# Kaepernick A No Show



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

He sure played the NFL, and not in a football sense.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> He sure played the NFL, and not in a football sense.


What? Hadnt heard that yet.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I am waiting to hear his reasoning. It may never be stated plainly, or truthfully.

I bet there would be some headhunters if he did quarterback an NFL team.


----------



## Micheal (Jan 28, 2009)

Didn't he "show-off" at a different stadium?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Micheal said:


> Didn't he "show-off" at a different stadium?


Right, he showed at another stadium.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

It was a closed try out, from my understanding, the NFL arranged (no press). We can't have that. Although, I am impressed with his ability to monetize his failures on the field, in a lot of respects.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

If he gets picked up it will be the Bengals and not the lions. Looks like the Lions backup is pretty good. After this stunt and that video it may bee no one at all. He pretty much called them out for seemingly no reason. He had a job as Broncos backup and turned it down three years ago. 2 other teams mad ehim offers and those he turned down too. Only Elway mentioned the Broncos one and said he shouldn't even be talking about it publicly. I think Elway was going to use him as a possible first string too. 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...n-kaepernick-had-chance-denver-broncos-passed

_"You know what, and I said this a while ago: Colin had his chance to be here. We offered him a contract. He didn't take it," Elway said. "As I said in my deposition ... he's had his chance to be here. He passed it."_

Most people forget this tidbit and consider Colin as being blackballed from the NFL but that was never the case. He has had offers but wants more money. Eventually they stop trying.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

mreynolds said:


> If he gets picked up it will be the Bengals and not the lions. Looks like the Lions backup is pretty good. After this stunt and that video it may bee no one at all. He pretty much called them out for seemingly no reason. He had a job as Broncos backup and turned it down three years ago. 2 other teams mad ehim offers and those he turned down too. Only Elway mentioned the Broncos one and said he shouldn't even be talking about it publicly. I think Elway was going to use him as a possible first string too.
> 
> https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...n-kaepernick-had-chance-denver-broncos-passed
> 
> ...


He makes more money not playing than he ever would playing. Manipulating weak minds is easier and more profitable than getting pummeled on the field of play.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

He just wants the media attention.
He's a mediocre quarterback.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Or it’s standing up for what he believes in...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or it’s standing up for what he believes in...


No, it's not that.
He could do that on his own time without lying to others.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or it’s standing up for what he believes in...


He is making quite the bank leading you to believe that. He is quite the SJW....risking nothing and making a lot of money.....wait......


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it's not that.
> He could do that on his own time without lying to others.


That is simply your opinion. Others can vary.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Hiro said:


> He is making quite the bank leading you to believe that. He is quite the SJW....risking nothing and making a lot of money.....wait......


Or he’s doing what he believes in... Wait...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> That is simply your opinion. Others can vary.


It doesn't make it less factual.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or it’s standing up for what he believes in...


He turned down 7 million a year from the Broncos. Plus incentives for doing well. He would have never had to have a lapse in play. 

I get it he is standing up for what he believes in. That is admirable even if you don't agree with it. But his not working right now doesn't have anything to do with that. Eric Reid is a safety with the Panthers and he was kneeling with Colin and has stood by him this whole time. He has never been without a job. 

Both separate issues with Colin. His not working hasn't anything to do with his kneeling except with teams like the Cowboys who we already know how Jerry Jones feels about him.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

I would reply. But, as often happens there is nothing there to reply to.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Hiro said:


> I would reply. But, as often happens there is nothing there to reply to.


It doesn’t happen often, but I agree with you.


----------



## montysky (Aug 21, 2006)

This pile of .... took a huge dump on our flag their is no walking what he did back.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

What a bonehead! If he wanted to play football in the NFL he would have approached this opportunity in a whole, different manner. What he did was just cement the fact that he will just continue to be a problem for whatever team might be desperate enough to sign him.

If he wants to stick to his guns about his "message", good for him, but he's going to pay the cost.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or it’s standing up for what he believes in...


He is the Greta Thunberg of football.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

He continues to bring about drama. I wouldn't hire him. He's shown what to expect and who needs the trouble.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

I don't agree with his protest, but he has a right to protest. He does not have a right to a job if is devisive to the point he hurts his employer's bottom line.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

He has a right to be mediocre and he has a right to his beliefs.
He's shown he's not a team kind of guy, and the NFL doesn't need any more mediocre prima donnas seeking attention.
But, if he hadn't been a narcissistic camera bunny, most people would have never heard of him.


----------



## Micheal (Jan 28, 2009)

No one interested, no offers, yesterday's blip on the news day.... the end hopefully.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

We need more compassion and understanding in this nation. Particularly when it comes to the issue of rehabilitating those within the urban poor black community. Working in jail ministry, I got to know the stories of a few black inmates from poor urban areas. It is not uncommon to have multiple immediate family members murdered and it is very uncommon for there to be a lasting father figure. And drugs everywhere. What person could grow up to be a productive member of society in such an environment? The one I do know of that is out of jail and running his own business is in my prayers each day!

That said, unfortunately, all Kaepernick did was stoke up anger and seemed to make things even worse. He could have instead, like many in the NFL, give back to the community.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Colin Kaepernick has donated well over a million dollars to charities since 2016/2017, and continues to do so.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

MichaelZ said:


> We need more compassion and understanding in this nation. Particularly when it comes to the issue of rehabilitating those within the urban poor black community. Working in jail ministry, I got to know the stories of a few black inmates from poor urban areas. It is not uncommon to have multiple immediate family members murdered and it is very uncommon for there to be a lasting father figure. And drugs everywhere. What person could grow up to be a productive member of society in such an environment? The one I do know of that is out of jail and running his own business is in my prayers each day!
> 
> That said, unfortunately, all Kaepernick did was stoke up anger and seemed to make things even worse. He could have instead, like many in the NFL, give back to the community.


