jasson621 Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 Don’t know why he should. If a employer doesn’t want to hire someone they shouldn’t have too. If they bring drama and you don’t want itIf their breath stinks and you don’t want to smell it.If they are ugly abs you don’t want to look at them. Whatever. I don't disagree with you but for 2 million they didn't have to deal with all the negatives that would've come with him so great deal for the NFL owners. Side note Kaeps legal team used only a 2 word argument on his behalf and the owners quickly agreed, they said Mark Sanchez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajt Posted February 15, 2019 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 Side note Kaeps legal team used only a 2 word argument on his behalf and the owners quickly agreed, they said Mark Sanchez.lol can't argue that one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
housepicks Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 If a guy is gonna cause a distraction or a potential backlash from fans and drop in revenue I don’t see discrimination. I see a business decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
housepicks Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 The decision for most wasn’t about the red,white and blue. It’s gonna but them in the pocket. Why can’t a business people make business decisions that protect their investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasson621 Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 The decision for most wasn’t about the red,white and blue. It’s gonna but them in the pocket. Why can’t a business people make business decisions that protect their investment.And..........they made a great pocket decision 2 million not to deal with all his B.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rito Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 I don't disagree with you but for 2 million they didn't have to deal with all the negatives that would've come with him so great deal for the NFL owners. Side note Kaeps legal team used only a 2 word argument on his behalf and the owners quickly agreed, they said Mark Sanchez.Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rito Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 If a guy is gonna cause a distraction or a potential backlash from fans and drop in revenue I don’t see discrimination. I see a business decision.The NFL handled this thing horribly at ever single step along the way. And goodell gets $25m a year, fling joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always Call Heads Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 It was a business decision but the reality is a lot of them would have liked to have him on their roster as a player. The problem they had was that they were punishing him for political activism and promoting a black cause. All they had to do was say he had the right to protest and not televise the anthems. They instead tried to play white master. You cannot be a white master in this day and age and not pay a price and they paid it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigrunner Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 If a guy is gonna cause a distraction or a potential backlash from fans and drop in revenue I don’t see discrimination. I see a business decision.OK. I respect that. I think it's complicated. Some business decisions that aren't regulated can establish dangerous, unfair precedents that cause harm or have negative results. I think this may have been the case. But like I said it's complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadTiger Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 I don't disagree with you but for 2 million they didn't have to deal with all the negatives that would've come with him so great deal for the NFL owners. Side note Kaeps legal team used only a 2 word argument on his behalf and the owners quickly agreed, they said Mark Sanchez. Hahha! Much more terse and concise than I have been over the last few years on this thing. I kept on saying there is at least one guy he should replace. All they had to present is one guy and his stats and case closed. Hapless Sanchez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balco Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 Don’t know what’s wrong with this world.Another stain on America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always Call Heads Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 Another stain on America.Kaepernick 1, Trump 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balco Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 Kaepernick 1, Trump 0 Kabuki theater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balco Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 The anti American got paid so the problem would go away. Simple!Thank the lame stream media for propping him up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdalert447 Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 Trump hates the NFL way more than he hates Kapernick. Trump wins again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyz Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 That string armed pile of pig shit wanted 30 million to play in the Aaf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sol Aristatel Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 Can we finally put this poser piece of shit to bed? He got his money and his fame. He's no longer relevant. Thank God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 Breitbart comment section is wild on this. They didn't want to watch the NFL while he was kneeling; and now they claim they will not watch because he was paid out here. 60 to 80 paid out to the two just seems ultra-excessive, yet the NFL chose that over the alternative. Must have feared discovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigrunner Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 Can we finally put this poser piece of shit to bed? He got his money and his fame. He's no longer relevant. Thank God.Colin didn't remain silent when he saw situations of injustice. Hat's off to the man. People get hurt or killed when others remain silent in situations of injustice or oppression. The Holocaust is an extreme example. Police brutality is a current example. Trump calls these protesters sons of bitches. Seems like you're in agreement. Shame on you Sol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadTiger Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 The decision for most wasn’t about the red,white and blue. It’s gonna but them in the pocket. Why can’t a business people make business decisions that protect their investment. You are in a union job, remember. Keep that in mind: Individually, of course each owner has the right to think that/act on it. But there was significant evidence they discussed things among themselves and decided to group up against him. A no-no in general, a definite no-no for a unionized profession (they violated the collective bargaining agreement), and an aw, hell no for something related to discrimination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadTiger Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 Breitbart comment section is wild on this. They didn't want to watch the NFL while he was kneeling; and now they claim they will not watch because he was paid out here. 60 to 80 paid out to the two just seems ultra-excessive, yet the NFL chose that over the alternative. Must have feared discovery. I predicted this when it first happened. I admit, I was only concentrating on the case at hand, but Russian collusion has reminded me that there is quite a bit more dirt than just at the surface. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWarning Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 Colin didn't remain silent when he saw situations of injustice. Hat's off to the man. People get hurt or killed when others remain silent in situations of injustice or oppression. The Holocaust is an extreme example. Police brutality is a current example. Trump calls these protesters sons of bitches. Seems like you're in agreement. Shame on you Sol!Like the Jews did in WW 1 also and throughout history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyz Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 He started kneeling when he lost his starting job. The same “injustice” was going on when he played in the super bowl, yet that pile of pig shit said nothing. Was on the biggest stage and said NOTHING. He’s a conman and he used his scam to get paid by the nfl. Money for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadTiger Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 He started kneeling when he lost his starting job. The same “injustice” was going on when he played in the super bowl, yet that pile of pig shit said nothing. Was on the biggest stage and said NOTHING. He’s a conman and he used his scam to get paid by the nfl. Money for nothing. If what you said is totally true, then he could have gotten away with giving FAR LESS MONEY TO CHARITIES and still had the scam work. But he gave quite a bit MORE than he "needed" to. I don't know about you, but if I can achieve the same "goal" for $20+ million less, then that's what I'm doing. But the facts don't support that. The facts support him being sincere about the cause, and giving quite a bit of money to various causes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
housepicks Posted February 16, 2019 Report Share Posted February 16, 2019 You are in a union job, remember. Keep that in mind: Individually, of course each owner has the right to think that/act on it. But there was significant evidence they discussed things among themselves and decided to group up against him. A no-no in general, a definite no-no for a unionized profession (they violated the collective bargaining agreement), and an aw, hell no for something related to discrimination.Haven’t followed closely. Where is this evidence at? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.