Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

NFL Protest Discussion

Options
1…34689…14

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ELM327 wrote: »
    It's interesting.

    No one is stopping kapernick playing football except kapernick. He made himself more of a nuisance than his talent compensates for. No team will tolerate that amount of circus for a mediocre starter or high level backup.


    Unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theorist view that every team has agreed not to sign him, in which case the conspiracy theories forum is thataway =>
    You might want to talk to the legal arbitrator then, who dismissed the NFL's attempt to have their own collusion case dismissed just the other day, which certainly does give his claim that owners have 'black-listed' him.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/colin-kaepernick-defeats-nfl-bid-to-dismiss-collusion-lawsuit
    The arbitrator hearing Colin Kaepernick’s collusion case against the NFL ruled against the league today after the NFL requested dismissal of the case on the grounds that Kaepernick and his legal team had not presented sufficient evidence to proceed.

    Under Article 17, Section 7 of the current collective bargaining agreement, the appointed arbitrator in an anti-collusion matter may “determine whether or not the complainant’s evidence is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact” and dismiss the case if the evidence is insufficient.


  • Options
    #153
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,010 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    ELM327 wrote: »
    It's interesting.

    No one is stopping kapernick playing football except kapernick. He made himself more of a nuisance than his talent compensates for. No team will tolerate that amount of circus for a mediocre starter or high level backup.


    Unless you subscribe to the conspiracy theorist view that every team has agreed not to sign him, in which case the conspiracy theories forum is thataway =>

    He might not win but the NFL just last week failed in an attempt to keep it from going to court as Kaepernick was able to provide enough evidence that it was a genuine issue. Don't think a conspiracy theory would make it that far, especially as it doesn't need to be close to every team for it to be a huge problem for the NFL.


  • Options
    #154
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    That doesnt prove anything, come back when there's a judgment.
    Just because all 32 owners made the same decision doesnt mean there was collusion. Causation doesn't always equate to collusion.


  • Options
    #155
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ELM327 wrote: »
    That doesnt prove anything, come back when there's a judgment.
    Just because all 32 owners made the same decision doesnt mean there was collusion. Causation doesn't always equate to collusion.

    Actually it does. It literally proves there is sufficient evidence for it to be investigated, e.g. not a conspiracy theory.

    "Under Article 17, Section 7 of the current collective bargaining agreement, the appointed arbitrator in an anti-collusion matter may “determine whether or not the complainant’s evidence is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact”and dismiss the case if the evidence is insufficient."

    Note how they refused the NFL's request to have the case dismissed. That by definition means that there is sufficient evidence to investigate it. Now it's not as open-and-shut obvious as the other collusion case in the US of course, but claiming it is a "conspiracy theory" because the investigation has not concluded is utterly nonsensical.


  • Options
    #156
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Actually it does. It literally proves there is sufficient evidence for it to be investigated, e.g. not a conspiracy theory.

    "Under Article 17, Section 7 of the current collective bargaining agreement, the appointed arbitrator in an anti-collusion matter may “determine whether or not the complainant’s evidence is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact”and dismiss the case if the evidence is insufficient."

    Note how they refused the NFL's request to have the case dismissed. That by definition means that there is sufficient evidence to investigate it. Now it's not as open-and-shut obvious as the other collusion case in the US of course, but claiming it is a "conspiracy theory" because the investigation has not concluded is utterly nonsensical.
    If they decide after investigation that there was a conspiracy then I might respect that point of view but until such time as it's proven it is a ridiculous notion IMO


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ELM327 wrote: »
    If they decide after investigation that there was a conspiracy then I might respect that point of view but until such time as it's proven it is a ridiculous notion IMO
    So you're saying that the NFL appointed arbitrator of the case, who just the other rejected the NFL's attempt to have the case dismissed as he felt there is sufficient evidence, is being ridiculous. Do you realise how absurd that sounds?

