politically biased sports idiots on sports.

Ah, so almost all nationally respected NFL experts and talent evaluators (including ex-players), all have a left wing political bias for some magical reason, even though pro sports and NFL fans generally skew conservative. Wow, that is identical to the creationists who say that all scientists have a left wing bias to favor evolution. It couldn't possibly be b/c they are experts and the evidence clearly favors that conclusion.

You could also just look at the objective stats yourself, but I guess math and numbers are also too "liberal" for you.

The guy was benched for Blaine Gabbert. Twice. When you've gone lower than Blaine Gabbert there is not much lower to go.

He didn't go lower than Gabbert. He was benched by failing coaches of a terrible dysfunctional team with no supporting talent and among the worst O-line and defense in the NFL. Also, Gabbert was benched for Kaepernick in 2016.

In 2016, Kaepernick had a 91 passer rating, a 4:1 TD to interception ratio, and had rushed for 470 yards in just 11 starts.
His rating was better than 13 of the 30 QBs who started at least 10 games that year, all who all have started in the 3 years Kaep went unsigned, with several of them signed by new teams during that period. His rating was also better than 7 of the 9 QBs (including Gabbert) who started fewer than 10 games but threw at least 130 attempts. And none of that factors in that Kaep was playing with teammates and for a coach who were objectively worse than all other QBs had to deal with, yet he still did better than them on an individual level. SF's defense was the worst in the NFL, it's O-line among the worst, and a group of no-talent receivers and running backs who fumbled more than any in the league (they had traded their only other playmaking offensive player, Alquon Boldin).

And again, the NFL knows this and knows your claim he was no good is absurd, which is why they settled. If he was objectively as bad as you claim, it would have been a cakewalk defense.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Ah, so almost all nationally respected NFL experts and talent evaluators (including ex-players), all have a left wing political bias for some magical reason, even though pro sports and NFL fans generally skew conservative. Wow, that is identical to the creationists who say that all scientists have a left wing bias to favor evolution. It couldn't possibly be b/c they are experts and the evidence clearly favors that conclusion.

You could also just look at the objective stats yourself, but I guess math and numbers are also too "liberal" for you.

The guy was benched for Blaine Gabbert. Twice. When you've gone lower than Blaine Gabbert there is not much lower to go.

He didn't go lower than Gabbert. He was benched by failing coaches of a terrible dysfunctional team with no supporting talent and among the worst O-line and defense in the NFL. Also, Gabbert was benched for Kaepernick in 2016.

In 2016, Kaepernick had a 91 passer rating, a 4:1 TD to interception ratio, and had rushed for 470 yards in just 11 starts.
His rating was better than 13 of the 30 QBs who started at least 10 games that year, all who all have started in the 3 years Kaep went unsigned, with several of them signed by new teams during that period. His rating was also better than 7 of the 9 QBs (including Gabbert) who started fewer than 10 games but threw at least 130 attempts. And none of that factors in that Kaep was playing with teammates and for a coach who were objectively worse than all other QBs had to deal with, yet he still did better than them on an individual level. SF's defense was the worst in the NFL, it's O-line among the worst, and a group of no-talent receivers and running backs who fumbled more than any in the league (they had traded their only other playmaking offensive player, Alquon Boldin).

And again, the NFL knows this and knows your claim he was no good is absurd, which is why they settled. If he was objectively as bad as you claim, it would have been a cakewalk defense.

Dismal's devastating reply:

 

[dismal]

Ah, so almost all nationally respected NFL experts and talent evaluators (including ex-players), all have a left wing political bias for some magical reason, even though pro sports and NFL fans generally skew conservative. Wow, that is identical to the creationists who say that all scientists have a left wing bias to favor evolution. It couldn't possibly be b/c they are experts and the evidence clearly favors that conclusion.

You could also just look at the objective stats yourself, but I guess math and numbers are also too "liberal" for you.

The guy was benched for Blaine Gabbert. Twice. When you've gone lower than Blaine Gabbert there is not much lower to go.

He didn't go lower than Gabbert. He was benched by failing coaches of a terrible dysfunctional team with no supporting talent and among the worst O-line and defense in the NFL. Also, Gabbert was benched for Kaepernick in 2016.

In 2016, Kaepernick had a 91 passer rating, a 4:1 TD to interception ratio, and had rushed for 470 yards in just 11 starts.
His rating was better than 13 of the 30 QBs who started at least 10 games that year, all who all have started in the 3 years Kaep went unsigned, with several of them signed by new teams during that period. His rating was also better than 7 of the 9 QBs (including Gabbert) who started fewer than 10 games but threw at least 130 attempts. And none of that factors in that Kaep was playing with teammates and for a coach who were objectively worse than all other QBs had to deal with, yet he still did better than them on an individual level. SF's defense was the worst in the NFL, it's O-line among the worst, and a group of no-talent receivers and running backs who fumbled more than any in the league (they had traded their only other playmaking offensive player, Alquon Boldin).