Ray Lewis

https://www.thesportofphilanthropy....duals-for-careers-in-marylands-solar-industry

_Desiring to break the cycle of poverty, unemployment, under-employment and incarceration in Baltimore and other cities across the country, _


----------



## Alder (Aug 18, 2014)

A professional whiner, not a professional football player.

Bottom line...if he was any good, somebody would take a chance on him and his antics. He's not.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Colin Kaepernick has donated well over a million dollars to charities since 2016/2017, and continues to do so.


Convenient for him how everyone knows that.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Convenient for him how everyone knows that.


Even self centered wannabes need tax deductions


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Name-calling and cheap shots does not diminish the good he has done. He is working for change in a positive direction and it sure seems to bother some.


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

So the NFL sets up a workout for one player to showcase his current skill set to NFL teams and encourages team scouts to show up in unprecedented event. Then 2 hours before this workout is scheduled to start he decide to be a no show because the media is not invited. Then calls for and conducts a pretend impromptu workout at a local high school field.

Then he calls the NFL out for not being transparent, after begging and shaming the NFL into providing this event to prove himself as a viable NFL starting QB.

He is good at what he does and playing football is not it.

If he truly wanted to play football he would be playing football in CFL years ago. I bet he could have found a CFL team that would play the American national anthem prior to every game just so he could kneel and protest.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Name-calling and cheap shots does not diminish the good he has done. He is working for change in a positive direction and it sure seems to bother some.


I think it's great that he donates to causes that are dear to him but I believe that if he truly wanted a contract to play football, he could have shown scouts a bit of respect rather than changing venue and if he just wanted a bit of publicity, he could have simply called a press conference.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> I think it's great that he donates to causes that are dear to him but I believe that if he truly wanted a contract to play football, he could have shown scouts a bit of respect rather than changing venue and if he just wanted a bit of publicity, he could have simply called a press conference.


Not only that, Saturday is a very busy day during the season. Most scouts are out looking at college players. Coaches are getting ready for Sunday. That's why there are no practice on Saturday. Sunday would have been a better day for the scouts to have a look.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> I think it's great that he donates to causes that are dear to him but I believe that if he truly wanted a contract to play football, he could have shown scouts a bit of respect rather than changing venue and if he just wanted a bit of publicity, he could have simply called a press conference.


Who was really looking for publicity? It was a NFL stunt from start to finish.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Who was really looking for publicity? It was a NFL stunt from start to finish.


I'd have to say both were really looking for publicity. Do you not think so?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> I'd have to say both were really looking for publicity. Do you not think so?


The NFL started it and expected him to sign paperwork indemnify them from all future lawsuits. They were trying to pull a fast one and get publicity at the same time.


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Colin Kaepernick has donated well over a million dollars to charities since 2016/2017, and continues to do so.


 Which is basically 5% of his net worth, There is dozens of NFL players and even more throughout sports that contribute that much or more, either as total dollars, as a percentage of income or net worth.

I'm not even saying his cause it unjust, but his attempts to bring attention to his beliefs are alienating the persons he needs to convince.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> The NFL started it and expected him to sign paperwork indemnify them from all future lawsuits. They were trying to pull a fast one and get publicity at the same time.


Not what I have read. I read they wanted him to sign a waiver saying he wouldn't sue the league if a team didn't pick him up after the workout. Plus they wanted him to sign an injury waiver which is standard business. The former isn't standard business because this workout wasn't standard business. 

He wore a Kunta Kinte shirt to the workout but wasn't trying to get any publicity?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Not what I have read. I read they wanted him to sign a waiver saying he wouldn't sue the league if a team didn't pick him up after the workout. Plus they wanted him to sign an injury waiver which is standard business. The former isn't standard business because this workout wasn't standard business.
> 
> He wore a Kunta Kinte shirt to the workout but wasn't trying to get any publicity?


Have you read the language? It indemnifies any team that showed up at the workout from *ANY* future lawsuits. Those teams could say anything they want about him at any time in the future and be free from lawsuit. That was the entire purpose of this work out. They were trying to get legal documents signed. This workout was set up for that purpose. Any team at any time could have invited him to work out for them.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Have you read the language? It indemnifies any team that showed up at the workout from *ANY* future lawsuits. Those teams could say anything they want about him at any time in the future and be free from lawsuit. That was the entire purpose of this work out. They were trying to get legal documents signed. This workout was set up for that purpose. Any team at any time could have invited him to work out for them.


They have and he turned then down. Broncos offered him 7 million a year and the starter job. 

Eric Reid was the first other player to kneel with Colin. Several others followed suit. They all kept their jobs or went to other teams. This premise about him not playing solely because her kneeled is bogus. 

He had bad mouthed the NFL and other teams constantly. The only team who has spoken about him was the broncos. Elway is the only one. Where is all this talk about bad mouthing him coming from. I hear nothing but bad mouthing _*from*_ him. 

If he wants to play then let him play but he one will want him because now he is a liability. He gets into a contract and has to share a hotel room and he could very well call the coach racist because of it. No one wants they liability now after this weekend. 

He shot his ownself in the foot now. I am beginning to think it was all about a future lawsuit now. And you still didn't comment on the t shirt. Why do you think he wore that? Was it the first thing he came across in his closet? He really didn't want no publicity after all.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Poor pitiful Kapy


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> They have and he turned then down. Broncos offered him 7 million a year and the starter job.
> 
> Eric Reid was the first other player to kneel with Colin. Several others followed suit. They all kept their jobs or went to other teams. This premise about him not playing solely because her kneeled is bogus.
> 
> ...


