Kaepernick has filed a lawsuit against the NFL. Edit: Kaepernick trying to blow the system up.Salute

[jay211]

See the problem with the NFL, owners like Jerry Jones have on the record stated why they want nothing to do with him, and have also included discussions with President Trump. If they can link Trump to some of this, he may have a strong case. I reiterate it is ILLEGAL for GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS and PRESIDENTS to influence private businesses. Jerry Jones has stupidly stated Trump influenced his decision.

And Trump's tweets, plus openly discussing he has called OWNERS to fire protesters, and not sign Kaep will be brought into the courtroom.

 

[*Hulks Up*]

He didn't win

No he didn't , Hodges case was dismissed. Craig filed it in 1996, 4 years after he was cut for what he alledged was racial blackballing by the NBA. Due to some sort of technicality, you only have 2 years to file that type of grievance which is why his case was thrown out.

 

[jay211]

Also, the owners might settle because they don't want to be deposed. Remember, civil cases, the burden is very low. The public statements of Trump and owners will be used against them. And lord help them, if there are EMAILS

 

[Wear My Dawg's Hat]

Breh, the NFLPA works 100% with and for the nfl.

Amd don't ever let urself think they don't.

Its not what I think, its what a federal arbitrator thinks about the merits of the case
and who brings it before them.

Look at the Barry Bonds collusion case, which actually had the support of the MLBPA. The arbitrator
in that case ruled against Barry.

And bear in mind that legal fact-finders (judges, arbitrators) use precedence and previous case law in
making determinations.

I'm just saying that we should be managing expectations on this for Keep. Hold off the hype for now.


Barry Bonds has lost his collusion grievance against Major League Baseball.

"Bonds could not find a job after the 2007 season, in which he hit 28 home runs and led the league with a .480 on-base percentage. In November 2007, he was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice after telling a federal grand jury he had not knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs.

In April, when an appellate court overturned the lone conviction for obstruction, prosecutors had lost on every charge. Bonds then pursued the collusion case against MLB, but an arbitrator ruled against him, as first reported Thursday by CBS Sports and confirmed by The Times.

In September 2007 -- one month after he broke Hank Aaron's all-time home-run record -- the San Francisco Giants told the 43-year-old Bonds they would not offer him a new contract. No other team offered him a contract either, even after Bonds' agent suggested his client would play for the major league minimum salary, which would have meant a pay cut from a base salary of about $15 million to $500,000.

In 2008, the Major League Baseball Players Assn. said it had evidence teams had violated the collective bargaing agreement by acting in concert to keep Bonds out of the game. Baseball's arbitrator, Fredric Horowitz, apparently decided any such evidence was circumstantial rather than damning -- that is, arguing that players with similar statistics do not remain unemployed is not sufficient to show that teams conspired against Bonds."

Barry Bonds loses collusion case against MLB

 

[NatiboyB]

It'll be next to a miracle for him to win. All the chips are placed against him:

1. He wasn't released from a team he left on his own.
2. Each franchise is privately owned.
3. Not only the NFL are still allowing players to protest, they used Kaepernick's protest as a rallying cry for unity against Trump.
4. No other player was punished, blackballed from the league for supporting and/protesting.

There's no way in hell Kaepernick can prove collusion. It would mean all 32 owners talked among each other and conspired together to blackball. Good luck, but this is out of pure desperation now.

Doesn't need to be all 32....If he can show proof of more than 1 denying him the opportunity due to X reason.

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

that what i am worried about... they can just say the reason they dont want him is because his play was bad... unless Kaep can prove that the owners came together and said they dont want him protesting the injustice against Our people getting killed by cops.. he most likely will lose it

see but that's not the law breh.. i really want to help y'all lower these expectations...do you think a team owner is not allowed to say "hiring you would make me lose money when protests spark up for you being here" - hell fukking yea they can. they are in business. they are allowed to not hire people who will fukk up their bottom line. that's fully legal


what IS illegal, is if you own a team and you tell ANOTHER team not to hire a guy. well now that's not effecting your bottom line.. shyt you aren't even on their team, to be helping them make hiring choices. as a matter of fact, you are also calling up 28 other teams, and telling them to do the same.. or the worst, the commissioner is doing it.. THAT IS ILLEGAL



now you see how hard it is to prove the other? you can come on CNN at noon on sunday and say Kap can suck my dikk, call him a dikkhead, and say you won't hire him in 100 years... then specifically say it's cause he kneeled.. YOU'RE NOT BREAKING ANY RULES... not until you call someone else and COLLUDE to have them do the same

Kap has to prove the collusion happened



What Colin Kaepernick would have to show to prove NFL collusion


If Colin Kaepernick were to accuse NFL owners of colluding against him and staging a group boycott against giving him a job, the polarizing free-agent QB would have his work cut out for him. He would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that more than one team owner or executive actually had a discussion and plotted to keep him out of football.


