Kapaernick

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You need other evidence besides 1) they didn't sign me and 2) they signed worse people to meet the burden of proof.

But you're right, maybe he does have other evidence. We just aren't aware of any.

Yes, there could be other evidence than just (1) and (2); and (1) and (2) can be used in combination with that other evidence. While I think it likely there is nothing there, it is possible there is something else there. We will see what happens as the case progresses (or regresses).

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

and lastly that his lawyer can subpoena records as part of the suit

It's already been explained that there is no subpoena power in this arbitration process. Nor is there any way to force anyone to testify.

 

[dismal]

and lastly that his lawyer can subpoena records as part of the suit

It's already been explained that there is no subpoena power in this arbitration process. Nor is there any way to force anyone to testify.

But just imagine the challenge of maintaining a conspiracy among 32 organizations through various levels of management, some of whom are ex-players and some of whom were recently seen on the field in anthem demonstrations themselves.

Right?

 

[untermensche]

Section 6. Burden of Proof: The failure by a Club or Clubs to negotiate, to submit
Offer Sheets, or to sign contracts with Restricted Free Agents or Transition Players, or
to negotiate, make offers, or sign contracts for the playing services of such players or
Unrestricted Free Agents, shall not, by itself or in combination only with evidence about
the playing skills of the player(s) not receiving any such offer or contract, satisfy the
burden of proof set forth in Section 1 above. However, any of the types of evidence
described in the preceding sentence may support a finding of a violation of Section 1 of
this Article, but only in combination with other evidence which, by itself or in combination
with such evidence, indicates that the challenged conduct was in violation of Section
1 of this Article.

You need other evidence besides 1) they didn't sign me and 2) they signed worse people to meet the burden of proof.

But you're right, maybe he does have other evidence. We just aren't aware of any.

Here is the section that section references.

Section 1. Prohibited Conduct:

(a) No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows:

(i) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player;
(ii) whether to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to any Restricted Free Agent;
(iii) whether to offer or not to offer a Player Contract to any player;
(iv) whether to exercise or not to exercise a Right of First Refusal; or
(v) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.

(b) Any approval or disapproval of a player’s contract by the Commissioner, or any communication thereof, timely notice of which is provided to the NFLPA cannot be the basis of any claim of collusion. The NFLPA or the affected Player shall have the right to appeal the Commissioner’s disapproval of such player contract to the System Arbitrator, pursuant to Article 15 and Article 14

If nobody is negotiating with Kaepernick then they will all have to explain why not.

If they refuse to cooperate that will not help them.

 

[dismal]

You need other evidence besides 1) they didn't sign me and 2) they signed worse people to meet the burden of proof.

But you're right, maybe he does have other evidence. We just aren't aware of any.

Here is the section that section references.

Section 1. Prohibited Conduct:

(a) No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows:

(i) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player;
(ii) whether to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to any Restricted Free Agent;
(iii) whether to offer or not to offer a Player Contract to any player;
(iv) whether to exercise or not to exercise a Right of First Refusal; or
(v) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.

(b) Any approval or disapproval of a player’s contract by the Commissioner, or any communication thereof, timely notice of which is provided to the NFLPA cannot be the basis of any claim of collusion. The NFLPA or the affected Player shall have the right to appeal the Commissioner’s disapproval of such player contract to the System Arbitrator, pursuant to Article 15 and Article 14

If nobody is negotiating with Kaepernick then they will all have to explain why not.

If they refuse to cooperate that will not help them.

Holy fuck. The burden of proof is on Kaepernick. He must show there was Collusion not to sign him

Any one club not signing him is not evidence there was an agreement among clubs not to sign him

There are 7 billion people not signed by the NFL in the world.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

and lastly that his lawyer can subpoena records as part of the suit

It's already been explained that there is no subpoena power in this arbitration process. Nor is there any way to force anyone to testify.

Gun point?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You need other evidence besides 1) they didn't sign me and 2) they signed worse people to meet the burden of proof.

But you're right, maybe he does have other evidence. We just aren't aware of any.

Here is the section that section references.

Section 1. Prohibited Conduct:

(a) No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows:

(i) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player;
(ii) whether to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to any Restricted Free Agent;
(iii) whether to offer or not to offer a Player Contract to any player;
(iv) whether to exercise or not to exercise a Right of First Refusal; or
(v) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.

