New NFL National Anthem Rules
Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 1:03 pm
The players union had no input into this rule.
Or an owner can say "Kneel and your gone". It is up to the owner. Always has been, really.Ritterskoop wrote:Yeah, I like that the way it works is if a player takes a knee, the TEAM gets fined and not the player. So a team owner, like the Jets guy, can say to his players, "Y'all do what you need to do and I will pay the fine."
Well, no. That's the point of collective bargaining. That's why Kaepernick can bring a grievance. If an arbitrator decides that the owners colluded to decide they don't want him, particularly if it's for that reason, they're going to owe him an awful lot of money. (Just like baseball owners owed players a ton of money after an arbitrator found they'd colluded not to sign free agents.) And I'm reading that there are a lot of coaches that put in writing they think Kaepernick is still good enough, not just to play, but to be a starting quarterback, so it sounds like there's a pretty decent chance that an arbitrator may make that very finding. --BobBackInTex wrote:Or an owner can say "Kneel and your gone". It is up to the owner. Always has been, really.Ritterskoop wrote:Yeah, I like that the way it works is if a player takes a knee, the TEAM gets fined and not the player. So a team owner, like the Jets guy, can say to his players, "Y'all do what you need to do and I will pay the fine."
If an owner doesn't want to sign Kaepernick because of his onfield or offfield antics, it is his choice. Nothing the players union can do. Nothing they should do. If a group of owners got together and decided in a pact that none of them would, that is a different story. But just because many people come to the same conclusion doesn't constitute collusion.Bob78164 wrote:Well, no. That's the point of collective bargaining. That's why Kaepernick can bring a grievance. If an arbitrator decides that the owners colluded to decide they don't want him, particularly if it's for that reason, they're going to owe him an awful lot of money. (Just like baseball owners owed players a ton of money after an arbitrator found they'd colluded not to sign free agents.) And I'm reading that there are a lot of coaches that put in writing they think Kaepernick is still good enough, not just to play, but to be a starting quarterback, so it sounds like there's a pretty decent chance that an arbitrator may make that very finding. --BobBackInTex wrote:Or an owner can say "Kneel and your gone". It is up to the owner. Always has been, really.Ritterskoop wrote:Yeah, I like that the way it works is if a player takes a knee, the TEAM gets fined and not the player. So a team owner, like the Jets guy, can say to his players, "Y'all do what you need to do and I will pay the fine."
Bob78164 wrote:Well, no. That's the point of collective bargaining. That's why Kaepernick can bring a grievance. If an arbitrator decides that the owners colluded to decide they don't want him, particularly if it's for that reason, they're going to owe him an awful lot of money. (Just like baseball owners owed players a ton of money after an arbitrator found they'd colluded not to sign free agents.) And I'm reading that there are a lot of coaches that put in writing they think Kaepernick is still good enough, not just to play, but to be a starting quarterback, so it sounds like there's a pretty decent chance that an arbitrator may make that very finding. --BobBackInTex wrote:Or an owner can say "Kneel and your gone". It is up to the owner. Always has been, really.Ritterskoop wrote:Yeah, I like that the way it works is if a player takes a knee, the TEAM gets fined and not the player. So a team owner, like the Jets guy, can say to his players, "Y'all do what you need to do and I will pay the fine."
Thanks for posting that. I've been blocked.Vandal wrote:President Trump responds via Twitter:
"You have to stand proudly for the National Anthem. You shouldn't be playing, you shouldn't be there. Maybe they shouldn't be in the country...the NFL owners did the right thing" -President @realDonaldTrump
Vandal wrote:President Trump responds via Twitter:
"Maybe they shouldn't be in the country..." -President @realDonaldTrump
I'd have a lot more sympathy for that viewpoint if I didn't know damn well this is the same league that had no problem offering Michael Vick a job once he got out of jail. --BobBackInTex wrote:If an owner doesn't want to sign Kaepernick because of his onfield or offfield antics, it is his choice. Nothing the players union can do. Nothing they should do. If a group of owners got together and decided in a pact that none of them would, that is a different story. But just because many people come to the same conclusion doesn't constitute collusion.Bob78164 wrote:Well, no. That's the point of collective bargaining. That's why Kaepernick can bring a grievance. If an arbitrator decides that the owners colluded to decide they don't want him, particularly if it's for that reason, they're going to owe him an awful lot of money. (Just like baseball owners owed players a ton of money after an arbitrator found they'd colluded not to sign free agents.) And I'm reading that there are a lot of coaches that put in writing they think Kaepernick is still good enough, not just to play, but to be a starting quarterback, so it sounds like there's a pretty decent chance that an arbitrator may make that very finding. --BobBackInTex wrote:
Or an owner can say "Kneel and your gone". It is up to the owner. Always has been, really.
