I don't mean removed from power when I say deposed. Cell phones and cell phone records along with emails have to be turned over and they'll be questioned. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...phone-records-colin-kaepernick-collusion-case
Big news on a story that has been dormant for almost a year - an arbitrator has ruled that Kaepernick's lawsuit against the NFL for collusion can go forward. That means that NFL officials and owners can be questioned under oath in a trial-like format. I personally do think that there has been collusion in keeping him out of the NFL, and if that's true it's going to come out now. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/sports/colin-kaepernick-collusion-case-nfl.html
Didn't Steve Biscotti (or whatever his name is, Ravens Owner) ask the fans to comment on if they should sign Kaep or not?? Clearly he was told not to sign, but wanted to anyway. Although really, he probably just hates Flacco for stealing 100 million.
Get some Surveillance on Crooked Kraft’s phone..we all know what the M.O is for active discovery in New England
I think the Jets could make a case that that while they appreciated Kaepernick's talent, they've had more than their share of player distractions over the past 5 years and didn't want anymore. And as much as I support Kaepernick's right to express himself during the anthem, all 32 teams could plead the same argument. Because if it was just about signing a good football player (and he is good) it wouldn't be an issue for any of these teams except maybe Dallas and NE (whose owners kiss you-know-who's butt.) However, the press whirlwind he would engender would create a difficult atmosphere for any organization that signed him. This is, of course, if the owners did not collude in refusing to sign him, which I would be very surprised if they did.
In all seriousness though, buffalo is starting some guy named Nathan Peterman. And we just watched Christian Hackenberg vs. John Wolford last night. Obviously, the owners are freezing out Kaperdick. Idk how you can prove that though
Me neither, however, if you can prove that one owner told another owner not to sign him, or that there would be negative consequences if he did, I would imagine that would be sufficient.
Crooked Kraft, haha. Why isn't there a horror movie with people wearing Kraft, Brady, and Bruschi masks stealing Halloween candy off of doorsteps and from unsuspecting children in really creative costumes? I demand an answer! The ending is that they get stabbed to death by a vigilante. OK, I admit it. I'm working on that screen play.
“Crooked kraft” is what everyone in CT & esp.Hartford county called him after he shafted us so he could leverage sticksboro to build his stadium.Of course this area is also chock full of bandwagoners & rat racers so 70% of those same people now have the exact same Cheater logo on the back glass of their Honda Pilots. I used to joke about what if Bellichick became President & implemented the patriot way?Mumbling through press conferences, pencil in ear during foreign diplomacy summits, paranoid espionage on seemingly harmless foreign bodies,absolutely NO information or intell provided to free press or at state of the unions..it goes on & on..
^The twist at the end of my movie in the making, the vigilante yells, "I didn't mean that in a sexual way! You pussy (see audition video)!" Then Ricki Lander has a baby that is NOT Bob Kraft's (lol) and it looks like a combination of Rosemary's baby and the baby from 'It's Alive'. I think I have gold here, and I have high hopes for someone picking it up. Hell, I think it might turn out better than the flick 'Buttcrack', but one can only hope. I must keep this fresh in the minds of the populace! https://deadspin.com/5925018/heres-...s-girlfriend-with-some-kind-of-weird-audition
There is going to have to be explicit evidence that the owners decided, as a group, to not sign Kaep as opposed to 30 owners, as individuals, just coincidentally having the same opinion not to sign him. I doubt the former exists and his lawyers are going to try to claim the latter equates to collusion simply because the outcome is the same.
Not really. All it will take is to show that any two owners or GMs conspired to keep Kaepernick out of the league. Believable testimony of a single disgruntled former employee who was privy to such a conversation would suffice.
The Supreme Court has ruled that each team is an individual entity. Two teams cannot collude to keep a player out of the league because there are 28 other teams not colluding and could have signed him. Two teams colluding wouldn’t be collusion to keep him out of the NFL, just collusion to keep him off of two teams. Or, at least, that’s my interpretation based on my minimal knowledge of these issues.
Yeah, this is why I don't see any chance in hell of him winning. Let's say they're as crooked as MLB owners in the mid-1980s. How does he prove it? Admitting to it would be catastrophic, and even these utter morons wouldn't be stupid enough to leave a paper trail. Without a smoking gun, I don't see how he convinces even a sympathetic arbitrator that the owners behavior cannot be sufficiently explained by having seen the news, heard the fans, crunched the financial numbers, etc., and independently coming to the perfectly rational conclusion that he's not worth the headache.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure. However, I did look up the definition of collusion on a legal data base, and from what I could tell, it's as Ralebird said in his post. All it takes is two teams.
No, that’s not what the definition means. Collusion requires two or more parties because one party can’t collude amongst itself. It doesn’t mean that in a league of 30 teams, if only two teams collude it equates to collusion by the entire league. Clearly two teams can collude, as I stated, but it would be simply collusion by two teams not collusion by the league which is Kaeps claim. Collusion by the league would require evidence of collusion amongst all of the teams. Those are two entirely different scenarios.
It’s not an ambiguous issue. Even if two teams agreed that they wouldn’t sign Kaep it wouldn’t create an organized effort to keep him out of the NFL, just two teams deciding not to sign him. Just refer to the allegations of collusion against Barry Bonds: Collusion allegations: 2008 In October 2008, the MLB Players' Association indicated that it would file a collusion grievance against the owners claiming that they conspired illegally to keep Barry Bonds from receiving a 2008 contract.The grievance was abandoned because there were no grounds to force a team to sign a player against their will, and no proof of any organized effort to shut out Bonds. Of most importance nobody can force a team to sign a player, so teams have every right to not sign Kaep as well as voice that they won’t sign him. Collision requires an organized effort to prevent Kaep from getting signed by any team with the sole purpose of keeping him out of the league. Two teams colluding can’t accomplish that.
