NFL Protest Discussion

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 3:00pm

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.

Foxtrol · 04-09-2018 3:02pm

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.

ELM327 · 04-09-2018 3:03pm

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.

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 3:08pm

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.

ELM327 · 04-09-2018 3:29pm

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

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 3:39pm

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.

ELM327 · 04-09-2018 3:41pm

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.

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 3:45pm

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?

ELM327 · 04-09-2018 3:48pm

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.

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 3:52pm

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.

ELM327 · 04-09-2018 3:55pm

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?

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 4:01pm

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.

ELM327 · 04-09-2018 4:03pm

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?

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 4:10pm

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.

ELM327 · 04-09-2018 4:12pm

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

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 4:16pm

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.

04-09-2018 4:24pm

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.

TOss Sweep · 04-09-2018 4:44pm

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.

ELM327 · 04-09-2018 4:59pm

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.

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 5:01pm

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.

ELM327 · 04-09-2018 5:05pm

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.

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 5:15pm

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.

Jolly Red Giant · 04-09-2018 5:15pm

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.

JaMarcus · 04-09-2018 6:21pm

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

notobtuse · 04-09-2018 6:38pm

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.

TOss Sweep · 04-09-2018 6:48pm

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

notobtuse · 04-09-2018 7:01pm

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.

TOss Sweep · 04-09-2018 7:04pm

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

TOss Sweep · 04-09-2018 7:07pm

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.

notobtuse · 04-09-2018 7:22pm

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.

notobtuse · 04-09-2018 7:23pm

TOss Sweep wrote: »

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.

You don't seem to know how selling the Brooklyn Bridge works. :)

eagle eye · 04-09-2018 7:24pm

Billy86 wrote:

You should then have huge issue with Trump, yet again, bringing politics into sport to deflect from all that has been coming out recently:
Your President is ruining your game for you, you should take action.

You don't seem to get it.
I read and watch sport because I love sport. I don't read tmz or the guardian or any other newspaper and if I come across a story that seems in any way politically connected I just don't read it.
I don't watch the news or any other current affairs programme regularly.

Like I go to work on a Monday and somebody at a coffee break will say something like 'that was an awful thing' in Galway or Laois or Carlow and I'll have to ask what he is talking about because I never watch anything about news/current affairs/politics at the weekend.
I haven't read what you linked and I know nothing about it. I'd prefer if it stayed that way too.

If it stops me from getting to see football then I'll have a problem and I'll read all about it.

eagle eye · 04-09-2018 7:26pm

ELM327 wrote:

You just can't say those things anymore. I mean she has a point, they are overpaid crybabies who should get on with what they are being (over)paid to do... but you're not allowed insult the blacks anymore.

It doesn't sound racist to me, she didn't seem to be talking about players of one race.
Racist towards football players maybe.

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 7:27pm

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.

So Colin Kaepernick, then 28 years of age (you know he's younger than Kirk Cousins, right?), decided the kneel for the anthem when he was earning $14mn a year, with the masterplan that he would get blacklisted/be out of work for two full years of his prime, while giving away money to charities in the meantime, knowing full well that it would all pay off when that sweet Nike deal would come in at the end of it... pull the other one while you're down there, will you?

TOss Sweep · 04-09-2018 7:28pm

notobtuse wrote: »

You don't seem to know how selling the Brooklyn Bridge works. :)

No I know who George C Parker is but you see it would have been easier to say that as part as your analogy and not leave it wide open like selling magic beans.

Either way the MarketWatch website actually uses Charles Robinson as one of their sources but yet check the tweet I posted earlier in the thread:

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

Oh right the same Charles Robinson who corrected everyone adding 2+2 and getting 5. Don't believe everything you read. Notice how no one is picking up on Adidas and Puma losing the same amount of money. Why? because it doesn't fit the Kap agenda

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 7:29pm

eagle eye wrote: »

You don't seem to get it.
I read and watch sport because I love sport. I don't read tmz or the guardian or any other newspaper and if I come across a story that seems in any way politically connected I just don't read it.
I don't watch the news or any other current affairs programme regularly.