    Whether the NFL is found guilty or not remains to be seen of course. But you tried to claim the notion that collusion occurred is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and you were wrong. There is enough clear evidence of it to proceed with the trial, and that's all there really is to it.


  • Options
    #158
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Billy86 wrote: »
    So you're saying that the NFL appointed arbitrator of the case, who just the other rejected the NFL's attempt to have the case dismissed as he felt there is sufficient evidence, is being ridiculous. Do you realise how absurd that sounds?

    Whether the NFL is found guilty or not remains to be seen of course. But you tried to claim the notion that collusion occurred is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and you were wrong. There is enough clear evidence of it to proceed with the trial, and that's all there really is to it.
    There's enough evidence to proceed with the enquiry.
    In what world does that prove anything.
    He said "all 32 teams dont sign me and thats proving theres a conspiracy". And as all 32 teams have not signed him that would indicate theres a POSSIBLE conspiracy. But it has not been proven.


  • Options
    #159
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ELM327 wrote: »
    There's enough evidence to proceed with the enquiry.
    In what world does that prove anything.
    He said "all 32 teams dont sign me and thats proving theres a conspiracy". And as all 32 teams have not signed him that would indicate theres a POSSIBLE conspiracy. But it has not been proven.

    I believe he has expanded on his reasoning far more than just "all 32 teams dont sign me and thats proving theres a conspiracy" (a quote I cannot find on Google by the way), and as I have said throughout it is not proven at this point. However it is a court case involving the NFL and an NFL player that, the arbitrator for which has said does have sufficient evidence to go to trial.

    So why are you claiming that this should be discussed on the conspiracy theory form rather than the NFL forum?


  • Options
    #160
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Billy86 wrote: »
    I believe he has expanded on his reasoning far more than just "all 32 teams dont sign me and thats proving theres a conspiracy" (a quote I cannot find on Google by the way), and as I have said throughout it is not proven at this point. However it is a court case involving the NFL and an NFL player that, the arbitrator for which has said does have sufficient evidence to go to trial.

    So why are you claiming that this should be discussed on the conspiracy theory form rather than the NFL forum?


    That's where it belongs.
    It's a clutch at straws from a player not good enough to start for anyone now he's been out of the league so long. He was mediocre to begin with, could ahve been a solid backup, but he's not because of the negative press he brings.


    If this finds anything other than no collusion I will eat my own cotton hat.


  • Options
    #161
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ELM327 wrote: »
    That's where it belongs.
    It's a clutch at straws from a player not good enough to start for anyone now he's been out of the league so long. He was mediocre to begin with, could ahve been a solid backup, but he's not because of the negative press he brings.


    If this finds anything other than no collusion I will eat my own cotton hat.

    See, there you go again claiming the arbitrator who has ruled that Kaepernick is not being ridiculous or "clutching at straws" and that there is enough evidence for a trial to commence is simply wrong because reasons. And you've decided that an NFL issue (just like Deflategate, Ray Rice, etc which were all discussed at length on here) should not be discussed on an NFL forum because the arbitrator is simply wrong because reasons. You've not really thought this line of argument through much, by the looks of it.

    There is enough evidence for a trial in an NFL case, and so there is enough evidence for discussion on an NFL forum. End of, really.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Billy86 wrote: »
    See, there you go again claiming the arbitrator who has ruled that Kaepernick is not being ridiculous or "clutching at straws" and that there is enough evidence for a trial to commence is simply wrong because reasons. And you've decided that an NFL issue (just like Deflategate, Ray Rice, etc which were all discussed at length on here) should not be discussed on an NFL forum because the arbitrator is simply wrong because reasons. You've not really thought this line of argument through much, by the looks of it.

    There is enough evidence for a trial in an NFL case, and so there is enough evidence for discussion on an NFL forum. End of, really.


    Who would sign kapernick if there was no collusion?
    Even the browns arent looking at a QB these days .
    Could be a backup at BAL maybe?