“The challenge with making a successful collusion claim, both under antitrust law and under a sports collective bargaining agreement, is factually proving the wrongdoing,” Marc Edelman, a sports law expert and law professor at Baruch College, said.

“When the Major League Baseball Players Association successfully proved collusion by the club owners, the players' association was able to produce a smoking gun memo indicating a plan to collude. However, here it is reasonably likely that no such memo exists.

“Even if the absence of a smoking gun memo or other explicit evidence, it is still possible to prove collusion where a reasonable person could exclude the possibility of a given outcome absent collusion,” he said. “However, mere consciously parallel conduct by team owners, absent even the presumption of an implicit agreement among club owners, would not arise to the level of a violation.”

“However, mere consciously parallel conduct by team owners, absent even the presumption of an implicit agreement among club owners, would not arise to the level of a violation.”

“However, mere consciously parallel conduct by team owners, absent even the presumption of an implicit agreement among club owners, would not arise to the level of a violation.”

“However, mere consciously parallel conduct by team owners, absent even the presumption of an implicit agreement among club owners, would not arise to the level of a violation.”

“However, mere consciously parallel conduct by team owners, absent even the presumption of an implicit agreement among club owners, would not arise to the level of a violation.”

“However, mere consciously parallel conduct by team owners, absent even the presumption of an implicit agreement among club owners, would not arise to the level of a violation.”

 

[Big Boss]

see but that's not the law breh.. i really want to help y'all lower these expectations

do you think a team owner is not allowed to say "hiring you would make me lose money when protests spark up for you being here" - hell fukking yea they can. they are in business. they are allowed to not hire people who will fukk up their bottom line. that's fully legal


what IS illegal, is if you own a team and you tell ANOTHER team not to hire a guy. well now that's not effecting your bottom line.. shyt you aren't even on their team, to be helping them make hiring choices. as a matter of fact, you are also calling up 28 other teams, and telling them to do the same.. or the worst, the commissioner is doing it.. THAT IS ILLEGAL



now you see how hard it is to prove the other? you can come on CNN at noon on sunday and say Kap can suck my dikk, call him a dikkhead, and say you won't hire him in 100 years... then specifically say it's cause he kneeled.. YOU'RE NOT BREAKING ANY RULES... not until you call someone else and COLLUDE to have them do the same

Kap has to prove the collusion happened

 

[Big Boss]

this shyt is retardedly hard to prove... it's not guess work.. you either have PROOF or not.. barry bonds suffered the same fate. hit 62 hr and the league said fukk you.. but since they never had a owners meeting and said fukk you.. he couldn't prove that they did

you have to prove that these owners DECIDED TOGETHER to not hire him..

here's an example of what i mean.. what if they never said it to each other? what if they just knew.. 1 owner said nah... then 5... then 10... and then they all followed.. well technically they didn't conspire together to not hire you. they simply all came to the same conclusion that they didn't want you. they all figured it'd be bad for business but never said "hey guys lets all not hire him no matter what"

you have to prove that they actually conspired against you for no other reason... not cause of money.. not cause of bad press.. not cause of anything else. but that they sat down, said they didn't like you, and made an unwritten rule to not hire you

it's damn near impossible without proof. but the horrible pr and court cases should damage them enough anyway to pay for this shyt

Its not what I think, its what a federal arbitrator thinks about the merits of the case
and who brings it before them.

Look at the Barry Bonds collusion case, which actually had the support of the MLBPA. The arbitrator
in that case ruled against Barry.

And bear in mind that legal fact-finders (judges, arbitrators) use precedence and previous case law in
making determinations.

I'm just saying that we should be managing expectations on this for Keep. Hold off the hype for now.


Barry Bonds has lost his collusion grievance against Major League Baseball.