Like I go to work on a Monday and somebody at a coffee break will say something like 'that was an awful thing' in Galway or Laois or Carlow and I'll have to ask what he is talking about because I never watch anything about news/current affairs/politics at the weekend.
I haven't read what you linked and I know nothing about it. I'd prefer if it stayed that way too.

If it stops me from getting to see football then I'll have a problem and I'll read all about it.

That's... let's say, odd... given you were identifying yourself as a Trump supporter earlier in the thread.

Funny enough though, you have nothing to complain then about as some people kneeling as the anthem is played has not caused a single game to be cancelled or cut short.

Billy86 · 04-09-2018 7:34pm

notobtuse wrote: »

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.

Just to add, I completely agree with the bolded part. Which is why the NFL have missed out on my Gamepass membership this year, for cowering to politicians looking to use their sport as a deflection from their own bad press. The same politicians who then pilloried the NFL for making this cowering concessions to them. It works, but it works both ways.

listermint · 04-09-2018 7:34pm

Billy86 wrote: »

That's... let's say, odd... given you were identifying yourself as a Trump supporter earlier in the thread.

Funny enough though, you have nothing to complain then about as some people kneeling as the anthem is played has not caused a single game to be cancelled or cut short.

And he comments in the politics forum fairly regularly about trump issues

notobtuse · 04-09-2018 7:36pm

Billy86 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.

So Colin Kaepernick, then 28 years of age (you know he's younger than Kirk Cousins, right?), decided the kneel for the anthem when he was earning $14mn a year, with the masterplan that he would get blacklisted/be out of work for two full years of his prime, while giving away money to charities in the meantime, knowing full well that it would all pay off when that sweet Nike deal would come in at the end of it... pull the other one while you're down there, will you?

No, he started to suck as a QB towards the end at SF. He made a good business decision that luckily came his way as his skills went into the crapper.

notobtuse · 04-09-2018 7:40pm

Billy86 wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

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.

Just to add, I completely agree with the bolded part. Which is why the NFL have missed out on my Gamepass membership this year, for cowering to politicians looking to use their sport as a deflection from their own bad press. The same politicians who then pilloried the NFL for making this cowering concessions to them. It works, but it works both ways.

As is your prerogative. It all works. I just see it hitting players, owners, the NFL, and network’s pocketbooks in a negative way the longer the protest goes on against the NA.

TOss Sweep · 04-09-2018 7:44pm

notobtuse wrote: »

I just see it hitting players, owners, the NFL, and network’s pocketbooks in a negative way the longer the protest goes on against the NA.

It wont though. And it hasn't yet contrary to your belief and that of those clinging to bad facts.

notobtuse · 04-09-2018 7:44pm

TOss Sweep wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

You don't seem to know how selling the Brooklyn Bridge works. :)

No I know who George C Parker is but you see it would have been easier to say that as part as your analogy and not leave it wide open like selling magic beans.

Either way the MarketWatch website actually uses Charles Robinson as one of their sources but yet check the tweet I posted earlier in the thread:

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

Oh right the same Charles Robinson who corrected everyone adding 2+2 and getting 5. Don't believe everything you read. Notice how no one is picking up on Adidas and Puma losing the same amount of money. Why? because it doesn't fit the Kap agenda

Time will prove one of us right. Mexico and the USA have a new trade agreement. I don't think they make sneakers in Canada. So the NAFTA excuse seems suspect.

Nike is in a pickle. If they stop the CK ads it will backfire, just as starting them up did. They put themselves in a no-win position.

notobtuse · 04-09-2018 7:52pm

TOss Sweep wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

I just see it hitting players, owners, the NFL, and network’s pocketbooks in a negative way the longer the protest goes on against the NA.

It wont though. And it hasn't yet contrary to your belief and that of those clinging to bad facts.

Can I borrow that crystal ball of yours? It will help me when I take a run across the boarder into New Jersey... as betting on sporting events is now legal in that state. Of course, I could always make out the same by waiting a couple of days as Nike's stock is predicted to continue their slide because of the protests, and then sell when it eventually climbs back up.

eagle eye · 04-09-2018 7:57pm

Billy86 wrote:

That's... let's say, odd... given you were identifying yourself as a Trump supporter earlier in the thread.