  • Options
    #163
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Who would sign kapernick if there was no collusion?
    Even the browns arent looking at a QB these days .
    Could be a backup at BAL maybe?

    Green Bay could have used him in a heartbeat last year over the utter sh*tshow we had with Hundley instead, for one. I had a detailed post last year over the players that were given shots either as starters or backups ahead of him, and frankly the list was quite embarrassing. The likes of Bryce Petty, Brock Osweiler, Scott Tolzien, Matt McGloin, Drew Stanton and Blaine Gabbert all spring to mind.


  • Options
    #164
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Green Bay could have used him in a heartbeat last year over the utter sh*tshow we had with Hundley instead, for one. I had a detailed post last year over the players that were given shots either as starters or backups ahead of him, and frankly the list was quite embarrassing. The likes of Bryce Petty, Brock Osweiler, Scott Tolzien, Matt McGloin, Drew Stanton and Blaine Gabbert all spring to mind.
    Most of those were backups.
    Brock Osweiler was a thanks by denver as a nod to his prior services, and he played at the vet minimum imo


    Kapernick wanted to be paid like a starter the last time his name was bandied about. Would he have gone to GB as a stopgap, and clear #2 to rodgers? On backup money?


  • Options
    #165
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Most of those were backups.
    Brock Osweiler was a thanks by denver as a nod to his prior services, and he played at the vet minimum imo


    Kapernick wanted to be paid like a starter the last time his name was bandied about. Would he have gone to GB as a stopgap, and clear #2 to rodgers? On backup money?
    On a one year deal he would have surely leapt at the opportunity to display his services in GB. If GB were interested in winning first and foremost, they would have also leapt at the opportunity to have him taking snaps over Brett Hundley, who frankly did not look like a guy who even knew how to play the position more often than not.

    As for claims he would only take big money deals, I have not seen anything from him to back that up and find it kind of hard to believe given he has restructured his 49ers deal in his last season there.


  • Options
    #166
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Billy86 wrote: »
    On a one year deal he would have surely leapt at the opportunity to display his services in GB. If GB were interested in winning first and foremost, they would have also leapt at the opportunity to have him taking snaps over Brett Hundley, who frankly did not look like a guy who even knew how to play the position more often than not.

    As for claims he would only take big money deals, I have not seen anything from him to back that up and find it kind of hard to believe given he has restructured his 49ers deal in his last season there.


    Sounds like he wasn't prepared to take backup money for denver anyway
    John Elway wrote:
    "We offered him a contract. He didn't take it"
    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000948210/article/elway-not-interested-in-revisiting-kaepernick-as-qb


  • Options
    #167
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Sounds like he wasn't prepared to take backup money for denver anyway

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000948210/article/elway-not-interested-in-revisiting-kaepernick-as-qb
    Small problem - that offer was made in April 2016. Kaepernick did not start kneeling until August 2016.


  • Options
    #168
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    #JustBurnIt trending.
    Not sure burning Nike gear is a great idea when it could be donated.
    Nike has probably done the figures and reckon it'll benefit them.

    The Nike brand has remained extremely strong despite allegations of sweatshops and child labour in previous decades, the fall from grace of perhaps their biggest superstar (Tiger Woods) etc.

    I doubt taking on Trump and co. will hurt their brand.


  • Options
    #169
    TOss Sweep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,905 ✭✭✭TOss Sweep


    Add to that their Global sales excluding the US made up 55% of their business in 2017 according to Forbes. This wont hurt them in anyway.


  • Options
    #170
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Small problem - that offer was made in April 2016. Kaepernick did not start kneeling until August 2016.
    Yes, which shows his opinion of his inflated self worth was a problem before the kneeling.