That may all be true but it in no way makes the offered workout any less than a sham. I never said anything about him not wanting publicity.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

gilberte said:


> What a bonehead! If he wanted to play football in the NFL he would have approached this opportunity in a whole, different manner. What he did was just cement the fact that he will just continue to be a problem for whatever team might be desperate enough to sign him.
> 
> If he wants to stick to his guns about his "message", good for him, but he's going to pay the cost.



He was not being offered anything. It was a set up by the NFL showing how "fair" they are.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

flewism said:


> So the NFL sets up a workout for one player to showcase his current skill set to NFL teams and encourages team scouts to show up in unprecedented event. Then 2 hours before this workout is scheduled to start he decide to be a no show because the media is not invited. Then calls for and conducts a pretend impromptu workout at a local high school field.
> 
> Then he calls the NFL out for not being transparent, after begging and shaming the NFL into providing this event to prove himself as a viable NFL starting QB.
> 
> ...



You really believe the NFL was sincere. They set up without bothering to consult with him, in the middle of a season, the Saturday before an array of games.

Sure they were


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> That may all be true but it in no way makes the offered workout any less than a sham. I never said anything about him not wanting publicity.


Well ok then, you just never answered my question about it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

keenataz said:


> He was not being offered anything. It was a set up by the NFL showing how "fair" they are.


But the NFL had never kept him from getting a job in the first place. The same thing happened with Tebow and many said he was blackballed. For kneeling in the endzone after a touchdown. The truth is that either of them are backup material until they can prove otherwise. 

So tell me, how fair was it the NFL set up a practice for just one guy when they have never done it for anyone else? 

Not very fair if you ask me but I think my fair and your fair are 180 degrees apart.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> But the NFL had never kept him from getting a job in the first place. The same thing happened with Tebow and many said he was blackballed. For kneeling in the endzone after a touchdown. The truth is that either of them are backup material until they can prove otherwise.
> 
> So tell me, how fair was it the NFL set up a practice for just one guy when they have never done it for anyone else?
> 
> Not very fair if you ask me but I think my fair and your fair are 180 degrees apart.


It was not meant to be fair. It was a scam to get his signature on a legal document.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> It was not meant to be fair. It was a scam to get his signature on a legal document.


It was more than fair. They offered him something they have never offered anyone else. Sure they wanted the signature. He had been bad mouthing then for three years. Without and cause because they have not kept him from getting a contract. Never. Yet he still blames them for his shortcomings and foul mouth.

The video right before the workout says it all. He is bashing them and asking for a job in the next breath. How many job interviews do you do that and get a job?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I was all for him getting a contract until I saw what his real intention was. Even his ex team mates are scratching their head and trying to distance themselves.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> It was more than fair. They offered him something they have never offered anyone else. Sure they wanted the signature. He had been bad mouthing then for three years. Without and cause because they have not kept him from getting a contract. Never. Yet he still blames them for his shortcomings and foul mouth.
> 
> The video right before the workout says it all. He is bashing them and asking for a job in the next breath. How many job interviews do you do that and get a job?


Any team could have asked him to work out for them. The only purpose of this workout was to try to get his signature on a legal document. It was not fair. If it was then he would have only needed to sign the same documents that any other person attending a workout did. It was a setup perpetrated by the NFL.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Colin Kaepernick has donated well over a million dollars to charities since 2016/2017, and continues to do so.


He won't do it for long if he's unemployed.
If he'd stop being a drama queen he might be able to get a job.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

The waiver as explained by SI’s legal analyst.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/11/18/colin-kaepernick-copy-of-workout-waiver

“Which side is right? That’s an impossible question to answer when both sides see the same situation as completely different, and neither side trusts the other.”


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Name-calling and cheap shots does not diminish the good he has done. He is working for change in a positive direction and it sure seems to bother some.


That's not true at all and you know it.
It's a total mischaracterization of what some have said.

His own actions are what "diminish the good he has done".
He could have done it on his own time and no one would have complained at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> *Have you read the language?* It indemnifies any team that showed up at the workout from *ANY* future lawsuits.


Show it and we can.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

keenataz said:


> They set up without bothering to consult with him, in the middle of a season, *the Saturday before an array of games*.


It's not like he was getting ready to play, so why does that matter?


----------



## miggyb (May 2, 2015)

I am a fan of The NFL, specifically, The NY Giants. I am not a fan of CK or the "good ol'boys 'that have run the NFL since it's inception. Families like the Maras',Rooneys', Halas' have owned the teams for generations. With the exception of Jax Jags and the Bills, I don't believe there are any other persons of color who are owners.That is the state of the NFL. As discussed in another thread CK played his way to the bench and then, became socially proactive. His talking had to be done on the field, not on national tv, before a game. He received the attention he wanted, but that attention won't put you back behind center.To think he would/could change anything from that position was foolish, in my opinion. NFL has always stood for, Not For Long, if you don't produce. Fair or not, that is the way it is. There are a finite number of jobs, and 20 people waiting in line to take yours. Fair or not, that's life for the rest of us. I lack any sympathy for either side. The spoiled, once star, athlete or the plantation minded owners. The situation stinks from both ends.


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

keenataz said:


> You really believe the NFL was sincere. They set up without bothering to consult with him, in the middle of a season, the Saturday before an array of games.
> 
> Sure they were


Where to you come up with the fact that Kaepernick was not consulted prior to this event? It appears he wanted to control the event completely and wasn't allowed to. The no media allowed stance by the NFL. was the cause of him cancelling the NFL tryout.



painterswife said:


> It was not meant to be fair. It was a scam to get his signature on a legal document.


