What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Colin Kaepernick Thread and related anthem kneeling issues/news (2 Viewers)

Yenrub said:
Listening to rap you also hear the “B-word” (female dog) a lot. I willing to bet that most people know not to use that word when addressing their wife or girlfriend or on conference calls with co-workers or clients or potential clients etc.
Click to expand...
I think that is quite a bit different. 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Why would someone be in a tight spot because they don't believe that word should be used?
Click to expand...
I guess anyone can use it but I have never heard an educated black person use that word..even in places that were majority black. Most have distain for the word.  Most mature adults would not use it anywhere.

When I helped coach HS football at an all black school I heard it quite a bit..but it was always in anger directed player to player in practice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
New York Yankees‏ @Yankees 20h20 hours ago

Statement from the New York Yankees regarding Papa John's:

“In response to the reprehensible remarks made by Papa John’s founder and owner, the New York Yankees are suspending their relationship with the company.”

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Is Kaepernick on the Yankees or working for Papa Johns now?
Click to expand...
The Yankees were responding to the controversy over Papa John's use of the N word during a conference call about NFL players, which was discussed extensively in this thread over the last few pages: Here is what started the discussion to refresh your memory:

Joe Summer said:
Meanwhile Papa John used the N-word during conference call about NFL players.

But yeah, it's not about race at alllllllllllllll.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The language in the article is "could lead to...", so maybe they're just leaving latitude. Stephen Ross started off linking arms with the players on-field and then abruptly became anti-protest after Trump called attention to it because he believes it is now being misconstrued and hurting the cause. So maybe he is just really trying to push the protests to a different form/venue. OTOH, he may have a relationship with Trump as a NY real estate guy.
""Initially, I totally supported the players in what they were doing," said Ross. "It's America and people should be able to really speak about their choices." But Ross said his feelings changed when he felt the message being sent by players kneeling was a protest against "support of our country or the military." 

It is still hard to see protesting for social justice characterized as  "conduct detrimental" even if there are better places to do it. 

 
squistion said:
That hasn't been established. the NLFPA think otherwise and that it violates the CBA. They will take this matter to court if the Dolphins suspend or discipline a player for kneeling during the anthem.
Click to expand...
No need to play the NA for regular season football games. Just play it at the Super Bowl.  It will make it easier on players, owners and fans will not be pissed off.   Nobody in the stands or on TV is thinking about what they are kneeling about anyway.

 
Da Guru said:
No need to play the NA for regular season football games. Just play it at the Super Bowl.  It will make it easier on players, owners and fans will not be pissed off.   Nobody in the stands or on TV is thinking about what they are kneeling about anyway.
Click to expand...
That might have been the solution years ago. But at this point I think that the people who feel offended when somebody kneels will also feel offended if the Anthem is not played. 

 
squistion said:
That hasn't been established. the NLFPA think otherwise and that it violates the CBA. They will take this matter to court if the Dolphins suspend or discipline a player for kneeling during the anthem.
Click to expand...
Yes it has. An employer can limit the free speech of an employee while they are on the clock. The players association will lose that battle.

 
Ketamine Dreams said:
Yes it has. An employer can limit the free speech of an employee while they are on the clock. The players association will lose that battle.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you are wrong or right here, but your analysis here is missing the point and misstating the issue. The question isn't about whether a generic employer can limit free speech without violating the law- obviously they can, as you say. The question is whether this specific employer is violating their collective bargaining agreement with their employees.

Maybe you're an expert in the NFL's CBA and you are certain they are not violating the CBA, but you didn't mention anything about that. If that is the case (or if anyone else here has that expertise) I'd be curious to hear analysis of the operative language. Or maybe there's just nothing in the CBA that applies here so the default is that the employer can do anything the law doesn't forbid?

 
Also from a practical standpoint this is a terrible idea for the Dolphins.  Players might still kneel- a gofundme to pay any penalties and missed paychecks would cover their losses in a matter of minutes. If they don't they'll find other ways to protest which means the only consumers turned off will be the ones who support the protesting players.  It's also a pretty obvious admission that this has never been about distractions, since the policy would be a huge one.  It's about exercising control over "the help."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rule has been temporarily suspended while discussions continue between  NFL and NFLPA. 