And again, the NFL knows this and knows your claim he was no good is absurd, which is why they settled. If he was objectively as bad as you claim, it would have been a cakewalk defense.

Dismal's devastating reply:

Shockingly I'm not impressed by your continued lack of evidence nor your handwaving to obscure the fact that you have no evidence.

A believe without evidence is what people on atheist websites refer to as a "faith-based belief". I can't have a serious discussion to refute a faith-based belief.

I can't make there be less than no evidence.

 

[laughing dog]

Dismal's devastating reply:

Shockingly I'm not impressed by your continued lack of evidence nor your handwaving to obscure the fact that you have no evidence.

A believe without evidence is what people on atheist websites refer to as a "faith-based belief". I can't have a serious discussion to refute a faith-based belief.

I can't make there be less than no evidence.

Actually, you can and you have: using falsehoods is less than no evidence.

 

[dismal]

Ah, so almost all nationally respected NFL experts and talent evaluators (including ex-players), all have a left wing political bias for some magical reason, even though pro sports and NFL fans generally skew conservative. Wow, that is identical to the creationists who say that all scientists have a left wing bias to favor evolution. It couldn't possibly be b/c they are experts and the evidence clearly favors that conclusion.

You could also just look at the objective stats yourself, but I guess math and numbers are also too "liberal" for you.

The guy was benched for Blaine Gabbert. Twice. When you've gone lower than Blaine Gabbert there is not much lower to go.

He didn't go lower than Gabbert. He was benched by failing coaches of a terrible dysfunctional team with no supporting talent and among the worst O-line and defense in the NFL. Also, Gabbert was benched for Kaepernick in 2016.

In 2016, Kaepernick had a 91 passer rating, a 4:1 TD to interception ratio, and had rushed for 470 yards in just 11 starts.
His rating was better than 13 of the 30 QBs who started at least 10 games that year, all who all have started in the 3 years Kaep went unsigned, with several of them signed by new teams during that period. His rating was also better than 7 of the 9 QBs (including Gabbert) who started fewer than 10 games but threw at least 130 attempts. And none of that factors in that Kaep was playing with teammates and for a coach who were objectively worse than all other QBs had to deal with, yet he still did better than them on an individual level. SF's defense was the worst in the NFL, it's O-line among the worst, and a group of no-talent receivers and running backs who fumbled more than any in the league (they had traded their only other playmaking offensive player, Alquon Boldin).

And again, the NFL knows this and knows your claim he was no good is absurd, which is why they settled. If he was objectively as bad as you claim, it would have been a cakewalk defense.

Hmm, and yet he was benched by the worst team in the league and cut. What other great quarterbacks has that happened to lately?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ok, fine it's a job. But what his performance provides is escapism. If he brings in politics in the realm of escapism then it's not surprising that he'll get fired....

They already invaded the escapism with the stupid song and all the patriotic bullshit.

I think that's also escapism. A nation isn't really a thing. We don't really have anything in common with our national "family" that we don't also have in common with plenty of people in the rest of the world. It's a myth we like to believe in. So escapism.

 

[Derec]

I think that's also escapism. A nation isn't really a thing. We don't really have anything in common with our national "family" that we don't also have in common with plenty of people in the rest of the world. It's a myth we like to believe in. So escapism.

Well your nation is a myth now that Swedes or on their way to becoming a minority in their own country in a few decades, with majority being Syrians, Afghans, Pakistanis etc. By the way, that girl who prevented an Afghan convicted of assault from being deported has only been given a small fine. That will not deter others like her from doing likewise.

 

[untermensche]

Ok, fine it's a job. But what his performance provides is escapism. If he brings in politics in the realm of escapism then it's not surprising that he'll get fired....

They already invaded the escapism with the stupid song and all the patriotic bullshit.

I think that's also escapism. A nation isn't really a thing. We don't really have anything in common with our national "family" that we don't also have in common with plenty of people in the rest of the world. It's a myth we like to believe in. So escapism.

A nation is a thing. It is an idea.

And a flag is a thing. And everybody standing and singing a song is a thing.

It's a total invasion of escapism to have the saluting of a flag and the singing of a patriotic song that is called the national anthem.

Goodby escape from reality. Hello mindless conformity for a bit first. Let's all remember we are mindless apes that conform, for a while, for some reason, before the game.

 

[James Madison]

The fact that the NFL’s decision to settle has proved his point. The amount and terms are just details. The league was probably deathly afraid of having some of their more clueless owners testifying under oath.

People with money settle meritless cases to make them go away. It costs time and money to fight frivolous lawsuits.

.