What document? The only thing he was required to sign was the liability agreement in case he injured himself during this tryout.

https://clutchpoints.com/why-colin-kaepernick-made-the-right-choice-to-move-his-workout-location/




He wants to be the rebel SJW NFL quarterback, but his skill set doesn't support giving him that much latitude.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

miggyb said:


> I am a fan of The NFL, specifically, The NY Giants. I am not a fan of CK or the "good ol'boys 'that have run the NFL since it's inception. Families like the Maras',Rooneys', Halas' have owned the teams for generations. With the exception of Jax Jags and the Bills, I don't believe there are any other persons of color who are owners.That is the state of the NFL. As discussed in another thread CK played his way to the bench and then, became socially proactive. His talking had to be done on the field, not on national tv, before a game. He received the attention he wanted, but that attention won't put you back behind center.To think he would/could change anything from that position was foolish, in my opinion. NFL has always stood for, Not For Long, if you don't produce. Fair or not, that is the way it is. There are a finite number of jobs, and 20 people waiting in line to take yours. Fair or not, that's life for the rest of us. I lack any sympathy for either side. The spoiled, once star, athlete or the plantation minded owners. The situation stinks from both ends.


Well said. Neither side is spotless.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


>


There is someone who made a sacrifice and really paid the cost.
It’s not a sacrifice, no matter how worthy the cause, if you don’t pay for it.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

he blew it


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

mreynolds said:


> But the NFL had never kept him from getting a job in the first place. The same thing happened with Tebow and many said he was blackballed. For kneeling in the endzone after a touchdown. The truth is that either of them are backup material until they can prove otherwise.
> 
> So tell me, how fair was it the NFL set up a practice for just one guy when they have never done it for anyone else?
> 
> Not very fair if you ask me but I think my fair and your fair are 180 degrees apart.



Actually I agree with you. That is why I think it was a set up by the NFL in case of another court case.If Kapernick was serious he would agree to be a back up for a team like the Bengals and then keep his head down the rest of the season, work at the job and maybe compete for starting job next year. As Dalton wiill be gone then.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Name-calling and cheap shots does not diminish the good he has done. He is working for change in a positive direction and it sure seems to bother some.


Not to make this political, but it sounds like you are talking about Trump.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Not to make this political, but it sounds like you are talking about Trump.


LOL. Thanks I needed that laugh.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> LOL. Thanks I needed that laugh.


Think about it


----------



## miggyb (May 2, 2015)

po boy said:


> he blew it


Au contraire. He was dressed like a Nike billboard, his workout was probably destined to be another Nike commercial. He won't be hurting for money, ever.But that's me. I am so sick of this. The NFL players union is weak and would rather kowtow to the owners than protect the players. The owners are just displaying their toys. The players are why we watch(those that do). The players are the product. The player's union should treat and protect them as such.I blame them for this whole charade.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Think about it


I did, I am still laughing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Not to make this political, but it sounds like you are talking about Trump.


I don't recall her ever complaining about any of those things if they are done by someone on her side.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The NFL needs Kapernick for what exactly?
Is there such an absence of mediocre talent that they would willingly expose themselves to litigation in the hopes that this guy is really a better player than he showed himself to be, several years ago?
The words "fair" and "rights" and "equal" seem to be on the porch sniffing around, and we all know how loud they like to knock.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> The NFL needs Kapernick for what exactly?
> Is there such an absence of mediocre talent that they would willingly expose themselves to litigation in the hopes that this guy is really a better player than he showed himself to be, several years ago?
> The words "fair" and "rights" and "equal" seem to be on the porch sniffing around, and we all know how loud they like to knock.


The NFL called for this work out. They wanted something because there was no other reason for it. Looks like it blew up in their faces.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Wear them on your own time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The NFL called for this work out. They wanted something because there was no other reason for it. Looks like it blew up in their faces.


Not at all.
They seem to have gotten exactly what they wanted.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> The NFL called for this work out. They wanted something because there was no other reason for it. Looks like it blew up in their faces.


Looks like Kaepernick screwed himself with his grandstanding/showing off.
He's not a team player, nobody needs him.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Looks like Kaepernick screwed himself with his grandstanding/showing off.
> He's not a team player, nobody needs him.


No one in the NFL was employing him in the first place. They could have done that without this workout. He just highlighted their scam. The NFL look like idiots again.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> No one in the NFL was employing him in the first place. They could have done that without this workout. He just highlighted their scam. The NFL look like idiots again.


He has already had three offers that he has turned down from the NFL teams. He never had to even have a day off of he accepted one of those offers.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> He has already had three offers that he has turned down from the NFL teams. He never had to even have a day off of he accepted one of those offers.


Would you like to list those offers? I read it differently.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Would you like to list those offers? I read it differently.


Broncos offered him 7 million sitting right inside John Elways living room. I think the other two were Seattle and the Panthers.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Broncos offered him 7 million sitting right inside John Elways living room. I think the other two were Seattle and the Panthers.


Yes the Broncos offered him less than he was making at the time. The other two teams did not make offers.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> No one in the NFL was employing him in the first place. They could have done that without this workout. He just highlighted their scam. The NFL look like idiots again.


They set it up, told him where to be and he didn't show up.
He wanted to show off for the cameras and prove how bad those evil old white people treat him.
Just another SJW with an ax to grind and hat in his heart.
He could be playing, but he proved that's not what he wants.
He's done.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Yes the Broncos offered him less than he was making at the time. The other two teams did not make offers.