  • Options
    #171
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Yes, which shows his opinion of his inflated self worth was a problem before the kneeling.
    Erm, no. What it shows he was under contract to the 49ers at the time, and had no target on his back like he appears to now. He then restructured his 49ers deal later in that same year, as I already mentioned. None of which has anything to do with teams refusing to offer him a contract since despite his being far better than even starting QBs (undeniable case in point: Hundley), which is the whole point of the lawsuit.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,373 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Erm, no. What it shows he was under contract to the 49ers at the time, and had no target on his back like he appears to now. He then restructured his 49ers deal later in that same year, as I already mentioned. None of which has anything to do with teams refusing to offer him a contract since despite his being far better than even starting QBs (undeniable case in point: Hundley), which is the whole point of the lawsuit.
    Erm, yes.
    He refused their offer which was a realistic opinion of how much he was worth.
    He's not a better proposition based on expected wages against the cap, and also he's a negative influence in the media.
    Based on pure arm talent he's better than huntley sure but huntley was on a lot less money with none of the social media issues.
    Which is what I'm sure the packer GM would argue.


  • Options
    #173
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Erm, yes.
    He refused their offer which was a realistic opinion of how much he was worth.
    Because he was likely on more money at the time. If a different potential employer comes to me over LinkedIn tonight offering me less than what I currently make in the same role, then I am not going to be interested. Would you be?

    EDIT: JRG (Broncos fan who follows their contractual stuff quite closely) seems to have backed this up - a 50% pay cut for the same job you are currently doing. I'll answer for you: you wouldn't be interested in that either.
    He's not a better proposition based on expected wages against the cap, and also he's a negative influence in the media.
    Based on pure arm talent he's better than huntley sure but huntley was on a lot less money with none of the social media issues.
    Which is what I'm sure the packer GM would argue.
    He is miles ahead of Hundley in almost every aspect. Better arm, more accurate, 10 times the brain despite not exactly being a Brady or Rodgers on that front all the time (Hundley might be the dumbest player at the position I have seen get so much playing time without being dropped), experience, leadership, presnap reads... really just about everything. Even the one thing Hundley did well, scrambling, Kaepernick has him on as he was probably the best scrambling QB in the league outside of Russell Wilson for his time in SF.

    But the Packers decided they would rather lose even when it was so insanely obvious 2-3 games in that Hundley was not and never would be NFL quality. Deciding you would rather lose is not something that happens in the NFL, and it cost nearly the entire backroom their jobs. That's a very strange decision to make, even for Ted Thompson who was infamous for being overly cautious in free agency.


  • Options
    #174
    Jolly Red Giant
    Registered Users Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭Jolly Red Giant


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Erm, yes.
    He refused their offer which was a realistic opinion of how much he was worth.
    He's not a better proposition based on expected wages against the cap, and also he's a negative influence in the media.
    Based on pure arm talent he's better than huntley sure but huntley was on a lot less money with none of the social media issues.
    Which is what I'm sure the packer GM would argue.
    Billy86 wrote: »
    Small problem - that offer was made in April 2016. Kaepernick did not start kneeling until August 2016.

    Elway is actually acting the bollix with this one - when Elway was trying to trade for Kap he offered $7million - Kap had $14million in his 49ers contract. Elway wanted the 49ers to make up the rest - they refused and the trade collapsed.

    Since August 2016 Elway has refused to talk to Kap - despite being lumbered with Siemian and Lynch for two years. He is trying to make that he is peeved that Kap turned down the trade - when the reality is that Elway, like most of the GMs and owners, is a Trump supporter.


  • Options
    #175
    JaMarcus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 828 ✭✭✭JaMarcus


    Colin Cape-her-nick according to RTE News just now :pac:


  • Options
    #176
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Nike loses $3 Billlion US value in the first day of their stupid move... and expected to get worse.   Kapernick IS in it for the money, IMO,... and a pretty smart business decision.  He'll make more from Nike than a failing and aging QB ever would.   And some of the Nike brain-trust will packing their bags for their idiotic decision to offend a large percentage of sports fans.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #177
    TOss Sweep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,905 ✭✭✭TOss Sweep


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Nike loses $3 Billlion US value in the first day of their stupid move... and expected to get worse.   Kapernick IS in it for the money, IMO,... and a pretty smart business decision.  He'll make more from Nike than a failing and aging QB ever would.   And some of the Nike brain-trust will packing their bags for their idiotic decision to offend a large percentage of sports fans.