A bullshit excuse refuted by the NFL's proven track record of not being willing to settle legal cases, including the most frivolous cases imaginable (deflategate) that they fought for years and spent tens of millions and didn't spend triple that only b/c Brady chose not to appeal. Plus, the NFL had already spent almost 2 years and millions fighting this case and only settled once it came time for the information to go public.

Not to mention, the extremely dangerous precedent that the NFL just set for itself by settling a case such as this. There is now a precedent to encourage very player that winds up not getting signed one year to sue and get a payday. There is no way in hell the NFL would set that precedent if they didn't know that it was still better for them than allowing the public to hear the depositions of the owners and the facts of this case.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that this settlement was hush money to suppress public knowledge of the damning facts that they knew would come out.

And more generally, this is the reason why most big corporations settle before trial. Settlements of truly baseless cases set precedents that cost the company more in the long run than it would to go to trial and soundly and quickly win the case (which should be easy in any actual frivolous case) to discourage future suits. Companies settle when it is NOT frivolous and there is enough evidence against them to either risk losing or at least to damage them PR wise. That is especially true if the case is already international front page news before the settlement, because then the settlement serves no purpose to keep the public from even being aware of the case and can only serve to keep the public ignorant of the facts that are clearly worse than settling and making obvious they are hiding something.

You are missing another alternative. Both sides viewed a potential trial as a toss up. Kaepernick may have wanted to extract some guaranteed financial concessions as opposed to potentially losing a toss up and receiving no financial compensation. The NFL may have wanted to settle for a lesser amount that Kaepernick would accept as opposed to proceeding to trial, losing, and paying more.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A bullshit excuse refuted by the NFL's proven track record of not being willing to settle legal cases, including the most frivolous cases imaginable (deflategate) that they fought for years and spent tens of millions and didn't spend triple that only b/c Brady chose not to appeal. Plus, the NFL had already spent almost 2 years and millions fighting this case and only settled once it came time for the information to go public.

Not to mention, the extremely dangerous precedent that the NFL just set for itself by settling a case such as this. There is now a precedent to encourage very player that winds up not getting signed one year to sue and get a payday. There is no way in hell the NFL would set that precedent if they didn't know that it was still better for them than allowing the public to hear the depositions of the owners and the facts of this case.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that this settlement was hush money to suppress public knowledge of the damning facts that they knew would come out.

And more generally, this is the reason why most big corporations settle before trial. Settlements of truly baseless cases set precedents that cost the company more in the long run than it would to go to trial and soundly and quickly win the case (which should be easy in any actual frivolous case) to discourage future suits. Companies settle when it is NOT frivolous and there is enough evidence against them to either risk losing or at least to damage them PR wise. That is especially true if the case is already international front page news before the settlement, because then the settlement serves no purpose to keep the public from even being aware of the case and can only serve to keep the public ignorant of the facts that are clearly worse than settling and making obvious they are hiding something.

You are missing another alternative. Both sides viewed a potential trial as a toss up. Kaepernick may have wanted to extract some guaranteed financial concessions as opposed to potentially losing a toss up and receiving no financial compensation. The NFL may have wanted to settle for a lesser amount that Kaepernick would accept as opposed to proceeding to trial, losing, and paying more.

That is definitely a possibility. On the other hand, Kaepernick was looking for lost revenue. If the report was correct about $60 million, over 2 lost years is pretty high, which would put him near the top of QB pay.

As a slight derail, it might also be worth nothing that the top six paid QBs didn't make the playoffs.

 

[dismal]

A bullshit excuse refuted by the NFL's proven track record of not being willing to settle legal cases, including the most frivolous cases imaginable (deflategate) that they fought for years and spent tens of millions and didn't spend triple that only b/c Brady chose not to appeal. Plus, the NFL had already spent almost 2 years and millions fighting this case and only settled once it came time for the information to go public.

Not to mention, the extremely dangerous precedent that the NFL just set for itself by settling a case such as this. There is now a precedent to encourage very player that winds up not getting signed one year to sue and get a payday. There is no way in hell the NFL would set that precedent if they didn't know that it was still better for them than allowing the public to hear the depositions of the owners and the facts of this case.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that this settlement was hush money to suppress public knowledge of the damning facts that they knew would come out.

And more generally, this is the reason why most big corporations settle before trial. Settlements of truly baseless cases set precedents that cost the company more in the long run than it would to go to trial and soundly and quickly win the case (which should be easy in any actual frivolous case) to discourage future suits. Companies settle when it is NOT frivolous and there is enough evidence against them to either risk losing or at least to damage them PR wise. That is especially true if the case is already international front page news before the settlement, because then the settlement serves no purpose to keep the public from even being aware of the case and can only serve to keep the public ignorant of the facts that are clearly worse than settling and making obvious they are hiding something.