Why would someone hire someone with that attitude/ego?
He's not even that good.
He has no team spirit, no work ethic....would you hire someone like that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> No one in the NFL was employing him in the first place. They could have done that without this workout. He just highlighted their scam. The NFL look like idiots again.


They gave him a chance to be reinstated and he blew it by playing prima donna.
He's the only one looking like an idiot.

The NFL doesn't need him at all.
Without them, he's just one more unemployed person.



painterswife said:


> Yes the Broncos offered him less than he was making at the time.


He's making nothing now.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> They set it up, told him where to be and he didn't show up.
> He wanted to show off for the cameras and prove how bad those evil old white people treat him.
> Just another SJW with an ax to grind and hat in his heart.
> He could be playing, but he proved that's not what he wants.
> He's done.





Cornhusker said:


> Why would someone hire someone with that attitude/ego?
> He's not even that good.
> He has no team spirit, no work ethic....would you hire someone like that?


It makes no difference if he should be hired or not. I don't really care. The NFL tried to pull a fast one and got caught and look like fools. They only hurt themselves.


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> No one in the NFL was employing him in the first place. They could have done that without this workout. He just highlighted their scam. The NFL look like idiots again.


 I see nobody calling the NFL idiots out there, and plenty in sports media are saying Kaepernick blew it.

So how long to you believe Nike will continue to pay Kaepernick $5 million a year if he never plays in the NFL again.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> It makes no difference if he should be hired or not. I don't really care. The NFL tried to pull a fast one and got caught and look like fools. They only hurt themselves.


How did they "hurt" themselves?
They got rid of the Kaepernick mess once and for all, and he helped them.
No more whining about not getting to play because he doesn't want to play.
Even you can see that.
Next thing you'll say the NFL doesn't hire minorities.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

flewism said:


> I see nobody calling the NFL idiots out there, and plenty in sports media are saying Kaepernick blew it.
> 
> So how long to you believe Nike will continue to pay Kaepernick $5 million a year if he never plays in the NFL again.


I don't care if they pay him now.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> How did they "hurt" themselves?
> They got rid of the Kaepernick mess once and for all, and he helped them.
> No more whining about not getting to play because he doesn't want to play.
> Even you can see that.
> Next thing you'll say the NFL doesn't hire minorities.


A fake workout to get some legal documents signed is their mess not his.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It makes no difference if he should be hired or not. I don't really care. *The NFL tried to pull a fast one* and got caught and look like fools. They only hurt themselves.


LOL
You're the only one I've heard who thinks that.



painterswife said:


> A fake workout to get some legal documents signed is their mess not his.


There was nothing "fake" about it.
The drama queen lost his chance to come back.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> It makes no difference if he should be hired or not. I don't really care. The NFL tried to pull a fast one and got caught and look like fools. They only hurt themselves.


I'm not sure if the NFL pulled a fast one or not. It's my understanding they provided the opportunity based on pressure from Jay-Z, who's company is working with the NFL and if that's the case, Kaepernick may have bit the wrong hand because Jay-Z's response to the whole thing has been pretty cool. 

Kaepernick's crew has mentioned the waiver as being unacceptable but they were also negative about no cameras, which might have had a negative impact on Nike's film crew. 

I would like to read that waiver you mentioned if you could post a link to it, I would appreciate it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Yes the Broncos offered him less than he was making at the time. The other two teams did not make offers.


Yes, let's look at the reasons why. 

The previous 5 months Kaepernick had went through 3 major surgeries for 3 different body parts.

Broncos were the super bowl winners and Manning retired. They traded for some QB (can't recall) and wanted to trade for Colin. They stated that it with be the best man won the job. Elway believed it would be Colin which is why he flew him down personally to his house. 

He was guaranteed 12 million by the 49ers but they had made it clear he want their guy. They told him to see about trades. He did. He knew he was going to be cut by SF anyway. SF wasnt going to make up the difference. He played his bluff and lost. 

It was a big gamble for Elway or any other team to offer him that much money when even one surgery can make a difference in a player. He had three in 5 months.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Yes, let's look at the reasons why.
> 
> The previous 5 months Kaepernick had went through 3 major surgeries for 3 different body parts.
> 
> ...


So you now agree. He did not get three offers as you stated. Good.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> I'm not sure if the NFL pulled a fast one or not. It's my understanding they provided the opportunity based on pressure from Jay-Z, who's company is working with the NFL and if that's the case, Kaepernick may have bit the wrong hand because Jay-Z's response to the whole thing has been pretty cool.
> 
> Kaepernick's crew has mentioned the waiver as being unacceptable but they were also negative about no cameras, which might have had a negative impact on Nike's film crew.
> 
> I would like to read that waiver you mentioned if you could post a link to it, I would appreciate it.


https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...iver-proposed-by-the-nfl-to-colin-kaepernick/

It should be noted that Jayzee is trying to become an NFL owner so his motives are also suspect in this situation. He has chosen a side.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> So you now agree. He did not get three offers as you stated. Good.


Where did I say that? Elway was the only one that said what his price was. It was said offhand in an interview when they asked him in 2018 if he would reconsider Colin. Then he said he shouldn't have said that much because they usually don't talk about price *until or if* a contract is signed. Then the agent usually tells the media what that price is. The others didn't mention specifics as most do not. 

None of what you have stated shows proof of collusion he wasn't hired because he kneeled. Neither has he. NFL paid Kaepernick and Reid an undisclosed sum of money early this year that I'm sure already had a anti- liability clause in it already. You don't settle without one. Why would they need another one this past weekend? Redundancy?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> He has chosen a side.