    Didn't take long for you to post your Right Wing Agenda. That has nothing to do with Kap deal and notice not one Business Journal or website reported it. Adidas and Puma both down 2% today also.

    https://twitter.com/CharlesRobinson/status/1036978897299169280


  • Options
    #178
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    TOss Sweep wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    Nike loses $3 Billlion US value in the first day of their stupid move... and expected to get worse.   Kapernick IS in it for the money, IMO,... and a pretty smart business decision.  He'll make more from Nike than a failing and aging QB ever would.   And some of the Nike brain-trust will packing their bags for their idiotic decision to offend a large percentage of sports fans.

    Didn't take long for you to post your Right Wing Agenda. That has nothing to do with Kap deal and notice not one Business Journal or website reported it. Adidas and Puma both down 2% today also.

    https://twitter.com/CharlesRobinson/status/1036978897299169280
    A business agenda is now Right Wing?  And if you don't think their decision to go with this ad, knowing the majority of the country does not support what he does.... I have a bridge into New York to sell you.

    And people who do not like the CK protest aren't all Right Wing, either.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #179
    TOss Sweep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,905 ✭✭✭TOss Sweep


    notobtuse wrote: »
    A business agenda is now Right Wing?  And if you don't think their decision to go with this ad, knowing the majority of the country does not support what he does.... I have a bridge into New York to sell you.

    And people who do not like the CK protest aren't all Right Wing, either.

    It is when the loss has nothing to do with Nike's decision to hire Kap. That 2% loss has to do with NAFTA both Adidas and Puma suffered the same losses.

    And you keep saying majority of the country. Have you got non Bias numbers to back that claim up?
    And people who do not like the CK protest aren't all Right Wing, either

    That is true but its only right wing nonsense calling for Nike stuff to be burned and Nike to be punished. I work with 3 ex military and 2 of them wear Nike all the time and they can't stand Kap and hate what he has done but they are not fickle like the right wing agenda

    Look its clear where your opinion lies and you are entitled to it but get your facts straight and stop quoting pure propaganda rubbish


  • Options
    #180
    TOss Sweep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,905 ✭✭✭TOss Sweep


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I have a bridge into New York to sell you.

    You should probably get a refund on that bridge if the same folk who sold it to you told you Nike's losses are due to the Kap deal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    TOss Sweep wrote: »
    notobtuse wrote: »
    A business agenda is now Right Wing?  And if you don't think their decision to go with this ad, knowing the majority of the country does not support what he does.... I have a bridge into New York to sell you.

    And people who do not like the CK protest aren't all Right Wing, either.

    It is when the loss has nothing to do with Nike's decision to hire Kap. That 2% loss has to do with NAFTA both Adidas and Puma suffered the same losses.

    And you keep saying majority of the country. Have you got non Bias numbers to back that claim up?
    And people who do not like the CK protest aren't all Right Wing, either

    That is true but its only right wing nonsense calling for Nike stuff to be burned and Nike to be punished. I work with 3 ex military and 2 of them wear Nike all the time and they can't stand Kap and hate what he has done but they are not fickle like the right wing agenda

    Look its clear where your opinion lies and you are entitled to it but get your facts straight and stop quoting pure propaganda rubbish
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nike-takes-politics-head-on-by-naming-colin-kaepernick-the-face-of-30th-anniversary-of-just-do-it-2018-09-04
    And the military are split on CK's protest.  I think it is wrong for him to protest the National Anthem, but he can protest all he wants.  And I can protest by not watching most NFL games and take my money elsewhere.  See... It all works.  

    But bottom line it is a stupid business decision on Nike's part.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



Advertisement