""In order to allow this constructive dialogue to continue, we have come to a standstill agreement on the NFLPA's grievance and on the NFL's anthem policy," it said. "No new rules relating to the anthem will be issued or enforced for the next several weeks while these confidential discussions are ongoing."

 
Going to laugh when the players fight for the right to kneel during the next collective bargaining negotiation and the owners take another 2% of the money from them making the gap even wider.   You'd think they would be more focused on getting lifetime healthcare for players and work with the NFL to fight racial injustices instead of trying to piss off the league to what's essentially a protest against Trump running his mouth at them.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Going to laugh when the players fight for the right to kneel during the next collective bargaining negotiation and the owners take another 2% of the money from them making the gap even wider.   You'd think they would be more focused on getting lifetime healthcare for players and work with the NFL to fight racial injustices instead of trying to piss off the league to what's essentially a protest against Trump running his mouth at them.
Click to expand...
Im sure the NFLPA can walk and chew gum at the same time.  And I am also positive that the players will not just hand over another 2% to the owners, aint gonna happen.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I don't know if you are wrong or right here, but your analysis here is missing the point and misstating the issue. The question isn't about whether a generic employer can limit free speech without violating the law- obviously they can, as you say. The question is whether this specific employer is violating their collective bargaining agreement with their employees.

Maybe you're an expert in the NFL's CBA and you are certain they are not violating the CBA, but you didn't mention anything about that. If that is the case (or if anyone else here has that expertise) I'd be curious to hear analysis of the operative language. Or maybe there's just nothing in the CBA that applies here so the default is that the employer can do anything the law doesn't forbid?
Click to expand...
That's my take on it, but I haven't seen the language. I can't imagine a free-for-all whereby any player can protest while in uniform and on the clock. You want to protest abortion? Just hold up a sign with an aborted fetus during the anthem. You want to protest against Trump? Go ahead and do so however you'd like during the anthem. 

 
dutch said:
Im sure the NFLPA can walk and chew gum at the same time.  And I am also positive that the players will not just hand over another 2% to the owners, aint gonna happen.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they'll threaten to sit out until they it's time to miss game checks.  The majority of these guys will cave because those game checks are pretty damn big compared to anything else they could get.  The owners have the negotiating power from that standpoint.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Going to laugh when the players fight for the right to kneel during the next collective bargaining negotiation and the owners take another 2% of the money from them making the gap even wider.   You'd think they would be more focused on getting lifetime healthcare for players and work with the NFL to fight racial injustices instead of trying to piss off the league to what's essentially a protest against Trump running his mouth at them.
Click to expand...
This was an issue that all but ran it's course until Trump opened his mouth knowing it would be red meat for his base.  On Sept 17th, a TOTAL OF SIX players knelt during national anthems. That week, Trump decided to stick his nose in it and call them ungrateful sons of #####es. The following week, over 200 players knelt.  So yes, it is a protest of Trump running his mouth.  What else is new?

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Yeah, they'll threaten to sit out until they it's time to miss game checks.  The majority of these guys will cave because those game checks are pretty damn big compared to anything else they could get.  The owners have the negotiating power from that standpoint.
Click to expand...
The players have walked before so I don't see any reason why they wont again and this time it's personal cuz as you pointed out the Orangutan in chief is fanning the flames and calling them out.  Any one with pride will man up and sit if it comes to it whether they agree with the protests or not.  Hell, Trumps remarks have cross borders and spread to the NBA and MLB so there is no way the front lines in the NFL will compromise themselves by capitulating to some half baked policy by the owners.

 
JuniorNB said:
This was an issue that all but ran it's course until Trump opened his mouth knowing it would be red meat for his base.  On Sept 17th, a TOTAL OF SIX players knelt during national anthems. That week, Trump decided to stick his nose in it and call them ungrateful sons of #####es. The following week, over 200 players knelt.  So yes, it is a protest of Trump running his mouth.  What else is new?
Click to expand...
Well, many here claim it's a protest of racial injustice but glad you're on the same page.

Can you understand why the NFL and the owners would not want a protest during work?  

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Well, many here claim it's a protest of racial injustice but glad you're on the same page.

Can you understand why the NFL and the owners would not want a protest during work?  
Click to expand...
During work.  LOL  That's cute.  6 players. That's how many were still doing the kneeling before your boy decided to try to make political gains from it.  Now the league and players association is suppose to scramble to make everyone happy.  