Just like many others.
Why would today be different?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...iver-proposed-by-the-nfl-to-colin-kaepernick/
> 
> It should be noted that Jayzee is trying to become an NFL owner so his motives are also suspect in this situation. *He has chosen a side.*


So have you.
You support the whiner who has shown himself a showboat, not an asset to any team.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> So have you.
> You support the whiner who has shown himself a showboat, not an asset to any team.


Sorry but you have that wrong. I support the truth. the truth is that the NFL tried to get some legal documents locked down with a fake workout. Kapernick should have just not signed and not do any kind of workout and then say why.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Doubt he wants to play..
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._kaepernick_doesnt_want_to_play_football.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Sorry but you have that wrong. *I support the truth.* the truth is that the NFL tried to get some legal documents locked down with a fake workout.


That's not "the truth".
That's just your opinion.
It requires ignoring the real truth that's been presented.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Sorry but you have that wrong. I support the truth. the truth is that the NFL tried to get some legal documents locked down with a fake workout. Kapernick should have just not signed and not do any kind of workout and then say why.


If he was interested in truth, he'd admit he doesn't want to play and is just trying to make himself important.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

po boy said:


> Doubt he wants to play..
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._kaepernick_doesnt_want_to_play_football.html


He knows he's second string at best, and second string doesn't get fan clubs


----------



## goodatit (May 1, 2013)

HDRider said:


> He sure played the NFL, and not in a football sense.


who?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

goodatit said:


> who?


Kaepernick 

I admit not knowing much about all this. After reading what folks wrote here on HT, sounds like JZ tried to help Kaepernick, and Kaepernick took a crap on it.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or it’s standing up for what he believes in...


You are right. And what he believes in is money. We are being played, and he is winning.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Sorry but you have that wrong. I support the truth. the truth is that the NFL tried to get some legal documents locked down with a fake workout. Kapernick should have just not signed and not do any kind of workout and then say why.


Is that truth or spin? There hasn't been sufficient information released to know what is truth. We've seen discussion of the waiver and you expressed knowledge of it's wording but when I asked you for a link, you provided me with a discussion of 3 clauses, not the full waiver so again, we lack full disclosure. 

You've dismissed anything other than Kaepernick's version of events and I would suggest that there's plenty more to the story but both sides have motive and likely all believe their version of the truth. 

We don't know if the workout wasn't part of another agreement or set up because Jay-Z wanted to add him to the Roc Nation sports division. 

He seems like he'd fit in well with the other 25 football players, their mission statement as well as their philanthropy requirements including that heavy emphasis on activism. Jay-Z has been a strong Kaepernick supporter since the beginning and you can look back and find substantial supporting evidence, including his SNL appearance wearing a Kaepernick jersey.

I would suggest neither side is nearly as innocent but I also believe that any information we're being fed is a mere fraction of the full story. The only truths we do know is that the NFL will do just fine without Kaepernick, Kaepernick is doing fine without the NFL and he still wants to play football. 

It's interesting how many people support Kaepernick and his claim he's been blackballed for his activism but give no thought to Tim Tebow's similar claims.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wr said:


> Is that truth or spin? There hasn't been sufficient information released to know what is truth. We've seen discussion of the waiver and you expressed knowledge of it's wording but when I asked you for a link, you provided me with a discussion of 3 clauses, not the full waiver so again, we lack full disclosure.
> 
> You've dismissed anything other than Kaepernick's version of events and I would suggest that there's plenty more to the story but both sides have motive and likely all believe their version of the truth.
> 
> ...


Oh what a world it would be (and HT) if everyone was as level headed as you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> Is that truth or spin? There hasn't been sufficient information released to know what is truth. We've seen discussion of the waiver and you expressed knowledge of it's wording but when I asked you for a link, you provided me with a discussion of 3 clauses, not the full waiver so again, we lack full disclosure.
> 
> You've dismissed anything other than Kaepernick's version of events and I would suggest that there's plenty more to the story but both sides have motive and likely all believe their version of the truth.
> 
> ...


I never said either side was innocent. I can see from the NFL document ( that is different than any other work out waiver) and the fact that no work out needed to be scheduled for him to get a job what the NFL was up to. I also did not speak to the subject at hand until I had educated myself on all the available facts. If you have others then I would love to read them. Until then my opinion is informed on the facts available. Jay-Z has a business relationship with the NFL not Kapernick. I am speaking only on Kapernick, not Tebow so I am not sure why you mentioned that in a response to me. It is not germane to this individual situation.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I never said either side was innocent. I can see from the NFL document ( that is different than any other work out waiver) and the fact that no work out needed to be scheduled for him to get a job what the NFL was up to. I also did not speak to the subject at hand until I had educated myself on all the available facts. If you have others then I would love to read them. Until then my opinion is informed on the facts available. Jay-Z has a business relationship with the NFL not Kapernick. I am speaking only on Kapernick, not Tebow so I am not sure why you mentioned that in a response to me. It is not germane to this individual situation.


Pointing out selective cases, and ignoring others, does have a bearing on how you might view a person, and their objectivity.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Pointing out selective cases, and ignoring others, does have a bearing on how you might view a person, and their objectivity.


We are discussing Kapernick. We are not discussing Tebow. You have no idea what my thoughts or knowledge on the Tebow situation is. You can't make an informed opinion on my opinion on Tebow because I have not discussed him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> *I never *said either side was innocent.