Can you point out where I said I was a Trump supporter?
I lived in the US for a few years and I was always pro-democrat. I thought Hilary Clinton was an awful candidate on so many levels but that doesn't make me a Trump fan. I was fully behind Obama getting elected and re-elected. I was disappointed by him though, a great man but too nice for his own good or for that job I suppose.

Billy86 wrote:

Funny enough though, you have nothing to complain then about as some people kneeling as the anthem is played has not caused a single game to be cancelled or cut short.

Yes, it's only on here that I keep reading about it.
I disagree with a lot of points being made here like people saying that the NFL are closing ranks on Kaepernick because he started the kneeling. Imo it's certainly because of the kneeling that he can't find a team but I think it's more to do with coaches not wanting a player who could potentially split the locker room.
There are certainly players who are against all of this and I'm sure they've had private meetings with the owners and coaches and let them know that.
So you have a controversial player who really isn't that good anyways. Why the hell would anybody hire him?

TOss Sweep · 04-09-2018 8:00pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Can I borrow that crystal ball of yours? It will help me when I take a run across the boarder into New Jersey... as betting on sporting events is now legal in that state. Of course, I could always make out the same by waiting a couple of days as Nike's stock is predicted to continue their slide because of the protests, and then sell when it eventually climbs back up.

Oh the irony and I love how you constantly explain American things to me it's hilarious. You realize I live in the US right? But hey keep looking into that Crystal ball or yours.

TOss Sweep · 04-09-2018 8:02pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Time will prove one of us right. Mexico and the USA have a new trade agreement. I don't think they make sneakers in Canada. So the NAFTA excuse seems suspect.

Nike is in a pickle. If they stop the CK ads it will backfire, just as starting them up did. They put themselves in a no-win position.

I wont bother discussing this anymore with you because you want to believe everything you read over the facts. And I could go into a deeper discussion about how NAFTA is affecting it but why bother it will never change your mind as you are set in your ways.

notobtuse · 04-09-2018 8:05pm

TOss Sweep wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

Can I borrow that crystal ball of yours? It will help me when I take a run across the boarder into New Jersey... as betting on sporting events is now legal in that state. Of course, I could always make out the same by waiting a couple of days as Nike's stock is predicted to continue their slide because of the protests, and then sell when it eventually climbs back up.

Oh the irony and I love how you constantly explain American things to me it's hilarious. You realize I live in the US right? But hey keep looking into that Crystal ball or yours.

Oh, just trying to explain that not everyone in the US lives their lives as if they were in the Left coasts. Some, well MOST, have a greater respect for the National Anthem.

TOss Sweep · 04-09-2018 8:13pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, just trying to explain that not everyone in the US lives their lives as if they were in the Left coasts. Some, well MOST, have a greater respect for the National Anthem.

What are you talking about? Its funny I have never given you my political stance its funny how you stereotype.

Everybody I have met in the US has a great respect for the anthem regardless of how they view Kaps decision.

To even suggest I have no respect for the anthem or even have great respect for it when you don't know me is just insulting at best and it sums you up as a person. You are no better than the muppets on the Extreme Left and Extreme Right.

notobtuse · 04-09-2018 8:26pm

TOss Sweep wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, just trying to explain that not everyone in the US lives their lives as if they were in the Left coasts. Some, well MOST, have a greater respect for the National Anthem.

What are you talking about? Its funny I have never given you my political stance its funny how you stereotype.

Everybody I have met in the US has a great respect for the anthem regardless of how they view Kaps decision.

To even suggest I have no respect for the anthem or even have great respect for it when you don't know me is just insulting at best and it sums you up as a person. You are no better than the muppets on the Extreme Left and Extreme Right.

Sorry, then... It was a general comment. And when you noted "right wing nonsense" it kinda set the tone for what your political stance is. Just sayin'

A recent poll I saw indicated 53% percent of Americans say it’s ‘never appropriate’ to kneel during the national anthem. In mine, and most, books… That’s a majority.

raze_them_all_ · 04-09-2018 8:28pm

notobtuse wrote: »

Sorry, then... When you noted "right wing nonsense" it kinda set the tone for what your political stance is.

A recent poll I saw indicated 53% percent of Americans say it’s ‘never appropriate’ to kneel during the national anthem. In mine, and most, books… That’s a majority.

Dont need the majority to become president though

NFL Protest Discussion

Comments