It still comes down to PR and money. No one likes to lose customers. The league doesn't care about kneeling. But it does care about losing fans. If they allow the kneeling, the racist fans will stop watching in protest. If they disallow kneeling, they could lose African American fans.  They have to let it run it course and stay out of it. That plan worked perfectly fine before Trump stuck his nose in it. Maybe he can refrain from screwing it up again and concentrate on things that matter.

 
Ketamine Dreams said:
That's my take on it, but I haven't seen the language. I can't imagine a free-for-all whereby any player can protest while in uniform and on the clock. You want to protest abortion? Just hold up a sign with an aborted fetus during the anthem. You want to protest against Trump? Go ahead and do so however you'd like during the anthem. 
Click to expand...
Sure but at the same time you can't fine/suspend players unless you are authorized to do so.  My understanding is that the Dolphins were gonna try to shoehorn this in as "conduct detrimental to the club" but surely that's not boundless, otherwise I could come up with hypothetical behaviors that could lead to suspensions that are even crazier than yours.  Can teams suspend players for getting married? Doing a bad job of parking in the stadium lot?  Taking a dump so big it clogs the toilet at a team facility?

 
Ketamine Dreams said:
Yes it has. An employer can limit the free speech of an employee while they are on the clock. The players association will lose that battle.
Click to expand...
Not when there is a contractual agreement with the employer and the employees union as there is in this case with the CBA where the right to suspend or discipline players for kneeling during the anthem was not specifically given to the league or owners. If this were most employers you would be right, but not in this case. Players will take this to court (or however such grievances are handled) and they will win (this is why we haven't seen owners discipline players in the past for this or why Goodell never announced a "no anthem protests" policy like found in the NBA).

 
JuniorNB said:
During work.  LOL  That's cute.  6 players. That's how many were still doing the kneeling before your boy decided to try to make political gains from it.  Now the league and players association is suppose to scramble to make everyone happy.  

It still comes down to PR and money. No one likes to lose customers. The league doesn't care about kneeling. But it does care about losing fans. If they allow the kneeling, the racist fans will stop watching in protest. If they disallow kneeling, they could lose African American fans.  They have to let it run it course and stay out of it. That plan worked perfectly fine before Trump stuck his nose in it. Maybe he can refrain from screwing it up again and concentrate on things that matter.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you're going after me.  No one in this discussion is "my boy" so cut the immature nonsense.  

Of course the NFL and owners don't want bad PR or issues during the anthem and of course it's about money.  Most businesses are.  Who ever said otherwise?  

Why are the players pissing on the league when it's Trump they are protesting?  And yes, they are doing it on company time whether it's 6 players or 200 players or the whole league.  

 
squistion said:
Not when there is a contractual agreement with the employer and the employees union as there is in this case with the CBA where the right to suspend or discipline players for kneeling during the anthem was not specifically given to the league or owners. If this were most employers you would be right, but not in this case. Players will take this to court (or however such grievances are handled) and they will win (this is why we haven't seen owners discipline players in the past for this or why Goodell never announced a "no anthem protests" policy like found in the NBA).
Click to expand...
They would lose because there is enough written in the league rules that the league could legally fine or suspend players for kneeling during the anthem.

"Paragraph 2 of the standard player contract requires that a player “conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game.”

"a team might invoke Paragraphs 9 and 11 of the standard player contract. These paragraphs authorize the team to terminate the contract of a player whose “personal conduct [is] reasonably judged by club to adversely affect or reflect on club.”

"Article 42 of the CBA concerns “club discipline.” This portion of the CBA contains a clause for “conduct detrimental to club” and, under certain circumstances, it authorizes a team to impose a suspension of up to four games or a fine of up to four weeks pay."

Rule 5, Section 4, Article 8 "Throughout the period on game-day that a player is visible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office. Items to celebrate anniversaries or memorable events, or to honor or commemorate individuals, such as helmet decals, and arm bands and jersey patches on players’ uniforms, are prohibited unless approved in advance by the League office."

 
Ketamine Dreams said:
They would lose because there is enough written in the league rules that the league could legally fine or suspend players for kneeling during the anthem.

"Paragraph 2 of the standard player contract requires that a player “conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game.”

