[/zn/]

It's pointless to jump to too many conclusions. At least it's pointless to be certain of the conclusions we jump to.

The grievance was about collusion. It was settled.

How will our takes change if Kaepernick gets signed for 2019?

There's interesting speculation that part of the settlement was that CK agreed never to play in the league.

==

Kaepernick’s agreement may include permanent separation clause

Mike Florio

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... on-clause/

The NFLPA’s statement regarding the settlement of the Colin Kaepernick collusion grievance expressed in one breath a hope that Kaepernick will be back in the NFL and acknowledged in the next breath that the union representing all players has no information about the terms of his settlement. It’s quite possible that the terms of the settlement make the first point moot.

Lawsuits and arbitrations arising from employment issues routinely include a declaration that the former employee will not apply for employment with the company and will not accept an offer of employment with the company in the future. This term preemptively blocks an effort by a disgruntled former employee to take a settlement and then show up seeking a job at some point down the road, arguing that a failure to employ the person constitutes retaliation for the prior legal claim and settlement of it.

If the NFL secured such a provision in the Kaepernick settlement agreement would have been prudent, and it undoubtedly would have been expensive. With Kaepernick believing that but for collusion he would have been employed in 2017, 2018, and through the natural conclusion of his career, the 31-year-old quarterback may have wanted up to 10 totals years of compensation to go away.

Arguably, a provision like that would constitute collusion on its face. But if Kaepernick chooses to waive his right to seek or accept employment with any of the NFL’s 32 franchises as part of the settlement, that’s his business. And if the NFL’s lawyers were to suggest that term within the confines of settlement discussions, Kaepernick’s lawyers wouldn’t have been able to run into court and shout “COLLUSION!,” because communications occurring within the confines of settlement talks are inadmissible and necessarily confidential.

Obviously, the NFL didn’t secure a term like this with Eric Reid, given that he recently signed a new contract with the Panthers. Thus, the league will have to worry about something happening in the future that could cause Reid to claim that a decision made about him carries with it the taint of collusive retaliation. As to Kaepernick, however, the NFL had every reason to permanently end the relationship — and if the price was right for it Kaepernick had no reason to decline.

Before the settlement, the league and its teams seemed to be determined to never employ Kaepernick again. Absent a promise to not seek or accept employment going forward, any future grievance filed by Kaepernick would have come down to dollars and cents. If Kaepernick got enough dollars and cents now, there’s no reason to cling to a possible opportunity to get more dollars and cents later.

[AvengerRam]

I wonder about the confusion showing up with this. The suit had nothing to do with social activism. He never said it did, and it doesn't even make sense to claim it did. The suit was directly about reclaiming money he lost because, he argues, the league colluded to prevent him from signing with anyone. That's hard to prove but then the way those rules work, all you need is one team colluding with the league office, and that qualifies.

I mean if he had persisted and won the suit what "social justice" gain would there have been? None. He would have shown the league had violated its own "no collusion" rule and he would have gotten the money he said he was denied.

I think the confusion comes from people who want to discredit him because they don't like his political statement with the anthem. So they act like the suit was somehow about "social justice" (even though that makes no sense) and therefore that settling means he sold out.

Unh unh. The suit was about money the whole time. Recovering the money he claims he lost. It never had anything to do with anything else. Same thing if he went ahead with it and won. Though if he went ahead with it and won, he would have also gotten the added-on punitive damages, so it would have been even more money.
...

Your argument is ridiculous.

CK, from day 1, was trying to defy the NFL/teams’ right to prevent him from engaging in social activism on the platform of NFL sidelines. The lawsuit was an effort to keep that issue in the public eye and to obtain a ruling that would make teams reticent to interfere with future acts of on field activism. Money is just the means to that end.

Ultimately, CK failed. He may have collected some money (he already had plenty), but the NFL/teams’ right not to employ players who insist upon creating distractions with on field protests remains.

No amount of spin changes that.

