Looks like Kaepernick going to Atlanta for tryout...Not just for Atlanta (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Answernig DaveXA

I hear and understand you FTP. For one, it bothered me that the league wanted the workout to be private.

Maybe the NFL wanted the workout to be about football and not other issues.. and also to keep protestors, cop haters, trump haters, space alien haters, etc out and this not turn into a political side show.

I know protesting during pre-game is a gray area and that can be debated. I don't have a problem with it, but I think the league does want and has the right to set guidelines for behavior during pregame, post game and intermissions.

That's the bulk of it right there. You say that you don't have a problem with Kap protesting Pre-game. That means during the halftime interview coaches and players can discuss abortion if they chose as players go to the locker room. In the after game press conference players and coaches can discuss illegal immigration and US tax codes if they chose. Because it's their platform. And you'd be OK with that?

I don't care about the shirt thing. That's just a political statement

It's just a political statement huh? No big deal? How would you feel if he wore a shirt that said Trump 2020? Would you still feel that same way?

and a little further on it...

That's just a political statement he's free to make at a workout he decided to do on his own without the NFL's endorsement.

Ahhh... That's why the NFL tried to have control.. To keep Kapernick and others and people and things unforseen from being able to do as they wished... It would have been a control NFL workout... But... Too many people are gonna say.. "OH, but Kap had to do it because of some form they wanted him to sign"
Since this was a first ever and unheard of workout, I am sure that there was some sort of waiver if he got hurt or sprained an ankle."

Kaep has his own agenda, and it's worlds apart from the NFL. I think the smart thing would have been to either agree to the NFL's offer, or simply turn it down. Instead of that, he made a spectacle of the whole thing and I think he's burned any potential bridges to playing in the league again soon.

On that we can agree...

It is clearly understood that Kap has a right to protest.. Kaepernick on his OWN TIME can walk down main street while stomping on the Flag all that he wants... ANd that is what service members fought and died for. Him to have that right... But... When fans of teams buy tickets for a football game... They have a right not to partake or witness a political protest. There in lies the difference.

Now I am coming to @superchuck500 to help me here because for some reason my statements always get misunderstood...

as for making Kaepernick stand for the National Anthem Ceremony. This is NOT about making him stand for the National Anthem.

Since all pregame aspects are controlled and owned by the NFL.
If Kaepernick wants to sit for the national Anthem. He can do so. that is his business. That's one thing. <<<-- His Business.
But if Kaepernick sits for the National Anthem in Protest, that is another. <<<--- Others people's business...

Am I correct on that @superchuck500?

K

I don’t think it’s that simple - but I don’t think the purpose is what is regulated. If the employer doesn’t require employees to stand, an employee can choose not to stand for whatever purpose he wants.

And if the employer wishes to institute a new policy that requires standing but the impacted employees are part of a collective bargaining unit, the union should be involved.

Beyond that, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business.

 

[Joe OKC]

I don’t think it’s that simple - but I don’t think the purpose is what is regulated. If the employer doesn’t require employees to stand, an employee can choose not to stand for whatever purpose he wants.

And if the employer wishes to institute a new policy that requires standing but the impacted employees are part of a collective bargaining unit, the union should be involved.

Beyond that, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business.

Hummm... there's something missing.... because there is no formal requirement by the employer to stand for the anthem... just a simple request.. if i am correct in that.

But what i think is getting lost is purpose and intent. As an example.
A player can sit for the athem because he does not like the commissioner. That is his personal opinion.
But if a players sits for the anthem in protest of the commissioner that reaches beyond his personal opinion and into the affairs of the employer regardless of if they have a policy in place or not..

I am leaving the players union out of this for the time being.

 

[First Time Poster]

I hear and understand you FTP. For one, it bothered me that the league wanted the workout to be private. That really didn't make a lot of sense to me because their combines are open to the public for the most part. I don't know about other private workouts, but those are ordinarily players trying out for individual teams. Even those, I don't recall being public. Since this was an extraordinary event where the league offered a former player a mid-season workout. I can't recall anything similar to this, so, it seems like there was no real SOP for this sort of thing. I suspect the league had their own agenda and reasons for doing the workout and it's been speculated by some in the media that they were doing this to ward off another collusion suit. I don't know what their agenda was, but I certainly don't think it was for altruistic reasons.

I agree entirely on the lack of trust of the NFL. That said, I've read a chunk of the waiver along with Florio's take on it, and except for some vague references to parameters for employment and use of the workout for other purposes, I don't really see a whole lot that is problematic as far as waivers go. Waivers are often intentionally broad to protect the organization from liability. But even broad waivers do have limits and judges will still gauge intent and whether liability still applies. It looks and reads like a typical waiver for the most part. That doesn't mean I trust the league to do right by CK. They have their own agenda and I certainly don't think they have CK's best interests at heart. As for Brady's actions, terrible. But he's acting in his own best interests. I think Brady will do whatever it takes to win. If he thinks he can get away with cheating to win, he'll do it. He doesn't have much integrity from what I've read over the years. His distrust of the NFL was understandable, but it doesn't make his deflating footballs and destroying evidence right.

I've stated a few times in the past that I've got no issues with CK's kneeling and protesting and social justice activism. Players should not be muzzled as long as it's outside the lines. I know protesting during pre-game is a gray area and that can be debated. I don't have a problem with it, but I think the league does want and has the right to set guidelines for behavior during pregame, post game and intermissions. I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions. That's a tough line to walk. I think the league is gonna get flack no matter what they do because they're in the middle of a fight where the 2 sides will probably never see eye to eye. I understand why many would rather leave politics and social justice at the door of sporting events. The problem is that these athletes have a platform that's unmatched and everyone wants a piece of that platform.

