Batman1876 Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 1 minute ago, SouthNYfan said: The repercussions are arising when their contracts are up. Teams have not signed a couple of these guys who knelt, as they don't want the media storm that comes with it. The question is if they are all making that determination individually or if it was a collective decision they made together at some point.
SouthNYfan Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 Just now, Batman1876 said: We don’t know if the owners made an agreement to not hire these players. If they did then they are at fault. That’s what needs to be sorted out. Why are they at fault? The owners are basically the board of directors. If a board of directors of a private company gets together and says "look. we shouldn't hire any of these kneeling guys, as it looks really bad for our business in the public eye" that is not illegal.
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Bruce_Stools said: If you have any knowledge of the cba, rule book, and the operations manual, can you answer the question I had for the other guy? I honestly don’t know. Thanks What’s the question? I do know a little about the CBA (more about the NBA CBA) but have a working knowledge of the NFL.
SouthNYfan Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: The only place that we disagree is that not all 32 teams are private. 31 are and that is a part of the reason that it is difficult to enforce. In general, I agree with your sentiment. FWIW, I wouldn’t sign either of these guys because the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. If Khalil Mack was the guy doing this I would be all for adding him. If I thought that these guys could impact the team I’d be all for it. I don’t think that the media attention and distractions are worth it for these guys. 100% agree Which team is not private? Packers right? Edited September 22, 2018 by SouthNYfan
Bruce_Stools Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: What’s the question? I do know a little about the CBA (more about the NBA CBA) but have a working knowledge of the NFL. In order for a rule or “suggestion” to actually get into the official rule book and operations manual, wouldn’t they have already been cleared by the players?? If that is the case, which it might not be, then the players would have already agreed to this “suggestion” and would therefore need to follow this “suggestion”, right? Edited September 22, 2018 by Bruce_Stools
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 6 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: I’m actually a little confused honestly. Even though the nfl rule book and the operations manual, according to an nfl representative, govern the nfl, the cba is actually the only way to determine a rule or what’s punishable or not? Isn’t that what the books are for in the first place. Wouldn’t that have been cleared by the players association before anything gets put into said books??? These manuals are put together by lawyers and every word is thought out. When I worked in the NBA the Game Ops Book was like 1,000 pages each year. It was as detailed down to the 3 songs that you are allowed to play when the road team is on offense. (Seriously if you watch an NBA game when the visiting team has the ball only three songs/chants will play). Sometimes these issues though go unforseen so they follow it by the letter the letter of the law. The fact that it says “should” means that they will leave that as a suggestion. If it said “must” it would be different. 5 years ago they probably could have changed that and no one would have thought twice. Now that it is in the public eye the changes will have to be agreed upon. Like anything it will be a negotiation. You usually give something and get something simultaneously.
Batman1876 Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Why are they at fault? The owners are basically the board of directors. If a board of directors of a private company gets together and says "look. we shouldn't hire any of these kneeling guys, as it looks really bad for our business in the public eye" that is not illegal. The owners aren’t a board of directors, the league is a trade association. So this would be several private companies coming together to make a joint bussinuss decision that limits open competition and defrauds others in some way. Railroads used to use such arrangements to fix prices. 1
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: In order for a rule or “suggestion” to actually get into the official rule book and operations manual, wouldn’t they have already been cleared by the players?? If that is the case, which it might not be, then the players would have already agreed to this “suggestion” and would therefore need to follow this “suggestion”, right? There’s a difference between things clearly defined vs. suggested. You “can’t” take certain drugs. You “should” stand for the anthem, with helmet in left hand, etc.. A lot of these things aren’t necessarily designed to be rules. They are more designed to make things uniform and clean so that teams don’t go rouge. Think of the NFL like McDonald’s corporate. There are certain things that franchisees “must” do, other things that they “should” do and other things that they “can” do. All of those have different meanings but the goal is that if you go to 3 different McDonald’s there are a lot of similarities amongst them all. 9 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Which team is not private? Packers right? Correct