[AvengerRam]

Florio is an ass. He creates a provocative headline, then acknowledges in his article why the headline is a mischaracterization if what likely occurred.

The bottom line is simple. The lawsuit was against the league as a collective, not against any one employer (NFL team), so this was not a “separation agreement.” In fact, if the NFL didn’t leave the ultimate decision as to whether or not to employ CK to each team to decide individually, they would be suggesting that those decisions are made collectively. I doubt the NFL would be that stupid.

Now, it is possible that CK gave each individual team a promise not to seek a job, but that would hardly be necessary. None of them are obligated to sign him. That’s the whole point of this.

[dieterbrock]

I have such mixed emotions about all of this.
Personally, I prefer to view the positives and negatives of this whole thing as complete separate entities, not as either cancelling the other out and viewing it as a singular net gain/loss
I do think its good that it will be settled and that we can move forward.

[Elvis]

CK, from day 1, was trying to defy the NFL/teams’ right to prevent him from engaging in social activism on the platform of NFL sidelines.

Not sure i get your argument.

Eric Reid continues to take a knee, was part of the collusion grievance and signed a 3 year deal with the Panthers going into 2018.

These anthem protests are currently within the NFL rules and occured during 2018. They tried to change that going into 2018 but then abandoned the new policy. (I have no idea what the plan is for 2019.)

Are you saying the NFL did collude against CK, as is their right and the settlement preserved their right to do so?

[BobCarl]

The fact that one qb gets excluded from the league for political reasons has NOTHING to do with advancing social justice one way or the other....

FALSE



The "social circle" of those who colluded to excommunicate CK, did so with the thinking that they were making their NFL world a better place. They felt just-ified in doing so. And thus they sought/colluded to advance the views that was, in their mind, socially just.

CK felt entitled to speak out about a U.S. wide issue that he feels is unjust. On another level he also felt what they (or some NFL owners) did was socially unjust and felt he suffered financial harm as a result. Otherwise he wouldn't have advanced legal action against the owners.

The "exclusion" is EVERYTHING to do with advancing social justice issues. Both ways. And on several levels. Both, by the excluded and by those advancing the social exclusion.

[BobCarl]

Are you saying the NFL did collude against CK, as is their right and the settlement preserved their right to do so?

What Avenger said makes perfect sense to me.

As I see it:
Within the framework of Federal and State Employment laws, employers have the right to terminate employees for their political views. (It is only Government employers that can't, as the first five words of the Constitution prohibits them.)

However, within the framework of the NFL agreement with the Players Union, collusion is prohibited.

[BobCarl]

Looks to me like CK took "hush" money

[/zn/]

FALSE



The "social circle" of those who colluded to excommunicate CK, did so with the thinking that they were making their NFL world a better place. They felt just-ified in doing so. And thus they sought/colluded to advance the views that was, in their mind, socially just.

CK felt entitled to speak out about a U.S. wide issue that he feels is unjust. On another level he also felt what they (or some NFL owners) did was socially unjust and felt he suffered financial harm as a result. Otherwise he wouldn't have advanced legal action against the owners.

The "exclusion" is EVERYTHING to do with advancing social justice issues. Both ways. And on several levels. Both, by the excluded and by those advancing the social exclusion.

Sorry, nah. No one associated with the suit approached it as a social justice issue.

For one thing, people who genuinely understand concepts of social justice would NEVER say something like "one privileged jock millionaire not getting signed is an issue of social justice." I mean...they know better. No one would be stupid enough to make that equivalent to issues having to do with law enforcement policies, violence, and race. You know things that have an affect on everyday joes all over the country .

All along, and in every single way, the suit itself was CK trying to recover lost revenue. He never presented it any other way. He never said anything different.

The ONLY people TRYING to link this to s.j. are people who don't agree with his politics around the anthem issue, so they want to try the talk radio style "slam his motives and discredit him" routine.

Whether it makes any sense in this instance or not.

,,,,,

[Stranger]

"Enjoy the show"

You have more than you know.