I just want to watch football. But understandably, the players have things that they do care about, and they should be able to use the platform available to them to express those things. They can't cease to be human just because they're football players. It's why I never agreed with the "shut up and play" types.

While I think the NFL is up to no good, I don't think Kaep helped himself in this case. I don't care about the shirt thing. That's just a political statement he's free to make at a workout he decided to do on his own without the NFL's endorsement. The NFL claims they gave him permission to have Nike come in and make a production of it if they want to. But, I'm sure they wanted control over the workout, and I really don't think Kaep was gonna ever agree to that. He's always marched to the beat of his own drum. Which isn't an issue with me. But I do think it's reasonable for the NFL to have control over the workout. It is their invitation and their show.

I think where Kaep went wrong was agreeing to it, then unilaterally, and last minute changing the venue and workout when it was clear the NFL and he were not going to agree on the language of the waiver. I think there's more to all of that. Kaep has his own agenda, and it's worlds apart from the NFL. I think the smart thing would have been to either agree to the NFL's offer, or simply turn it down. Instead of that, he made a spectacle of the whole thing and I think he's burned any potential bridges to playing in the league again soon.

I don't think what Kaep did was remotely comparable to the bs the NFL does frequently, but I don't trust him or his legal team either. I thought the workout wasn't a legitimate one and was just a media grab for him. Sure the NFL initiated it, but he took it and made it his own thing. It's fine, but it's ultimately a show, but really, what did the workout accomplish? I'm not sure it did much of anything. Maybe it did and I missed it. Maybe there are other considerations. I'm definitely open to hearing them.

What say you?

Thanks for asking for my take.

So, I had a large wall of text of a response to reply (turns out I still do!) but then I read this piece by Howard Bryant and I have to say this is the most balanced, well researched and reported take I have seen about what happened between Kap and the NFL that week. My humble opinion is that no one should formulate an opinion until they have read this article. It is well sourced from viewpoints on all "sides."

Inside Colin Kaepernick's NFL workout: accusations, distrust and dueling narratives

The inside story of how a long-awaited potential reconciliation between quarterback Colin Kaepernick and the NFL disintegrated into another chapter of distrust and acrimony -- and quite possibly the final one.

www.espn.com

Having read the article, I believe this really boils down to two narratives, two opposing viewpoints.

One: The NFL took extraordinary steps to setup this private, personal workout for Colin to give him an opportunity to workout for teams, preventing a media coverage onslaught for individual teams, giving them cover, to show his inclusion (or exclusion) from the league is only football related. They wanted the workout to be about football and only football and the mere fact they are taking these steps shows their good faith. It is their league so they have the right to set the terms. Colin insisted on minor details being met and the NFL made allowances where it could and felt necessary. The workout was the point and Colin and his team kept trying to control the event at the NFL's expense. They tried but Colin didn't want to just play football and the workout failed.

Two: The NFL put together this hastily organized workout, without previous notice to any relevant parties, and, from the beginning, Colin and his team questioned the league's good faith efforts by requiring agreement to a workout without some details being worked out. Immediately, Colin and his team became cautious of the NFL's intentions when the league either rebuffed or broke some verbal agreements or requests regarding the workout. Due to Colin's desire to play in the NFL again, his team continued negotiating with the NFL throughout the week even when it became more and more apparent that this was more about shaping and controlling public opinion than providing Colin a genuine opportunity. The waiver with added language and the refusal of transparency were the final straw. They tried but the NFL wants Colin to play football on its terms with no rights and the workout failed.

Ultimately, this really comes down to 'who do you trust?' Or, 'who do you trust more?' But, really, if we are being honest, the real question is 'who do you distrust the most?' I, like you, do believe that both sides had opportunities and missed opportunities to make this "work". In the simplest sense, "work" meaning the NFL approved workout happening. I think both sides let their distrust of the other make demands and avoid concessions that would have lifted the cloud of suspicion and fostered an environment that could, could, have saved the workout.

But, if I am being honest, and if I had to answer the real question, "who do I distrust more?", the easy answer is the NFL. Roger Goodell and the NFL have shown themselves to be untrustworthy parties in multiple situations, outside of Colin Kaepernick. As football fans, as Saints fans, we have been witnesses to their untrustworthy actions. They have continuously, consistently shown themselves to be bad faith actors in many situations of consequence. To be succinct, I just don't believe them. I don't believe this was designed or setup to give Colin an opportunity. It felt setup to give Colin an opportunity, with strings attached. It felt orchestrated as a win/win for the NFL. He signs the clever waiver, he works out, he gives up his right sue, they get to say he got his shot and if no one signs him he can't litigate the issue any further. Or, he refuses from jump or backs out at the last minute and they use their media conglomerate to paint Colin and his team as a bunch of malcontents who are more interested in Kap being an activist than a football player. And, while, I don't agree with all of Kap's and his teams choices, I completely understand their unwillingness to fully trust the NFL and take them at their word and act accordingly. The NFL is the party that acted wrongly, in my opinion. So, the onus is on them to make this right. That responsibility shouldn't fall on Colin, solely, or even majorly. He shouldn't have to be the party to make concessions, give up rights, to play football, when they stopped him from playing football for reasons outside of football.

I know some persons will strongly disagree with that because they don't see Kap as being "wronged." If we are being honest, that sentiment is largely shaped by their opinions of Colin and, moreso, their opinions of what he did. But, you know, I ask myself, if you substitute Colin Kaepernick for Jonathan Vilma, I wonder if persons would feel differently. I can't answer that for them. I didn't think he would get a job based on this workout. That seems to be correct. I don't believe he will ever play in the NFL again. I guess its up to everyone to decide how they feel about that. I know how I feel.

My two cents.

@DaveXA @superchuck500 what the hell @Joe OKC