Understood. My point was that the fact that the agreement doesn’t need to be explicit doesn’t change the nature of what the agreement needs to be. It just means that instead of openly saying “I won’t hire him if you don’t” (or some other inducement) you could imply that you won’t hire him if the other guy doesn’t (again, or some other inducement) and it would still be collusion. But if there’s no agreement made or implied but just two guys expressing their hope that the guy doesn’t get hired, and/or saying that they personally wouldn’t hire him, I wouldn’t think that’s collusion at all, even if they communicate with each other.
AFAIK, teams are allowed to publically announce that they’re not hiring so-and-so, even though that might affect that player’s bargaining position with other teams. I don’t think there’s any ban on doing things privately that they can’t do publically.
I don’t agree. It depends on context. “Nice store you have here; it would be a shame if something happened to it” is on the surface, a perfectly factual statement that nobody could disagree with. It’s also perfectly understood to be a threat, even though it is implied.
If teams are telling each other something like, “Kaepernick is a talented athlete, but he’s disruptive to business,” depending on the context, that could be considered an implied attempt to make sure nobody hires him.
Here is “proof” why there isn’t collusion. Enough owners care only about their own brand and not the Shield that if someone thought having CK would make them more money they would hire him regardless of what the other 31 wanted. And the Commish does not have enough power to punish an owner that goes against what is in the best interest of the league.
(FYI - The physical break between England and their thirteen colonies began when British General Gage chose to send 700 British soldiers to Concord and Lexington in order to confiscate firearms and ammunition that were stored there.)
The asshole Kaepernick can protest anything he wishes to. That doesn’t mean anyone is required to hire him. People saw the asshole Kaepernick’s protest as being disrespectful to the flag and country. The asshole Kaepernick says he was protesting something else. Yawn.
OTOH, fans don’t go to football games to see protestors. Protestors can protest on their own time and do it somewhere else. Protestors are demanding that people need to talk about this issue. People are talking about it. Many are blaming the protestors for ruining their enjoyment of football.
But CK doesn’t have to prove that all 32 owners colluded against him to win the case. Any two would do. Even if the collusion was unnecessary, between 2 owners on record for hating anthem kneelers, who weren’t looking for a new starter or backup QB anyway.
I don’t remember anyone disrupting football games by protesting the American flag, the national anthem, or the U.S.A. because the dog killer Vick wasn’t allowed to play football after he had been arrested, and incarcerated. There were some protests after the dog killer Vick had begun playing football again.
I was going to be snarky by saying the Titans signing Weeden proved Kaepernick’s case, but when I went to check the spelling of Weeden’s name I discovered that signing may actually have been what drove him to sue.
You are talking about America, right? That communal spirit is dead. The common cause and peaceful cooperation are on life support, and are not expected to make it. I’m sorry for your loss.
Fair enough, still a headache for them though, and it turns out the key to CKs case may be Trump himself. Here is some interesting analysis of how he may try to prove his case:
Still a real longshot I’m sure, but looks like it may be possible Trumps inability to know when to shut up may be the key here just like with the Muslim travel ban.
Even though the idea that Kapernick’s actions were worse than torturing dogs is asinine, he did choose to make a public protest and thus invited (non-governmental) repercussions. If his chosen form of protest carried no risks, it would be meaningless.
None of the owners care about their own brands more than the shield (at least now that Al Davis is gone). It’s the overall popularity of the NFL that makes NFL franchises valuable. These are long-term investments, not day-to-day money-making operations. Many teams actually lose money, though typically they all make a small net profit in the long term. At best, operating profits are essentially incidental.
More significantly, there is virtually no correlation between on-field success and financial success. Dallas and Washington have been largely terrible for 20 years and are the most profitable franchises (and the most valuable).
That is not to say that there has been collusion, but it’s abundantly clear that Kaepernick has not been hired for reasons other to than his on-field performance. It’s certainly plausible that at least some teams have not hired him because of an informal agreement.
He tweeted about speaking to more than one owner on the phone. The owners all met after those conversations took place. Did you read the article? They would not be held liable for Trump, but he could have facilitated the collusion among >2 owners.
The asshole Kaepernicks filing of a grievance does not mean that he, or his lawyer, have any actual evidence of collusion. It could be a case of wishful thinking, a fishing expedition, or of the asshole Kaepernicks feelings being bruised over Weeden being selected instead of him.
Knowing the Onion, I suspect that at some point they will run an article titled “Kaepernick claims that all 11 players on opposing defense colluded against him to prevent scoring,” or something like that.