Eric Reid thread

Originally posted by jdt84_2:

Because screaming racism is reasoned and thought out.

And then saying, i do not want to watch this protest(for various reasons) is somehow racist.

And then being mad that the people stopped watching. enough so, the NFL and networks noticed. So they stopped promoting it and encouraged it to end.

The NFL is a private entity, a sort of board of directors set up, It is run by the owners. 31 teams are a private company(GB is kind of funky), who have to follow rules mandated by the NFL. Other than those, they can set up any rule they want that does not violate the law. And requiring an employee to stand for the anthem( minus being physically unable to) does not violate the law.

The yankees no goatee/beard rule does not violate the law.
Various minor league uniform rules are not against the law.

Originally posted by jdt84_2:

Because screaming racism is reasoned and thought out.

And then saying, i do not want to watch this protest(for various reasons) is somehow racist.

And then being mad that the people stopped watching. enough so, the NFL and networks noticed. So they stopped promoting it and encouraged it to end.

The NFL is a private entity, a sort of board of directors set up, It is run by the owners. 31 teams are a private company(GB is kind of funky), who have to follow rules mandated by the NFL. Other than those, they can set up any rule they want that does not violate the law. And requiring an employee to stand for the anthem( minus being physically unable to) does not violate the law.

The yankees no goatee/beard rule does not violate the law.
Various minor league uniform rules are not against the law.

That is all you wanted to hear, they laid out similarities of the reactions of the nation to peaceful protest historically, and drew inferences to this situation.

If there was a survey now on protests in the 60's I'm sure it would be high in favour.

Regarding the teams conduct policy, they are within their rights as employers to make it a condition of employment, however it's dangerous territory when you single passionate people out, those people have decided to take a stand.

I don't know what the outcome will be, but I'll bet the approval rating will be much higher in 30 years.

Originally posted by jdt84_2:

Really, looking up at the big screen. boom there is kaep kneeling. Watching on TV, all kaep kneeling.

Watching highlights, 5 minute clip with 2 minutes of kneeling, for EVERY game. A 1 hour sportscenter showed 15 minutes of players taking a knee, EVERY WEEK.

If i wanted political talk, i would go to the young turks, bill maher, peterson, shapiro, crowder. NOT sportscenter, nfl network, Fox sports 1, cbs sports.

It is the opposite when i want sports coverage.

Yet here you are on a message board having political talk

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

That is all you wanted to hear, they laid out similarities of the reactions of the nation to peaceful protest historically, and drew inferences to this situation.

If there was a survey now on protests in the 60's I'm sure it would be high in favour.

Regarding the teams conduct policy, they are within their rights as employers to make it a condition of employment, however it's dangerous territory when you single passionate people out, those people have decided to take a stand.

I don't know what the outcome will be, but I'll bet the approval rating will be much higher in 30 years.

The 2nd sentence of afrikan's 3rd post is (paraphrasing) you do not agree with me bevause you are racists. And that is not all i wanted to see, i responded to that post while ignoring that comment. I responded to your post pointing out his reasoned point, with the racism point. (Wow insert cartmans mom with the wha wha what?)

Then woo came out and layed out those comparisons. And i agree with them.

But no one in here is racist BECAUSE they say "he made his bed, now he can lay in it." A very common phrase.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

Yet here you are on a message board having political talk

Sadly, yes. But i am choosing it(sort of) i was in the othrr thread following his FA progress, when i was called a racist.

And i wont put him on ignore, i actually have no one on ignore. I save it for pure trolls, but they usually get banned pretty quick so i dont bother.

Originally posted by jdt84_2:

The 2nd sentence of afrikan's 3rd post is (paraphrasing) you do not agree with me bevause you are racists. And that is not all i wanted to see, i responded to that post while ignoring that comment. I responded to your post pointing out his reasoned point, with the racism point. (Wow insert cartmans mom with the wha wha what?)

Then woo came out and layed out those comparisons. And i agree with them.

But no one in here is racist BECAUSE they say "he made his bed, now he can lay in it." A very common phrase.

I agree 100% that those statements do not make people racist. However something you should know if you aren't racist.

It's no longer socially acceptable to be racist, so white people who harbour those thoughts but don't want to be socially unacceptable will find other ways to express their racist views.

Black people are used to this and pick things up, it isn't always what is said or written, but the context of it.

If you or anyone else reading this aren't racist, they should think strongly about how their comments or actions can be perceived, or even how they really feel about an issue.

I say again, how can a peaceful protest spark this much outcry?

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

I agree 100% that those statements do not make people racist. However something you should know if you aren't racist.

It's no longer socially acceptable to be racist, so white people who harbour those thoughts but don't want to be socially unacceptable will find other ways to express their racist views.

Black people are used to this and pick things up, it isn't always what is said or written, but the context of it.

If you or anyone else reading this aren't racist, they should think strongly about how their comments or actions can be perceived, or even how they really feel about an issue.

I say again, how can a peaceful protest spark this much outcry?

So i should not speak the truth because it might hurt someones feelings?

I have supported eric reid, i would still love him to land on a team. Even if he continues to kneel.

But the start of all of this, was from a guy who came off as just lazy and disgruntled with his team status. Who wore pig socks and called a mass murderer a great leader. After mocking a city devasted by a storm. And that locker room is family(right?) So why do you show up at a team party with one of your "brothers" ex girlfriend?