Or the wife/girlfriend beaters. Free enterprise whichever way you look at it.Bob78164 wrote:I'd have a lot more sympathy for that viewpoint if I didn't know damn well this is the same league that had no problem offering Michael Vick a job once he got out of jail. --BobBackInTex wrote:If an owner doesn't want to sign Kaepernick because of his onfield or offfield antics, it is his choice. Nothing the players union can do. Nothing they should do. If a group of owners got together and decided in a pact that none of them would, that is a different story. But just because many people come to the same conclusion doesn't constitute collusion.Bob78164 wrote:Well, no. That's the point of collective bargaining. That's why Kaepernick can bring a grievance. If an arbitrator decides that the owners colluded to decide they don't want him, particularly if it's for that reason, they're going to owe him an awful lot of money. (Just like baseball owners owed players a ton of money after an arbitrator found they'd colluded not to sign free agents.) And I'm reading that there are a lot of coaches that put in writing they think Kaepernick is still good enough, not just to play, but to be a starting quarterback, so it sounds like there's a pretty decent chance that an arbitrator may make that very finding. --Bob
Precisely. I don't recall Donny raising a fuss about those people continuing to work in the NFL or staying in the country. --BobBeebs52 wrote:Or the wife/girlfriend beaters. Free enterprise whichever way you look at it.Bob78164 wrote:I'd have a lot more sympathy for that viewpoint if I didn't know damn well this is the same league that had no problem offering Michael Vick a job once he got out of jail. --BobBackInTex wrote:
If an owner doesn't want to sign Kaepernick because of his onfield or offfield antics, it is his choice. Nothing the players union can do. Nothing they should do. If a group of owners got together and decided in a pact that none of them would, that is a different story. But just because many people come to the same conclusion doesn't constitute collusion.
Does one have to weigh in on every issue? Wish he didn't weigh on this at all. So.Bob78164 wrote:Precisely. I don't recall Donny raising a fuss about those people continuing to work in the NFL or staying in the country. --BobBeebs52 wrote:Or the wife/girlfriend beaters. Free enterprise whichever way you look at it.Bob78164 wrote:I'd have a lot more sympathy for that viewpoint if I didn't know damn well this is the same league that had no problem offering Michael Vick a job once he got out of jail. --Bob
No, but it speaks to priorities. Apparently he thinks shutting down athletes who are exercising their First Amendment rights is important enough to comment on. The other stuff, not so much. --BobBeebs52 wrote:Does one have to weigh in on every issue? Wish he didn't weigh on this at all. So.Bob78164 wrote:Precisely. I don't recall Donny raising a fuss about those people continuing to work in the NFL or staying in the country. --BobBeebs52 wrote:
Or the wife/girlfriend beaters. Free enterprise whichever way you look at it.
Nor does the nfl. Whatevs. This isn't world ending.Bob78164 wrote:No, but it speaks to priorities. Apparently he thinks shutting down athletes who are exercising their First Amendment rights is important enough to comment on. The other stuff, not so much. --BobBeebs52 wrote:Does one have to weigh in on every issue? Wish he didn't weigh on this at all. So.Bob78164 wrote:Precisely. I don't recall Donny raising a fuss about those people continuing to work in the NFL or staying in the country. --Bob
I agree the NFL doesn't come out of this looking good either. But them, I can ignore -- they don't have the power to affect my life or that of my family. That's not an option with Donny. --BobBeebs52 wrote:Nor does the nfl. Whatevs. This isn't world ending.Bob78164 wrote:No, but it speaks to priorities. Apparently he thinks shutting down athletes who are exercising their First Amendment rights is important enough to comment on. The other stuff, not so much. --BobBeebs52 wrote:
Does one have to weigh in on every issue? Wish he didn't weigh on this at all. So.
How much did you follow him before he kicked Hillary's ass?Bob78164 wrote:Precisely. I don't recall Donny raising a fuss about those people continuing to work in the NFL or staying in the country.Beebs52 wrote:Or the wife/girlfriend beaters. Free enterprise whichever way you look at it.Bob78164 wrote:I'd have a lot more sympathy for that viewpoint if I didn't know damn well this is the same league that had no problem offering Michael Vick a job once he got out of jail. --Bob
So why are you commenting on this?Bob78164 wrote:I agree the NFL doesn't come out of this looking good either. But them, I can ignore -- they don't have the power to affect my life or that of my family. That's not an option with Donny. --BobBeebs52 wrote:Nor does the nfl. Whatevs. This isn't world ending.Bob78164 wrote:No, but it speaks to priorities. Apparently he thinks shutting down athletes who are exercising their First Amendment rights is important enough to comment on. The other stuff, not so much. --Bob