[AvengerRam]

zn has once again wasted our time with his nonsense.

The suit was not just about money. It was about CK getting attention because, without attention, an “activist” ceases to exist.

Nobody thinks it was actually about achieving true “social justice.”

I don’t know if zn is too obtuse to get these nuanced concepts, or if he’s deliberately perpetuating this dispute with intentional intellectual dishonesty.

Maybe a little of both.

And.... I’m done.

[/zn/]

ZN, maybe I've glossed over you saying so but it seems you're not seeing that the collusion case is directly tied to the social justice? Yes, the case itself was about lost income but he lost that income because he was kneeling and being a huge distraction. You don't think that they're connected and one wouldn't have happened without the other?

It does not matter why they colluded. Not for a collusion case. That's stated well in the article I posted here: '

. To prove collusion, Kaepernick needed to establish more than teams deciding to exclude him because they disagreed with his kneeling or his political views. In fact, a team owner or general manager could have openly admitted to not offering Kaepernick a contract because of the anthem without such an admission proving collusion. Collusion, instead, requires cooperation or agreement between at least two teams, or between at least one team and the league, to deprive Kaepernick of the chance to play.

If every team just said "we're not signing an anthem protestor," there is no lawsuit. Doing that does not violate any league rules. The lawsuit involves the act of collusion--which is a violation of league rules.

And let's act like he went ahead with it and won. What "social justice" gain is there?

Does the league openly state that anthem protests are fine? No it doesn't have to. They only thing they are up for in the lawsuit is violating its own rule against collusion. And the only thing that was (and can be) asked for in the suit is the money he believes he lost because of collusion.

Does the league say, okay, you're right, we must all protest for rights and police racial violence must be stopped. No it doesn't have to. The only thing they are charged with here is violating their own rule against collusion. And the only thing that was (and can be) asked for in the suit is the money he believes he lost because of collusion.

Do the people who resented his protest change their mind? No, and they wouldn't do that anyway.

Near as I know CK continues committed to issues of social justice. That has, and always had, no relationship whatsoever to a case where the league violated its own rule against collusion.

So what is gained? In terms of social justice. Nothing.

Did CK ever indicate that he sued the league because of social justice issues? No...and 2 things about that. One is, all the evidence we have is that he did not see the suit that way. The other is, there IS no way to confuse those 2 things. He couldn't find a way to do that even if he wanted to.

....

[BobCarl]

I don’t know if zn is too obtuse to get these nuanced concepts

If you want a good laugh, you should see the thread where he defended Jonathan Martin actions with weapons as being non-threatening.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7640&hilit=jonathan+martin

[moklerman]

It does not matter why they colluded. Not for a collusion case. That's stated well in the article I posted here: '

True, but I don't think it has to be a case of collusion for each of the 32 teams in the NFL to not want to deal with signing Kaepernick.

The argument is that he's "better" than other QB's in the league but that isn't a complete statement. It implies that Kaepernick is willing to play for any team at any price. But Kaepernick has not actually shown that to be the case and in fact, has reportedly shown the exact opposite.

It is not far fetched at all to assume that if Kaepernick is not willing to take a backup role and/or play for lesser money in addition to the divisive reaction his signing would bring to a team that all 31 other teams would individually shy away.

I think that scenario is far more likely than all 32 teams collectively agreeing to not sign an affordable, quality player.

Kaepernick opted out of his $126M contract and subsequent reports indicate he is not willing to play cheaply. That alone is reason enough for most teams to not sign him. It seems to me that he's the one who has politicized his own standing as a player and put such a high price on his services that he is unhireable.

His actions are of someone who doesn't want to work, regardless of what cause he trumpets. But because of his cause, anything he does is politicized. You can't separate his politics from his job and that's exactly how he wants it and exactly why no team wants him. It doesn't make sense that the NFL would target only him as it would make him a martyr. There are still plenty of players who continue to kneel so CK isn't "out" because he's an activist.

It seems he would rather get paid to be the victim than to take a job and earn a new, big contract.

[/zn/]

True, but I don't think it has to be a case of collusion for each of the 32 teams in the NFL to not want to deal with signing Kaepernick. .

I don't think you read my post. The one where I quoted from an article on all this by the associate dean of a law school.

You are stating back to me something I already pretty much said.

IF teams each independently openly refuses to sign CK because of his politics, that does not violate a rule.

I directly pointed that out.

Collusion is something else entirely. AND all you need for collusion is the league office communicating about not signing CK--with just ONE team.

So collusion is its own thing. It violates league rules; and teams independently just refusing to sign someone for any reason is not collusion.

If there were NO material evidence to indicate at least minimal collusion happened (remember that's the league communicating with just one team about preferring CK not be in the league), then the case does not get out of summary judgment. Instead, in summary judgment, the case was not only NOT dismissed, it was affirmed that yes CK's side had enough material evidence to go forward with a legit lawsuit.

.....

[AvengerRam]

[Vincit Veritas]

Just curious, Avenger. Are you a lawyer?

[AvengerRam]

Just curious, Avenger. Are you a lawyer?

Yep.

[Vincit Veritas]

Thanks, Avenger. Just curious, as a retired Enemy of the People.

[Hacksaw]

I'm grieving it's over. Now there's a chance that Squidward will get on my TV more often.