And i have no issue if a team signs kaep, i am not actively rooting against him. But in the first 2 weeks he failed at setting the narrative, and then regularly failed to put his foot in his mouth soon enough.

So sadly the 1st person to start tge protest, is also the one that opened it most to being torpedoed.

Originally posted by jdt84_2:

So i should not speak the truth because it might hurt someones feelings?

I have supported eric reid, i would still love him to land on a team. Even if he continues to kneel.

But the start of all of this, was from a guy who came off as just lazy and disgruntled with his team status. Who wore pig socks and called a mass murderer a great leader. After mocking a city devasted by a storm. And that locker room is family(right?) So why do you show up at a team party with one of your "brothers" ex girlfriend?

And i have no issue if a team signs kaep, i am not actively rooting against him.

No, you can say whatever you want, just don't be surprised if people perceive that you're racist.

I middle fingered post reply too soon.i was hoping to get that edit in.

And i have no issue if a team signs kaep, i am not actively rooting against him. But in the first 2 weeks he failed at setting the narrative, and then regularly failed to put his foot in his mouth soon enough.

So sadly the 1st person to start tge protest, is also the one that opened it most to being torpedoed.

Originally posted by 49erBigMac:

No, you can say whatever you want, just don't be surprised when people perceive that you're racist.

That is fine, just dont make it the only rebuttal. It doesnt hurt my feelings, but it is one of the ways to try and silence one side.

I am sorry this went a ways off the main topic, but for civility.

Originally posted by jdt84_2:

I middle fingered post reply too soon.i was hoping to get that edit in.

And i have no issue if a team signs kaep, i am not actively rooting against him. But in the first 2 weeks he failed at setting the narrative, and then regularly failed to put his foot in his mouth soon enough.

So sadly the 1st person to start tge protest, is also the one that opened it most to being torpedoed.


That is fine, just dont make it the only rebuttal. It doesnt hurt my feelings, but it is one of the ways to try and silence one side.

I am sorry this went a ways off the main topic, but for civility.

I get it, look you seem like one of the many thousands angry about the manner of protest rather than the cause it represents, the big problem with that is then the cause gets undermined.

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

The manner of the protest has been snuffed out by the NFL throwing money at the players coalition, and the owners not employing those stepping outside of that.

The cause it represents is more important than the manner of the protest and people need to think hard about where they stand.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

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.

Both Reid and Kaepernicks case is flimsy at best. Unless there is a specific email or something in writing saying that they specifically targeted Kaepernick and Reid and specifically agreed to harm them *specifically* - they won't win the case.

Without hard evidence, such as an email or text message between at least two NFL owners or a team and the league, Kaepernick faces an almost impossible legal challenge here.

"Kaepernick has a really tough road to hoe to make this case out. Really tough," said Elkins, who has exclusively represented management throughout his career. "Unless he comes up with some smoking-gun email or text message, which isn't going to exist because these owners are smart people, it's going to be very tough."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/colin-kaepernick-collusion-grievance-mistake-legal-expert-article-1.3566647

Originally posted by Giedi:

Both Reid and Kaepernicks case is flimsy at best. Unless there is a specific email or something in writing saying that they specifically targeted Kaepernick and Reid and specifically agreed to harm them *specifically* - they won't win the case.

Without hard evidence, such as an email or text message between at least two NFL owners or a team and the league, Kaepernick faces an almost impossible legal challenge here.

"Kaepernick has a really tough road to hoe to make this case out. Really tough," said Elkins, who has exclusively represented management throughout his career. "Unless he comes up with some smoking-gun email or text message, which isn't going to exist because these owners are smart people, it's going to be very tough."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/colin-kaepernick-collusion-grievance-mistake-legal-expert-article-1.3566647

Yep, best case scenario would be a whistleblower stepping forward similar to Donald Sterling situation.

Even though, Kap and Eric Attorney can still subpoena documents, which owners would definitely not like and will object to and it will be up to to the Judge to decide.

Lawsuit seems early... shouldn't he have at least waited until midway through the season?

I think he would have gotten signed during the preseason by some team.

Just my thought.

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:
Lawsuit seems early... shouldn't he have at least waited until midway through the season?

I think he would have gotten signed during the preseason by some team.

Just my thought.

That's why this move is so dumb. Preseason hasn't even started

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:

Lawsuit seems early... shouldn't he have at least waited until midway through the season?

I think he would have gotten signed during the preseason by some team.

Just my thought.

That's why this move is so dumb. Preseason hasn't even started

As so many have correctly pointed out, the fact he remains unsigned, or how long for is irrelevant, this case only gets proved by intercepted communications or whistle blowing.

It was already obvious that he was being frozen out, they now have to prove it was by collusion.

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by HomerJ:

Originally posted by Afrikan:

As it has been said many times..

Racism disguised as Patriotism.

What are most of these same vocal fans doing when the National Anthem is being played, the ones in line getting food....in the Bathroom....what are the fans at home doing?

Are they standing? If they can't see it on TV do they play a Youtube of it? Or play a song..and then Stand before each football game?

While some of these vocal fans are being hypocrites...Kap and Eric Reid are kneeling (a sign of respect)...facing the toward the flag.

It's time to hold the guy in an employee uniform, on company time, cashing a nice paycheck, to a different standard than someone at home off the clock.

+1. We pay our money to see a football game not a political demonstration. Save that kind of stuff for their own time not mine.

The kneeling happened pre-game.