Bruce_Stools Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: These manuals are put together by lawyers and every word is thought out. When I worked in the NBA the Game Ops Book was like 1,000 pages each year. It was as detailed down to the 3 songs that you are allowed to play when the road team is on offense. (Seriously if you watch an NBA game when the visiting team has the ball only three songs/chants will play). Sometimes these issues though go unforseen so they follow it by the letter the letter of the law. The fact that it says “should” means that they will leave that as a suggestion. If it said “must” it would be different. 5 years ago they probably could have changed that and no one would have thought twice. Now that it is in the public eye the changes will have to be agreed upon. Like anything it will be a negotiation. You usually give something and get something simultaneously. Thank you for the response. I had had no idea it got down to the nitty gritty with what songs can be played and all that! And while I agree the manual obviously states “should”, It appears to have been left open for interpretation. In certain instances, “should” and “must” are interchangeable. In this case, I interpret “should” as a rule. As in, one “should” look both ways before crossing a road. Simply put, in this instance “you should look” replaces “if you want to live, you MUST look both way on a busy road!” The manual says the players “should” do something to stay within the guidelines, it unfortunately doesn’t say what the repercussions would be if they don’t adhere to them. 3 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: Thank you for the response. I had had no idea it got down to the nitty gritty with what songs can be played and all that! And while I agree the manual obviously states “should”, It appears to have been left open for interpretation. In certain instances, “should” and “must” are interchangeable. In this case, I interpret “should” as a rule. As in, one “should” look both ways before crossing a road. Simply put, in this instance “you should look” replaces “if you want to live, you MUST look both way on a busy road!” The manual says the players “should” do something to stay within the guidelines, it unfortunately doesn’t say what the repercussions would be if they don’t adhere to them. 9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: There’s a difference between things clearly defined vs. suggested. You “can’t” take certain drugs. You “should” stand for the anthem, with helmet in left hand, etc.. A lot of these things aren’t necessarily designed to be rules. They are more designed to make things uniform and clean so that teams don’t go rouge. Think of the NFL like McDonald’s corporate. There are certain things that franchisees “must” do, other things that they “should” do and other things that they “can” do. All of those have different meanings but the goal is that if you go to 3 different McDonald’s there are a lot of similarities amongst them all. Correct I posted my last post before I got to read your newest one. My apologies. Althought they aren’t rules, you mentioned they were designed to be uniform and so teams don’t go rogue. Isn’t that exactly what happened though? edit. I think I quoted myself accidentally lol Edited September 22, 2018 by Bruce_Stools
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 12 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: Thank you for the response. I had had no idea it got down to the nitty gritty with what songs can be played and all that! And while I agree the manual obviously states “should”, It appears to have been left open for interpretation. In certain instances, “should” and “must” are interchangeable. In this case, I interpret “should” as a rule. As in, one “should” look both ways before crossing a road. Simply put, in this instance “you should look” replaces “if you want to live, you MUST look both way on a busy road!” The manual says the players “should” do something to stay within the guidelines, it unfortunately doesn’t say what the repercussions would be if they don’t adhere to them. I posted my last post before I got to read your newest one. My apologies. Althought they aren’t rules, you mentioned they were designed to be uniform and so teams don’t go rogue. Isn’t that exactly what happened though? edit. I think I quoted myself accidentally lol No problem, I am thinking more like one team decides that they want to have death metal before the game instead of the anthem. They try to say “here’s what an NFL game looks like.” There is certainly some room for creativity as you get to the details (ie you can have someone wave a Bills flag and lead the charge). You can’t decide major things if that makes sense. As an aside, I went McDonalds earlier this week. I probably go into a McDonalds 4 or 5 times a year. I ordered at a kiosk and not from a person. This was completely new to me. This must be the type of thing that they allow (but don’t require) franchisees to do. That’s the best parallel that I can draw.
SouthNYfan Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 28 minutes ago, Batman1876 said: The owners aren’t a board of directors, the league is a trade association. So this would be several private companies coming together to make a joint bussinuss decision that limits open competition and defrauds others in some way. Railroads used to use such arrangements to fix prices. How exactly are they a "trade organization" they are a privately owned company (save for the packers) who employ people to play a game. they aren't several private companies, they are one. there is no competition against them to "fix prices".
