Jump to content

Eric Reid files collusion grievance against the NFL


oldschooler

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, westside bengal said:

Have I mentioned......I love the off season!

 

58 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

Well, this escalated quickly.

Dilly! Dilly!  And +1 to both.

 

This is making me a sad panda.

Not the topic nor anyone's point of view and opinions

but the personal direction it is taking with good friends I have never met.

 

Off to Dungeons and Dragons forum or lock or delete, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat related - https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/30/jerry-jones-president-made-it-clear-that-he-wasnt-letting-anthem-issue-go/

 

Quote

 

Jerry Jones: President made it clear that he wasn’t letting anthem issue go

Posted by Mike Florio on May 30, 2018, 10:32 AM EDT
 
gettyimages-963639452-e1527690751988.jpg
Getty Images

The first snippets of testimony have emerged from the depositions taken in the Colin Kaepernick collusion grievance. And it’s becoming even more obvious that the NFL changed its anthem policy at the direct behest of the President.

 

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, while testifying in the Kaepernick collusion grievance, shared the details of a phone call with the President.

 

This is a very winning, strong issue for me,” the President told Jones, according to Andrew Beaton of the Wall Street Journal. “Tell everybody, you can’t win this one. This one lifts me.”

 

The President was right. There was no way to win. Even by giving in.

 

Per Beaton, the NFL declined comment on the matter, citing the confidentiality that applies to the grievance proceedings. A White House official did not dispute the testimony.

 

“The majority of the American people agree with the president, love our country, love our flag and believe it should be respected,” the White House official told Beaton. (This ignores the results of the NFL’s secret poll from last year, which showed that people both opposed and supported the protests that have been happening during the anthem. The NFL has chosen, however, to heed only the opinions of those who oppose the protests, possibly because that side reflects the President’s stated viewpoint.)

 

Beaton also reports that Jones, along with Texans owner Bob McNair and Dolphins owner Stephen Ross, testified that they believed the protests were hurting the NFL financially. Which of course conflicts with recent statements from Falcons owner Arthur Blank, who justified the new contract given to Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan by claiming that league and club revenues are up.

 

Regardless of whether it’s rooted in fact, owners have chosen to believe that the protests are bad for business, in large part because the President had chosen to continue to stir up his base by chastising the NFL for allowing the protests. Which not only suggests that collusion arising from a mutual desire to placate the President may be influencing the ongoing unemployment of Kaepernick and Eric Reid, but also potentially bolsters the opinion of attorney Mark Geragos that the President may have run afoul of federal law by interfering with private employment decisions for political reasons.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Jamie_B said:

IIRC there are laws against a Gov Official using their office to influence private business decisions.

 

He's done so much illegal shit what's one more thing? He should've been in jail for fraud & money laundering 10 years ago. Money is an amazing insulator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, USN Bengal said:

Trump and every other politician use this method non-stop... 

 

Can you give me an example?  I'm aware of other abuses of power of course but I can't think of another President publicly threatening an industry (on Twitter no less!) in order to censor their employees.  Closest thing I can think of is citing "national security" to muzzle the press but that's far from a general attack on peaceful protesting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
14 hours ago, Homer_Rice said:

I found it interesting that he described the displays as "disgusting", as that is how I've felt about them for quite a while now. That and unsettled. 

 

You have to hand it to the military marketers, though, because they learned their lesson in Vietnam. Control the narrative and don't let the citizenry know what the military is doing in their name. Then deify the troops so their actions are rarely questioned. (To be clear, the vast majority of vets I know aren't comfortable with this deification and incessant fawning , either). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...