Eric Reid thread

Let's try this again, without attacking others.

State your views and/or counterpoints and keep it as such.

Thanks!

You're welcome!

Cant sue for collusion when even the 49ers offered him a deal that he refused.

Originally posted by VaBeachNiner:
Cant sue for collusion when even the 49ers offered him a deal that he refused.

if two or more owners had a discussion/agreement about not signing him because of his protest, I believe that is enough proof of collusion.

Originally posted by Afrikan:

Originally posted by VaBeachNiner:

Cant sue for collusion when even the 49ers offered him a deal that he refused.

if two or more owners had a discussion/agreement about not signing him because of his protest, I believe that is enough proof of collusion.

Correct:

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/05/02/eric-reid-nfl-collusion-grievance

Reid's grievance will track the one filed by Kaepernick last year, which means that Reid's grievance must comport with the requirements of Article 17 of the collective bargaining agreement signed by the NFL and the NFLPA. Article 17 concerns acts of collusion that occurred within the previous 90 days. For Reid, then, the act or acts of collusion against him must have taken place sometime between the start of February and today.

Collusion is a technical term. It requires at least two NFL teams, or the NFL and at least one team, having conspired to deny a player of a collectively bargained right. As with Kaepernick, Reid's grievance concerns his right to sign with an NFL team.

In order to prove collusion Reid must show, by a clear preponderance of evidence, that there was an agreement or formal understanding between at least two teams, or the NFL and at least one team, to not sign him.



A recently published New York Times transcript of an October 2017 meeting between a group of NFL owners, league officials and players—including Reid—will likely play a key role in Reid's grievance. I analyzed the legal impact of the meeting's transcript on Kaepernick's collusion grievance in a The MMQB article published last Wednesday. The meeting featured several owners expressing worry that Kaepernick's actions had angered President Donald Trump and caused the president to lash out against the league. Owners are understandably worried that Trump, who advocates for tax law changes that would financially disadvantage some owners, would pursue a policy agenda that harms the league. If owners' concerns about Trump made them more inclined to collude against Kaepernick, then the same logic could hold true in regards to Reid.

So this guy decides to protest on employee time.

Then he posts on social media about how he knows his actions could affect his NFL career and he is good with it.

Then he posts complaints on social media about not getting any offers and he is being blackballed..

Then it comes to light that SF in fact offered him a contract that he turned down..

Then he has a visit with Cincy and denies to follow the rules that are requested by this potential employer. Leaves without a contract.

Then he files a lawsuit against the NFL because no-one will give him a job???

what a joke.

Originally posted by Afrikan:

Originally posted by VaBeachNiner:

Cant sue for collusion when even the 49ers offered him a deal that he refused.

if two or more owners had a discussion/agreement about not signing him because of his protest, I believe that is enough proof of collusion.

That is all hearsay. You cannot prove any two owners had a discussion and any agreement to not sign Reid. 30 teams did not want to offer him a contract because he is a mediocre linebacker/safety and there are other safeties BETTER than him that still have not been signed.

Originally posted by Eli_23:

Originally posted by Afrikan:

Originally posted by VaBeachNiner:

Cant sue for collusion when even the 49ers offered him a deal that he refused.

if two or more owners had a discussion/agreement about not signing him because of his protest, I believe that is enough proof of collusion.

That is all hearsay. You cannot prove any two owners had a discussion and any agreement to not sign Reid. 30 teams did not want to offer him a contract because he is a mediocre linebacker/safety and there are other safeties BETTER than him that still have not been signed.

Sure you could prove it. It would require an email, text message, voice mail, transcript, a witness or something of that sort.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Sure you could prove it. It would require an email, text message, voice mail, transcript, a witness or something of that sort.

Absolutely correct, and the claim is supported by two separate teams having the same conversation with another player.

Unfortunately it is all just blowing smoke unless they find a judge brave enough to probe communications of the owners.

Originally posted by HomerJ:

So this guy decides to protest on employee time.

Then he posts on social media about how he knows his actions could affect his NFL career and he is good with it.

Then he posts complaints on social media about not getting any offers and he is being blackballed..

Then it comes to light that SF in fact offered him a contract that he turned down..

Then he has a visit with Cincy and denies to follow the rules that are requested by this potential employer. Leaves without a contract.

Then he files a lawsuit against the NFL because no-one will give him a job???

what a joke.

It's a joke that the very owner of a team who have employed numerous felons approaches him, asks if he's going to stop protesting, doesn't like the answer and nixxes the deal.

It's a bigger joke that people think that is ok.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by HomerJ:
So this guy decides to protest on employee time.

Then he posts on social media about how he knows his actions could affect his NFL career and he is good with it.

Then he posts complaints on social media about not getting any offers and he is being blackballed..

Then it comes to light that SF in fact offered him a contract that he turned down..

Then he has a visit with Cincy and denies to follow the rules that are requested by this potential employer. Leaves without a contract.

Then he files a lawsuit against the NFL because no-one will give him a job???

what a joke.

It's a joke that the very owner of a team who have employed numerous felons approaches him, asks if he's going to stop protesting, doesn't like the answer and nixxes the deal.

It's a bigger joke that people think that is ok.

did those felons say they are not going to stop ?

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Sure you could prove it. It would require an email, text message, voice mail, transcript, a witness or something of that sort.

Absolutely correct, and the claim is supported by two separate teams having the same conversation with another player.

Unfortunately it is all just blowing smoke unless they find a judge brave enough to probe communications of the owners.

just because some owners have the same views doesn't mean they colluded

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Sure you could prove it. It would require an email, text message, voice mail, transcript, a witness or something of that sort.

Absolutely correct, and the claim is supported by two separate teams having the same conversation with another player.

Unfortunately it is all just blowing smoke unless they find a judge brave enough to probe communications of the owners.

just because some owners have the same views doesn't mean they colluded

Of course it doesn't, as I said you would need a judge brave enough to order a communications probe.

I think the issue is big enough for it, unfortunately the targets have too much power and influence, so we'll probably never know.

Maybe they'll be an anonymous whistle blower!

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Sure you could prove it. It would require an email, text message, voice mail, transcript, a witness or something of that sort.

Absolutely correct, and the claim is supported by two separate teams having the same conversation with another player.

Unfortunately it is all just blowing smoke unless they find a judge brave enough to probe communications of the owners.

just because some owners have the same views doesn't mean they colluded

Of course it doesn't, as I said you would need a judge brave enough to order a communications probe.

I think the issue is big enough for it, unfortunately the targets have too much power and influence, so we'll probably never know.

Maybe they'll be an anonymous whistle blower!

whistle blower.. or comm probe for Owners and coaches views that a back up QB will be more distraction then anything ?

Should Dez Bryant get on this collusion suit also ?

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Originally posted by HomerJ:
So this guy decides to protest on employee time.

Then he posts on social media about how he knows his actions could affect his NFL career and he is good with it.

Then he posts complaints on social media about not getting any offers and he is being blackballed..

Then it comes to light that SF in fact offered him a contract that he turned down..

Then he has a visit with Cincy and denies to follow the rules that are requested by this potential employer. Leaves without a contract.

Then he files a lawsuit against the NFL because no-one will give him a job???

what a joke.

It's a joke that the very owner of a team who have employed numerous felons approaches him, asks if he's going to stop protesting, doesn't like the answer and nixxes the deal.

It's a bigger joke that people think that is ok.

The owners only care about making money and winning super bowls.. Not pissing off their fan base. Why don't you hold Reid accountable for his situation? He isn't bigger than any team.