You are missing another alternative. Both sides viewed a potential trial as a toss up. Kaepernick may have wanted to extract some guaranteed financial concessions as opposed to potentially losing a toss up and receiving no financial compensation. The NFL may have wanted to settle for a lesser amount that Kaepernick would accept as opposed to proceeding to trial, losing, and paying more.

That is definitely a possibility. On the other hand, Kaepernick was looking for lost revenue. If the report was correct about $60 million, over 2 lost years is pretty high, which would put him near the top of QB pay.

As a slight derail, it might also be worth nothing that the top six paid QBs didn't make the playoffs.

How can you know what the payout was!!111111

There's a gag order!@#!@!!!

 

[ronburgundy]

A bullshit excuse refuted by the NFL's proven track record of not being willing to settle legal cases, including the most frivolous cases imaginable (deflategate) that they fought for years and spent tens of millions and didn't spend triple that only b/c Brady chose not to appeal. Plus, the NFL had already spent almost 2 years and millions fighting this case and only settled once it came time for the information to go public.

Not to mention, the extremely dangerous precedent that the NFL just set for itself by settling a case such as this. There is now a precedent to encourage very player that winds up not getting signed one year to sue and get a payday. There is no way in hell the NFL would set that precedent if they didn't know that it was still better for them than allowing the public to hear the depositions of the owners and the facts of this case.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that this settlement was hush money to suppress public knowledge of the damning facts that they knew would come out.

And more generally, this is the reason why most big corporations settle before trial. Settlements of truly baseless cases set precedents that cost the company more in the long run than it would to go to trial and soundly and quickly win the case (which should be easy in any actual frivolous case) to discourage future suits. Companies settle when it is NOT frivolous and there is enough evidence against them to either risk losing or at least to damage them PR wise. That is especially true if the case is already international front page news before the settlement, because then the settlement serves no purpose to keep the public from even being aware of the case and can only serve to keep the public ignorant of the facts that are clearly worse than settling and making obvious they are hiding something.

You are missing another alternative. Both sides viewed a potential trial as a toss up. Kaepernick may have wanted to extract some guaranteed financial concessions as opposed to potentially losing a toss up and receiving no financial compensation. The NFL may have wanted to settle for a lesser amount that Kaepernick would accept as opposed to proceeding to trial, losing, and paying more.

That isn't really an alternative. That means that NFL thought that despite their million to 1 advantage in the depth of their legal team and the incredibly high (almost impossible to prove) bar for a collusion convictions, they knew that there was enough evidence against them that they might lose, evidence that would only exist if they did in fact collude, and evidence that would severely harm their brand if made public.

Also, why wouldn't they have just settled 18 months ago before they already spent millions and got tons of bad press. The timing of it coming right before the owners and GMs were going to be deposed is not coincidence, and favors that they were not merely afraid of losing but afraid of the even worse impact of what those depositions would do to their brand.

 

[dismal]

A bullshit excuse refuted by the NFL's proven track record of not being willing to settle legal cases, including the most frivolous cases imaginable (deflategate) that they fought for years and spent tens of millions and didn't spend triple that only b/c Brady chose not to appeal. Plus, the NFL had already spent almost 2 years and millions fighting this case and only settled once it came time for the information to go public.

Not to mention, the extremely dangerous precedent that the NFL just set for itself by settling a case such as this. There is now a precedent to encourage very player that winds up not getting signed one year to sue and get a payday. There is no way in hell the NFL would set that precedent if they didn't know that it was still better for them than allowing the public to hear the depositions of the owners and the facts of this case.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that this settlement was hush money to suppress public knowledge of the damning facts that they knew would come out.

And more generally, this is the reason why most big corporations settle before trial. Settlements of truly baseless cases set precedents that cost the company more in the long run than it would to go to trial and soundly and quickly win the case (which should be easy in any actual frivolous case) to discourage future suits. Companies settle when it is NOT frivolous and there is enough evidence against them to either risk losing or at least to damage them PR wise. That is especially true if the case is already international front page news before the settlement, because then the settlement serves no purpose to keep the public from even being aware of the case and can only serve to keep the public ignorant of the facts that are clearly worse than settling and making obvious they are hiding something.

You are missing another alternative. Both sides viewed a potential trial as a toss up. Kaepernick may have wanted to extract some guaranteed financial concessions as opposed to potentially losing a toss up and receiving no financial compensation. The NFL may have wanted to settle for a lesser amount that Kaepernick would accept as opposed to proceeding to trial, losing, and paying more.

That isn't really an alternative. That means that NFL thought that despite their million to 1 advantage in the depth of their legal team and the incredibly high (almost impossible to prove) bar for a collusion convictions, they knew that there was enough evidence against them that they might lose, evidence that would only exist if they did in fact collude, and evidence that would severely harm their brand if made public.

When you state your religious beliefs it's customary to finish with an "amen".