You've never shown anything to support your claims either.
You've certainly laid all the blame on one side.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> We are discussing Kapernick. We are not discussing Tebow. You have no idea what my thoughts or knowledge on the Tebow situation is. You can't make an informed opinion on my opinion on Tebow because I have not discussed him.


We are discussing Kaepernick, and the larger issue of hypocrisy.

Feel free to share your thoughts on Tebow, or not. I am fairly certain how you would think about Tebow, because it is almost always opposite of what I think.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> because it is almost always opposite of what I think.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Kaepernick proved one thing to everybody, trying to give him a chance is a waste of time and resources.
He doesn't want to play, close the book, turn off the cameras and let him fade into nobodyhood.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

One might say that wearing a t shirt with the image of Fidel Castro was a simple error of ignorance.
Praising said dictator might be an even larger error of ignorance.
It isn't uncommon these days when folks, some quite young even, attempt to embrace what they don't even yet comprehend.
Fame and money usually make us run quite fast if we want to keep up with the cycle of importance.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> One might say that wearing a t shirt with the image of Fidel Castro was a simple error of ignorance.
> Praising said dictator might be an even larger error of ignorance.
> It isn't uncommon these days when folks, some quite young even, attempt to embrace what they don't even yet comprehend.
> Fame and money usually make us run quite fast if we want to keep up with the cycle of importance.


The Kunta Kinte shirt was pretty much all i needed to see where his focus was at the workout.


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

What does Kunta Kinte mean?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I never said either side was innocent. I can see from the NFL document ( that is different than any other work out waiver) and the fact that no work out needed to be scheduled for him to get a job what the NFL was up to. I also did not speak to the subject at hand until I had educated myself on all the available facts. If you have others then I would love to read them. Until then my opinion is informed on the facts available. Jay-Z has a business relationship with the NFL not Kapernick. I am speaking only on Kapernick, not Tebow so I am not sure why you mentioned that in a response to me. It is not germane to this individual situation.


I don't agree that we can see that the waiver is different than any other because it has not been publicly released as an entire document and I would wonder how an NFL waiver may differ from a similar team waiver. Based on that lack of information, I would suggest that no facts are available. 

If no workout was needed then it would have been fairly simple for Kaepernick and his people to decline the offer and not have his time wasted but I read that may teams had representatives scheduled to attend, before the venue switch but we also don't know that to be fact either because both sides are offering their spin. 

Jay-Z does have a business relationship with the NFL and I did quite a bit of reasearch on his statement of that business relationship and offered a suggestion as to why that workout may have been relevant and I do think Kaepernick would be a good fit for Roc Nation sports division. 

All eyes are on Kaepernick's relationship with the NFL, interest has long since died down and there was no reason to fire it up again without a very specific reason, which I suspect lies in a contract resolving a previous settlement and both sides trying to skirt a non disclosure clause. 

I mentioned Tebow because he is another player who also very publicly indicated that he felt the league blackballed him because of his activism.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

anniew said:


> What does Kunta Kinte mean?


Kunta Kinte was a slave in the Alex Haley book, Roots.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Without starting the usual firestorm over who's sources are right or wrong, I thought the following opinion piece was interesting for a few reasons, including the average career span of an NFL player.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/colin-kaepernick-nfl-workout-jack-brewer


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

A very interesting and insightful article.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Here is an article with Eric Reid's opinion on it. The previous article seems to not even get his name right when talking about Reid.

https://blavity.com/tap-dancing-for...rnick-just-wants-to-make-noise?category1=news


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://www.newsweek.com/espn-repor...colin-kaepernick-sign-waiver-sent-nfl-1472751

"I*f Colin Kaepernick had signed the waiver sent by the NFL, it could have been considered "malpractice," ESPN writer Howard Bryant said on ESPN's First Take Tuesday.*

"When you are talking about this waiver, you are asking Colin Kaepernick to give up everything, and I think that when you go into a negotiation you are not expected to give up all your rights," Bryant said.

The waiver that Bryant is talking about has caused a large problem surrounding Kaepernick's workout with the NFL. Before his workout, the NFL sent Kaepernick a liability waiver. Instead of signing this waiver, Kaepernick and his lawyers revised and created their own waiver that they sent back to the NFL.

The NFL said that "the waiver that Kaepernick was asked to sign on Saturday is essentially the same one he'd have to sign to work out for a team during the season."

However, NBC Sports Pro Football Talk was able to obtain the waiver sent to Kaepernick and described it as being "very different," from the one that the NFL typically sends to players who work out for a team"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> "I*f Colin Kaepernick had signed the waiver sent by the NFL, it could have been considered "malpractice," ESPN writer Howard Bryant said on ESPN's First Take Tuesday.*


That's one more opinion.



painterswife said:


> However, NBC Sports Pro Football Talk was able to obtain the waiver sent to Kaepernick and described it as being "very different," from the one that the NFL typically sends to players who work out for a team"


From your source:
"*The waiver obtained by PFT from an NFL team* fits on only one page, and it focuses only on liability arising from injuries occuring while on the team’s premises and/or during the workout. The document also contains an acknowledgement of the risks and hazards of trying out for a professional football team, and an express assumption of the risk of engaging in the tryout on the team’s premises.

There’s nothing about the workout not constituting employment, and there’s no broad waiver of claims “related directly or indirectly” to the workout.

*It’s possible that other teams use waivers with broader language.* But to the extent that anyone is pushing to members of the media the idea that the waiver Kaepernick was asked to sign is essentially the same as the waiver he’d have to sign if/when a team actually gives him a workout at the team’s facility, that’s simply not the case."

I wonder why they didn't name the team and show both waivers.
Proof shown is always better than vague allegations.

You can hardly blame the teams for covering themselves against someone known to be hostile and looking for a payout.