BringBackOrton Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 9 hours ago, MAJBobby said: I would have signed him. Makes team better. But he kneeled so NFL blackballed him. Felons rapists abusers drugs running around naked gun violations murderers All ok. But DONT exercise your Constitutional Rights. Then your not welcome LOL be better.
ThunderGun Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 I’d sign both him and Kap. Kap has experience, is young, he can play a college RPO that Daboll could scheme up for him, he’s mobile and just like Allen he also has a cannon with accuracy issues... Most importantly, his name isn’t Nathan Peterman. Oh, and once upon a time he helped take a team within 5 yards of winning a Super Bowl... Kap isn’t great, but he’s certainly better than many other QBs currently employed. As for the “he’s such a big distraction”, if I were McD and Beane I would welcome any distraction that would take the attention away from what a colossal **** show this season is going to be... I mean, 16.5 points dogs, and it’s only week 3, for the love of sweet baby Jesus do something!!!
Batman1876 Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 17 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: How exactly are they a "trade organization" they are a privately owned company (save for the packers) who employ people to play a game. they aren't several private companies, they are one. there is no competition against them to "fix prices". Each team is a private company ( one held in the public trust) and the league itself is a trade association. When several different companies make a private agreement to blacklist someone, or some group then it is an illegal collusion.
RPbillsfan Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 9 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: This is America!!! I don’t want no stinkin’ Kaeperdick or Eric Greed!! These guys Nealed during the National Anthem of These United States of America!! Pass on all guys that Neal!! Kneel, my friend kneel
Bruce_Stools Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 38 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: No problem, I am thinking more like one team decides that they want to have death metal before the game instead of the anthem. They try to say “here’s what an NFL game looks like.” There is certainly some room for creativity as you get to the details (ie you can have someone wave a Bills flag and lead the charge). You can’t decide major things if that makes sense. As an aside, I went McDonalds earlier this week. I probably go into a McDonalds 4 or 5 times a year. I ordered at a kiosk and not from a person. This was completely new to me. This must be the type of thing that they allow (but don’t require) franchisees to do. That’s the best parallel that I can draw. Ok, I totally understand what you’re saying as in differentiating between what “must” happen and what will be permitted. With all of the detail they went into, as far as deciding whether or not players stand, down to which hand the helmet is held in, I still feel it may be more than just a suggestion, but there are no defined repercussions so maybe not. Thanks, I appreciate the clarification 1
SouthNYfan Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 27 minutes ago, Batman1876 said: Each team is a private company ( one held in the public trust) and the league itself is a trade association. When several different companies make a private agreement to blacklist someone, or some group then it is an illegal collusion. Hmm... If that's how they are setup then okay.
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 11 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: Ok, I totally understand what you’re saying as in differentiating between what “must” happen and what will be permitted. With all of the detail they went into, as far as deciding whether or not players stand, down to which hand the helmet is held in, I still feel it may be more than just a suggestion, but there are no defined repercussions so maybe not. Thanks, I appreciate the clarification FWIW, I agree that’s probably what they intended. If they could do it differently they probably would. Good conversation!! I look forward to more in the future. Have a goodnight!! 1
Batman1876 Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 12 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Hmm... If that's how they are setup then okay. The tough part is proving they made a private agreement. Probably no way to do so, unless the owners were dumb and let a paper trail. 1
mannc Posted September 22, 2018 Posted September 22, 2018 2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: No confusion at all. The Packers are a part of the public sector. The constitution can’t restrict them from expressing themselves. Almost everything you’ve said in this thread is dead-on, except this. The Packers are not in any sense part of the “public sector”. They might be owned by members of the public, unlike other teams, but they are still a private corporation. Public sector refers to divisions of the government, such as the USPS and the Coast Guard. The first amendment applies directly to employees of those organizations, but they still have work rules they must abide by, so their first amendment rights are far from absolute. 1
Recommended Posts