"Bonds could not find a job after the 2007 season, in which he hit 28 home runs and led the league with a .480 on-base percentage. In November 2007, he was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice after telling a federal grand jury he had not knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs.

In April, when an appellate court overturned the lone conviction for obstruction, prosecutors had lost on every charge. Bonds then pursued the collusion case against MLB, but an arbitrator ruled against him, as first reported Thursday by CBS Sports and confirmed by The Times.

In September 2007 -- one month after he broke Hank Aaron's all-time home-run record -- the San Francisco Giants told the 43-year-old Bonds they would not offer him a new contract. No other team offered him a contract either, even after Bonds' agent suggested his client would play for the major league minimum salary, which would have meant a pay cut from a base salary of about $15 million to $500,000.

In 2008, the Major League Baseball Players Assn. said it had evidence teams had violated the collective bargaing agreement by acting in concert to keep Bonds out of the game. Baseball's arbitrator, Fredric Horowitz, apparently decided any such evidence was circumstantial rather than damning -- that is, arguing that players with similar statistics do not remain unemployed is not sufficient to show that teams conspired against Bonds."

Barry Bonds loses collusion case against MLB

Forgot about Barry Bonds

 

[*Hulks Up*]

Really? Go ahead...I'm all ears.

Players and GM's have openly spoke about TO's behavior being the reason they didn't want him on their team (or in their Hall Of Fame ), nothing about him not being talented enough, that's black balling. The NFL is very homophobic, Michael Sam sucked so his case is more difficult to prove based on his performance but alot of 'anonymous' GM said the league wasn't ready for a openly gay player. There hasn't been another openly gay player since (2014 if some of you forgot when all that went down).

Now, I'm not saying Kaep doesn't have a case but clearly there are other black balled players with more 'proof'. Hell, I didn't even get into Ray Rice who you could argue was/is blackballed and he has yet to sue.

 

[Big Boss]

see but that's not the law breh.. i really want to help y'all lower these expectations...do you think a team owner is not allowed to say "hiring you would make me lose money when protests spark up for you being here" - hell fukking yea they can. they are in business. they are allowed to not hire people who will fukk up their bottom line. that's fully legal


what IS illegal, is if you own a team and you tell ANOTHER team not to hire a guy. well now that's not effecting your bottom line.. shyt you aren't even on their team, to be helping them make hiring choices. as a matter of fact, you are also calling up 28 other teams, and telling them to do the same.. or the worst, the commissioner is doing it.. THAT IS ILLEGAL



now you see how hard it is to prove the other? you can come on CNN at noon on sunday and say Kap can suck my dikk, call him a dikkhead, and say you won't hire him in 100 years... then specifically say it's cause he kneeled.. YOU'RE NOT BREAKING ANY RULES... not until you call someone else and COLLUDE to have them do the same

Kap has to prove the collusion happened

That's like a owner coming out and saying he won't signed a certain player because he's too old, injury prone, or he's not good.

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Players and GM's have openly spoke about TO's behavior being the reason they didn't want him on their team (or in their Hall Of Fame ), nothing about him not being talented enough, that's black balling. The NFL is very homophobic, Michael Sam sucked so his case is more difficult to prove based on his performance but alot of 'anonymous' GM said the league wasn't ready for a openly gay player. There hasn't been another openly gay player since (2014 if some of you forgot when all that went down).

Now, I'm not saying Kaep doesn't have a case but clearly there are other black balled players with more 'proof'. Hell, I didn't even get into Ray Rice who you could argue was/is blackballed and he has yet to sue.

blackballing is not illegal... colluding to blackball is

if i said fukk jay-z... and you heard me and said yea... fukk jay-z... that's fine

if i said fukk jay-z... then called you and said "say fukk jay-z" ... then we've colluded

 

[resurrection]

God I hope he wins

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

That's like a owner coming out and saying he won't signed a certain player because he's told old, injury prone, or he's not good.

correct... and they can do that.. they can say whatever the hell they want to say... as long as they don't DIRECTLY influence other owners.. i can come on tv and say fukk anybody who kneels. you may agree and say the same thing. but did i directly call you and tell you to do that? nope.. then we didn't break the law

 

[Big Boss]

So Craig Hodges sued the NBA and lost

Barry Bonds sued MLB and lost






Colin has an uphill battle

 

[darius19]

best of luck to breh but it's going to a difficult case to say the least

if he wins though? shyt gonna be like when OJ was acquitted times 2 probably