What **Okrahoma **said - it’s perfectly legal for all 32 team owners to individually decide, on their own, that they don’t want Kaep on their team.
Short of mind-reading, Kaep has no way to prove that they actually communicated together in unison not to sign him.
I don’t know if there exists such evidence, but sure he could – if there were conversations, or correspondence, in which some owners appeared to agree to not hire him, then that would count as evidence.
Why is everyone so sure that zero emails or texts were exchanged between owners or GMs regarding CK? I think its pretty likely that there was such communication, even if it was just one team owner talking to one other team owner. Whether there was anything in such communications to back up a collusion accusation is another story, but I think its pretty naive to assume that zero owners communicated with each other on the subject, given how much press and sports radio time was devoted to this over the off season. The point is that owners will have to go on record and testify, and communication records may be made public, there very well be some embarrassing things coming to light for the league, even if it is ultimately insufficient to prove collusion. If nothing else, it may make owners think twice if they ever decide to factor in political views in signing/waiving decisions in the future. As I said before, this may be about more than just the particular case of CK.
TL;DR - basically they say that there could be “implied” collusion - AFAIU that if two or more owners received messages from Trump and decided not to hire Kaepernick based on that, then that is “implied” collusion.
Seems like a completely ridiculous argument to me.
One thing though is pretty clear. Kaepernick will not play pro football again. He definitely made sure of it with this lawsuit.
Well, as part of the discovery process the owners will have to turn over some correspondence and such, which could show collusion. I don’t think it will, but you don’t have to have proof before filing a lawsuit if you believe the discovery process will turn up evidence.
Plus it’s a lawsuit against a megacorporation. The NFL will be eager to settle. They may actually collude to get him on a team just to resolve this.
As a Dolphin fan, I’ll take him over Cutler.
. . . bolding mine . . .
As had been noted above, the owners are well within their right, and in fact would been poor businessmen (and businesswomen) if they didn’t indeed factor in political views in signing decisions in the future if it affects the bottom line of their teams, the NFL as a whole, their network partners and sponsors.
The Dolphins and a prime example of a team that might well have taken a flyer on Kaep, if his political views hadn’t made him unpalatable to their fans.
If that were to happen, then at a minimum you would have to weigh the positive aspects against the harm done in fraying the communal spirit which binds the country together and makes common cause and peaceful cooperation possible.
But that’s just at a minimum. Because you would also have to weigh whether you could as effectively directly protest one aspect of society without saying you don’t respect (the symbols of) your country, and thus accomplish the same aim without the harm.
[FWIW, I think it’s more likely that protests like CK’s will lead to the exact opposite outcome than what you describe. But for purposes of this discussion I’m willing to put that aside and discuss based on your premise.]
Then they have nothing to worry about, but I have a feeling that these proceedings may end up causing some discomfort around the NFL ownership circles or league office, and may result in them not wanting to face another such lawsuit in the future. Or maybe not and the NFL will slowly become a conservative opinions only league. I guess we shall see.
The collective bargaining agreement states:
Therefore, an exchange of emails that implies that two clubs shouldn’t allow him an opportunity to try out would seem to be a violation of that agreement. So no owner has to actually write what you put in quotes, as a matter of fact.
So let’s say some asshole owner, for the sake of argument we will call him Jenny Jornes, emails another owner, who we might call Stan Stydner, and writes: “This guy Kaepernick doesn’t know his place! Hopefully he stays out of a job.” That would seem sufficient to prove collusion, according to the text of the contract.
Only if the other owner replies agreeing with the sentiment. One email is not an “agreement”, whether express or implied.
I suppose the forthcoming proceedings will bear all of this out one way or another.
Okay, then the difference in opinion is that I don’t see such protests as “fraying the communal spirit which binds the country together and makes common cause and peaceful cooperation possible” in any way.
Because owners are smart enough not to put it in writing.
I don’t agree with that. Expressing the wish that no one hire the guy is not any sort of agreement, whether express or implied. An agreement - whether express or implied - would have to involve some sort of quid pro quo.
Wait? What?! You’re talking about an organization that was willing to take the 4-game “Deflategate” suspension all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.
Are you really sure of that though? I’m through overestimating the intelligence of my fellow citizens at this point, personally. I say we let the proceedings play out and see how smart they all were. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps not.
Well, if you’re suggesting than Blan Blyder – er, Stan Slyder – ah, fuck it, Dan Synder wrote back with, “No way! Kaep is the best!” then you’d have a good case there is no collusion.
But if Dan wrote back, “What a shame that my roster is full… heh-heh!” then the agreement would seem complete even if it wasn’t a literal express agreement.
I don’t know about that according to this CBA. For example, a free-agent’s agent can tell the Chargers “The Jets are offering 5 years $100 million” and the Chargers cannot confirm whether or not the agent is telling the truth because as soon as they ask the Jets what they are offering it is by contract “collusion”.
I don’t know if that’s true or not, but even if it is, it’s not based on the section of the contract quoted by Ravenman and which I was responding to.
I also agree that one side making a statement isn’t very reliable evidence of an implied agreement, so your objection is reasonable.
But I should clarify that I was responding to the assertion that Kaepernick must find an email from an owner to another that specifically states, “If you don’t hire him, I won’t either”. Short of an email with such an unambiguous offer, that poster theorized, Kaepernick cannot win his case.
The same objection you made to my hypothetical statement can also be made to that hypothetical statement. But my point wasn’t to examine the consummation of an agreement by both sides, but to illustrate that an agreement need not be as explicit as that poster said it has to be, in order to show collusion.