but as separate entities all under the umbrella of the NFL, even if there was such a chain of evidence, who cares? they are privately owned. if the ownership got together and discussed how his employment might damage the whole nfl as a whole, i think from a business sense it would be well within their rights to withold employment.

unless this is somehow breaching the CBA wording (i don't care enough to look) then the nfl could go to court and be like, yes, we said as a whole we didn't want him around and the judge would be like, sounds good, well theres nothing in any law anywhere or in your cba that says you can't do that so lets go have lunch!

people wanting to him win on pure emotion is pretty hilarious.

Yes it would be a breach of the CBA.

He'll never win unless there is a paper trail somewhere.

_________________

Peeps assuming a black man leaves a trail of rolling papers. Sad!

_________________

Wouldn't it be the white men leaving the trail?

_________________

Are you saying balck peeple only smoke blunts?

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Great question.

Nas is my black friend.

_________________

Yes?

_________________

_________________

You're fake news! I've smoked white paper the last 5 to 10 times I tried not to inhale.

Fun fact: I have never bought marijuana to smoke. I've only smoked stuff other people gave me or were smoking.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

I've bought cbd oil(2×) more often than I've bought weed (1)

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

Sprinkle some crack on him and let's get outta here.

_________________

it's funny because it's true.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

If there was collusion and somebody left a paper trail then they are the biggest idiots around.

Yup. It's a dumbass league. Just call up the Browns and tell them to take one for the team.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Targeting Trump in his collusion case. So if here are transcripts he get a hold of there is a shot.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/coli ... influence/

_________________

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

I guess he apologized, and it makes sense that that's a figure of speech, but sheesh....that guy looks like he's in more dire need of an etc. than any white man alive. If I had his cash, I'd be all happy and shit.

McNair's statement was inappropriate. The idea he meant to convey was we can't have the slaves running the plantation.

Who art thou to ascribe motive? Without evidence?

Jerry Jones gave off that vibe too.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

I'm sorry but every bluest moon a billionaire has to be taken at his spoken word.

This goof is hustling backwards and his mouth just helped Kaepernick's case

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

The part I found most interesting in the detailed ESPN account of the meetings was the reference to the owners' "deep dislike" of Kaepernick.

It seems we've moved from he's not playing for reasons of merit to he's not playing for reasons of business to now he's not playing because of personal animus. And I'm sure that justification will be defended as completely valid by the same people who were vigilantly (but inaccurately) pushing the first two for months.

He'll get a job because it will likely cost more to fight it. Some team will play the Rams with Michael Sam and be rewarded later.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

First, let's try to be accurate. The exact phrasing was "A few owners tried to separate their deep dislike of unemployed quarterback Colin Kaepernick". "A few owners" is the key here. Your wording makes it sound more like every single owner around the table nodded their heads and shared stories of hatred for him. Disliking someone is not proof of collusion. Is every unlikable guy (perhaps because of repeated hypocrisy?) without a job colluded against by his potential employers?

Second, I don't think Mark Geragos has anything that could even hint at collusion—outside of Kaepernick not having a job and ostensibly wanting one (despite opting out of his contract)—and he knows it. On Carolla's podcast the other day they tried to get him to talk about how he was going to prove collusion, and he took a jab at all the legal reporters covering this issue now, saying "They only want to ask about the elements of collusion and how do I prove that, but the sports reporters 'get it'" [paraphrasing, obviously]. This is the same guy who was happier than shit to give every minute detail, even ones in dispute, of an altercation with police that left his client dead. Further, when Carolla was smart enough to realize that proving collusion in a dispute about collusion would be a pretty big fucking deal and pressed Geragos on his proof of collusion, Geragos said to listen to his podcast dropping over the weekend. At best he's buying time to try to find something, or waiting for some NFL owner to say something dumb, that he can label as the smoking gun of collusion.

Funny, I don't remember the usual members of the "Congress Shall Make No Law" crowd piping up when this was uttered. That's weird, right?

If you're trying to urge accuracy in reading, please note I said nothing at all about the collusion case in my post. I'm glad to learn though the NFL owners are most likely just upstanding citizens interesting in defending the value of authenticity and rallying against hypocrisy.

Did you write that?

Magic free speech rights for corporate actors was found by recent courts. Don't be shocked if other courts find an expanded appreciation for what constitutes collusion or what a judge finds relevant/admissible.

It may not be the best law, but the quality of judges and friend of the court petitions are increasingly on par with the quality of education in this country.

And then arrogant buffoons like McNair seem to be horrible clients / respondents so who knows what could follow.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

They shouldn't play ok Sunday. Fuck that guy.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

That does not entail anything close to a charge of collusion. There's not even the slightest implication of any kind of coordination in my statement. Just as the defenders of the owners have repeated again and again that it's possible they all independently arrived at the conclusion that he's not good enough or that he'd hurt business, it's likewise possible under my statement that they all independently arrived at the conclusion that they weren't going to employ him because they hate the prick.

Unfortunately, it is a bit unfair to the defenders of the owners who spent months claiming there were legitimate merit or business-related reasons not to hire Kaepernick and it was on one of these bases that the rational owners of the NFL were most definitely acting. Their actions look a lot less sympathetic if it's just the case that they personally disliked Kaepernick, and MANY of their apologists certainly were attributing far more enlightened motives to justify their actions than making the far weaker case of "Well it's legally permissible regardless of the reason."