(b) Any approval or disapproval of a player’s contract by the Commissioner, or any communication thereof, timely notice of which is provided to the NFLPA cannot be the basis of any claim of collusion. The NFLPA or the affected Player shall have the right to appeal the Commissioner’s disapproval of such player contract to the System Arbitrator, pursuant to Article 15 and Article 14

If nobody is negotiating with Kaepernick then they will all have to explain why not.

There is a major issue still. Collusion implies conspiracy. It isn't enough that they aren't at the bargaining table, it implies the NFL owners conspired to keep Kaepernick from being signed.

In fact, is the claim about the bargaining table even true? Wasn't Kaepernick a prospect for Miami, Baltimore, and Jacksonville?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Here is the section that section references.

Section 1. Prohibited Conduct:

(a) No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows:

(i) whether to negotiate or not to negotiate with any player;
(ii) whether to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to any Restricted Free Agent;
(iii) whether to offer or not to offer a Player Contract to any player;
(iv) whether to exercise or not to exercise a Right of First Refusal; or
(v) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a Player Contract.

(b) Any approval or disapproval of a player’s contract by the Commissioner, or any communication thereof, timely notice of which is provided to the NFLPA cannot be the basis of any claim of collusion. The NFLPA or the affected Player shall have the right to appeal the Commissioner’s disapproval of such player contract to the System Arbitrator, pursuant to Article 15 and Article 14

If nobody is negotiating with Kaepernick then they will all have to explain why not.

If they refuse to cooperate that will not help them.

Holy fuck. The burden of proof is on Kaepernick. He must show there was Collusion not to sign him

Any one club not signing him is not evidence there was an agreement among clubs not to sign him

There are 7 billion people not signed by the NFL in the world.

Only about 1% of all college football players become pros.

 

[untermensche]

There are 7 billion people not signed by the NFL in the world.

Stupid point.

There are only a tiny handful of people who have played professional QB and are still capable of playing.

The pool is very small.

Why is one fish in a tiny pool being excluded by everyone?

Owners will have to explain or face losing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Collusion implies conspiracy.

Collusion implies cooperation OR conspiracy, the most essential element of either that there is more than one person working together or in agreement with said action. The action itself is illegal or somehow out of bounds of something--in this case a contract. So, for example, since there was nothing in Kapaernick's contract prohibiting him from kneeling, if two owners or one owner and NFL prohibited him from kneeling in some de facto way by not hiring him while he was most qualified that could be construed as collusion. Likewise, owners all cooperating with NFL non-existent contractural rule not to hire, to fire, or to punish could also be collusion. It doesn't need to be a secret, like a conspiracy.

Related to these ideas, here is the grievance:
https://www.scribd.com/document/361...urce=impactradius&medium=affiliate#from_embed

It probably deserves its own thread.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Collusion implies conspiracy.

Collusion implies cooperation OR conspiracy, the most essential element of either that there is more than one person working together or in agreement with said action. The action itself is illegal or somehow out of bounds of something--in this case a contract. So, for example, since there was nothing in Kapaernick's contract prohibiting him from kneeling, if two owners or one owner and NFL prohibited him from kneeling in some de facto way by not hiring him while he was most qualified that could be construed as collusion.

No, it can't. Not by any arbitrator with an IQ over 20.

Likewise, owners all cooperating with NFL non-existent contractural rule not to hire, to fire, or to punish could also be collusion.

LOL.

You cite the "working together" requirement, then conveniently ignore it. This is a waste of time too.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Collusion implies cooperation OR conspiracy, the most essential element of either that there is more than one person working together or in agreement with said action. The action itself is illegal or somehow out of bounds of something--in this case a contract. So, for example, since there was nothing in Kapaernick's contract prohibiting him from kneeling, if two owners or one owner and NFL prohibited him from kneeling in some de facto way by not hiring him while he was most qualified that could be construed as collusion.

No, it can't. Not by any arbitrator with an IQ over 20.

Likewise, owners all cooperating with NFL non-existent contractural rule not to hire, to fire, or to punish could also be collusion.

LOL.

You cite the "working together" requirement, then conveniently ignore it. This is a waste of time too.

I wrote that in the context of what I had written previously in the topical sentence of the paragraph as I am not writing a book of rules for every independent sentence within such paragraph. My only point was cooperation, not just conspiracy can be collusion and I elaborated on that ONLY in such context. Please don't be so literal and take any sentence out of such context. That request includes any potential response to this post where you conclude I wrote collusion is merely cooperation out of the context of something illegal or out of bounds as I did not include that stipulation in sentence#2. So, again don't be so literal. Please.