"a team might invoke Paragraphs 9 and 11 of the standard player contract. These paragraphs authorize the team to terminate the contract of a player whose “personal conduct [is] reasonably judged by club to adversely affect or reflect on club.”

"Article 42 of the CBA concerns “club discipline.” This portion of the CBA contains a clause for “conduct detrimental to club” and, under certain circumstances, it authorizes a team to impose a suspension of up to four games or a fine of up to four weeks pay."

Rule 5, Section 4, Article 8 "Throughout the period on game-day that a player is visible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office. Items to celebrate anniversaries or memorable events, or to honor or commemorate individuals, such as helmet decals, and arm bands and jersey patches on players’ uniforms, are prohibited unless approved in advance by the League office."
Click to expand...
I'm not a CBA expert, but the only one of these that seems even plausible is the third one, which as I mentioned before can't be interpreted as boundless or it would be irrelevant.

First one is in player contracts not the CBA, so the remedy for a violation would be whatever the contract provides (I'm guessing termination?), not fines and suspensions unless the contract provides for them.

Second one only authorizes termination, not fines and suspensions, and would also require litigation over the reasonableness of the conclusion.

Last one clearly only addresses written or illustrated messages.

 
Ketamine Dreams said:
They would lose because there is enough written in the league rules that the league could legally fine or suspend players for kneeling during the anthem.

"Paragraph 2 of the standard player contract requires that a player “conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game.”

"a team might invoke Paragraphs 9 and 11 of the standard player contract. These paragraphs authorize the team to terminate the contract of a player whose “personal conduct [is] reasonably judged by club to adversely affect or reflect on club.”

"Article 42 of the CBA concerns “club discipline.” This portion of the CBA contains a clause for “conduct detrimental to club” and, under certain circumstances, it authorizes a team to impose a suspension of up to four games or a fine of up to four weeks pay."

Rule 5, Section 4, Article 8 "Throughout the period on game-day that a player is visible to the stadium and television audience (including in pregame warm-ups, in the bench area, and during postgame interviews in the locker room or on the field), players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office. Items to celebrate anniversaries or memorable events, or to honor or commemorate individuals, such as helmet decals, and arm bands and jersey patches on players’ uniforms, are prohibited unless approved in advance by the League office."
Click to expand...
If there was enough written they would have suspended or fined players long ago (probably when this first started with Kaep). The CBA does not specifically give them that right and absent that they can't enforce fines or suspensions (Goodell knows this which is why this step was never taken before and if the Dolphins follow through with this, why it will fail if challenged by the NFLPA).

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Huh?  We both just agreed they are protesting Trump's mouth.   Are you claiming it's something else now?
Click to expand...
Who has said, among the players, that is a protest only about Trump? The issues raised by Kaep originally are still a very big, if not the most important part of this.

 
squistion said:
If there was enough written they would have suspended or fined players long ago (probably when this first started with Kaep). The CBA does not specifically give them that right and absent that they can't enforce fines or suspensions (Goodell knows this which is why this step was never taken before and if the Dolphins follow through with this, why it will fail if challenged by the NFLPA).
Click to expand...
Of course it does give them the right, but they haven't gone thru with trying to implement it. We can agree to disagree then.They would win and the NFLPA would lose, but it will never get that far as evidenced by the current hold on things.

 
squistion said:
Who has said, among the players, that is a protest only about Trump? The issues raised by Kaep originally are still a very big, if not the most important part of this.
Click to expand...
Junior and I both posted a few posts ago that we both believe these protests are about Trump.  And if you follow the number of players protesting and when they were protesting it directly correlates to Trump going after them.  I know you desperately want to stick to CK's message here but the fact is only a few players supported that compared to making this about Trump.

But I agree with you which is why I've suggested a million times that they stop focusing on the stupid anthem and stop getting into a pissing contest with the owners over the anthem and work with the owners to fight the real issue this was supposed be about:  Police brutality and racial injustice.   

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
The Official Katie Porter (HOR/D-CA45) And Her "Whiteboard Of Justice" Appreciation Thread (10/24/22 17:34 PST)
Replies
2
Views
346
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Mike Rowe Evaluates America's Workforce: "Your Choice Isn’t College Or Oblivion" ( 7/16/22 18:28 PST )
Replies
5
Views
515
bcat01
B
GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
970
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top