Do you agree or disagree that collusion implies conspiracy? Why or why not?

I will add and this is for anybody, it would be best at this point to look at the grievance to see what merit it has and what gaps it has and to respond to that in thread or we could make a new one just about the grievance.

 

[dismal]

There are 7 billion people not signed by the NFL in the world.

Stupid point.

There are only a tiny handful of people who have played professional QB and are still capable of playing.

The pool is very small.

Why is one fish in a tiny pool being excluded by everyone?

Owners will have to explain or face losing.

Have you never heard the expression "burden of proof" before?

Maybe you could ask the people who bring you your pudding what it means.

 

[dismal]

Collusion implies conspiracy.

Collusion implies cooperation OR conspiracy, the most essential element of either that there is more than one person working together or in agreement with said action. The action itself is illegal or somehow out of bounds of something--in this case a contract. So, for example, since there was nothing in Kapaernick's contract prohibiting him from kneeling, if two owners or one owner and NFL prohibited him from kneeling in some de facto way by not hiring him while he was most qualified that could be construed as collusion. Likewise, owners all cooperating with NFL non-existent contractural rule not to hire, to fire, or to punish could also be collusion. It doesn't need to be a secret, like a conspiracy.

Related to these ideas, here is the grievance:
https://www.scribd.com/document/361...urce=impactradius&medium=affiliate#from_embed

It probably deserves its own thread.

Well, given that document contains no claims of any actual evidence of collusion and mostly makes statements that are irrelevant and/or specifically excluded as being offered as proof in the agreement, there does not seem to be much of a case.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here is new thread on specifically the grievance:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12167-Kaepernick-s-Grievance&p=465464#post465464

 

[blastula]

Yea, his deteriorating skills is really what hurt him. He's a running QB not well suited for the west coast offense or traditional offense. He's not a pocket passer. He's more suited for the spread - which is in decline in the NFL. Secondly, he has developed a reputation of not being a team player, not willing to work extra hard, not willing to study up on plays, not wanting to lead the players as a team.

Where did you hear this about this reputation?

 

[untermensche]

Stupid point.

There are only a tiny handful of people who have played professional QB and are still capable of playing.

The pool is very small.

Why is one fish in a tiny pool being excluded by everyone?

Owners will have to explain or face losing.

Have you never heard the expression "burden of proof" before?

Maybe you could ask the people who bring you your pudding what it means.

Here we are talking about convincing a human being or human beings.

There are no rules in how the people deciding can make up their minds. There is no possible way to know how they made their decision. Even if they give reasons after the fact.

All Kaepernick has to do is convince some people, through his lawyers.

He does not have to prove collusion he just has to make that the most reasonable option.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yea, his deteriorating skills is really what hurt him. He's a running QB not well suited for the west coast offense or traditional offense. He's not a pocket passer. He's more suited for the spread - which is in decline in the NFL. Secondly, he has developed a reputation of not being a team player, not willing to work extra hard, not willing to study up on plays, not wanting to lead the players as a team.

Where did you hear this about this reputation?

There are several stories of SF coaches questioning why Kaepernick didn't put more work into football. He wasn't as fully prepared as some QBs:

https://247sports.com/nfl/san-franc...tioned-Kaepernicks-football-interest-53282233

 

[blastula]

OK, I had read only good stuff from his coaches, but maybe only because it was on the record.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Get ready for a right-wing blizzard, NFL doesn't change policy on National Anthem.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell continues to walk a fine line on players kneeling during the national anthem, saying on Wednesday he and team owners believe “everyone should stand” for it, but that the league is not adopting an ironclad rule on the issue.

So kneeling won't be punished and President Trump will lose his shit on Twitter... in between calls to the families of fallen soldiers and telling them 'it's always darkest before dawn.'

“It’s important for us to honor our flag and our country and we think our fans expect us to do that,” Goodell said. "All Americans, including our leaders owe a sign of gratitude to our flag and our military. It sends the wrong message to partake in certain acts like, oh I don't know, kneeling during the anthem, poorly worded telephone calls to Gold Star families, dodging the draft, talking during the national anthem, loose talk that threatens Air Force pilots flying near North Korea..."

Okay, I admit, I might have taken a few liberties there with Goodell's statement.