Most of the comments on that site agree.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

It's probably an unpopular opinion and a minority one in this thread (no pun intended) to see this without blame on either side.
If Kaepernick had any desire to actually play in the NFL again, more than a million-to-one shot for any athlete, he would ave been there in a sleeping badge the night before.
His ego is way bigger than his talent, IMO.

OTOH, anyone who thinks that the NFL owners *weren't* trying to pull a fast one on him apparently thinks this was just another tryout. A whole stadium reserved for just one player and 2 dozen team reps/coaches?
Name any hall of fame great and tell me you saw it happen before, cuz I can't remember even one.
And considering the animosity and badmouthing between them, I can't think of any good reason why they would, except for the reason given. I don't understand how anyone could doubt what really happened.

He got one last shot, with a whole lot of strings attached and walked away.
His choice, now he closes that chapter of his life, for better or worse.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> Without starting the usual firestorm over who's sources are right or wrong, I thought the following opinion piece was interesting for a few reasons, including the average career span of an NFL player.
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/colin-kaepernick-nfl-workout-jack-brewer


Wow, I could have wrote that article. That's exactly how I feel about it too. I had actually forgotten about the Ray Lewis thing. He is no where near they humanitarian that Ray is. 

Never will be in opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> He got one last shot, with *a whole lot of strings attached* and walked away.


There weren't a "lot of strings attached".
The waiver was quite clear.
It wasn't a promise of employment, and he couldn't sue them if injured during the tryout.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There weren't a "lot of strings attached".
> The waiver was quite clear.
> It wasn't a promise of employment, and he couldn't sue them if injured during the tryout.



Some people posted they hadn't seen the copy of the waiver, although I saw a comparison of two on the SI link.
Would you post the waiver you're referring to?
The one I saw covered more than the tryout.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

anniew said:


> What does Kunta Kinte mean?


Famous slave in Alex Haily's Roots.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Some people posted they hadn't seen the copy of the waiver, although I saw a comparison of two on the SI link.


Links have been provided.
The waiver shown covers one specific date, November 16, 2019.



> In consideration for the opportunity to participate in *the Workout on November 16*, 2019, Player agrees to the following:


Note the capital letter: "the Workout"



farmrbrown said:


> The one I saw covered more than the tryout.


I'll believe that if and when you show it, depending on it's actual content.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Links have been provided.
> The waiver shown covers one specific date, November 16, 2019.
> 
> 
> ...


OK, you can read it here.
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...-the-waiver-the-nfl-sent-to-colin-kaepernick/

https://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/nov-16-workout-release-and-waiver.pdf

Before I hear about what the waiver says and means, because you're right, it was pretty clear to me when I read it. In fact the same phrase his lawyers warned him about, jumped off the page at me too.
But before all that starts, I'd like to know that one question that would clear this all up.
Why?
That's the only thing that doesn't make sense, if it wasn't a set up to sign away his right to litigate any future case.
Why would they offer a 2nd string QB who claimed they were all racists, his own private audition for all 32 teams ? (that's what the waiver covered, every team and and every administrator that works for them)

Surely you aren't going to say they were just in the Christmas spirit are ya?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> But before all that starts, I'd like to know that one question that would clear this all up.
> Why?


Ask them.
He wanted a chance to play.
They offered.
He blew it.



farmrbrown said:


> Surely *you aren't going to say* they were just in the Christmas spirit are ya?


If you want to know "why", contact them.

I feel no need to say anything at all.
The verifiable facts can speak for themselves.
We've seen the hearsay is worthless.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I don't know much about NFL workouts but I do know someone who asked the NHL for a redo after his enormous ego got him fired. 

He lost the ego and the chip on his shoulder, was forced to face some ugly demons publicly, started a rehab program, along with vouluntary weekly drug/alcohol testing, met and thanked those that fired him, met again with them and the NHL and made his intentions for a redo and asked for their support and requirements. 

When the big day rolled around, he was on site hours early, met everyone as they came in, provided copies of his weekly drug/alcohol tests, confirmed he remained in counselling to deal with ego, ugly demons and a record of his current stats as well as discussion on what his style of hockey and his newfound leadership skills could bring to the team. 

He got his second chance from the guys that fired him the first time but it came from taking every step very seriously and proving to the team refusal was not an option and he was very serious about his sport, his team and his community. 

I know his waiver was much different than standard because of his past history of chirping coaches, the team and the organization, he expected and got, a much lower salary than he made previously and his contract was definately non standard.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Ask them.
> He wanted a chance to play.
> They offered.
> He blew it.
> ...


The facts DO speak for themselves.
No Bearfoot, I'm asking YOU the question because you seem to think there's someone out there stupid enough to believe anything but the truth.
So, one more time, since you don't believe the NFL was setting him up with a waiver to prevent future lawsuits, *what is the real explanation?* 
Just one plausible alternative.
If you can't or won't offer anything to explain why we saw the NFL offer something we've never seen before, then those of us with logical brains will apply Occam's razor.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> I don't know much about NFL workouts but I do know someone who asked the NHL for a redo after his enormous ego got him fired.
> 
> He lost the ego and the chip on his shoulder, was forced to face some ugly demons publicly, started a rehab program, along with vouluntary weekly drug/alcohol testing, met and thanked those that fired him, met again with them and the NHL and made his intentions for a redo and asked for their support and requirements.
> 
> ...



That's a nice story and I hate to sound like someone else on here, but what does that have to do with the NFL and Kaepernick?
Kaepernick hasn't been to rehab, didn't ask for a tryout and isn't repentant about anything he's said or done.
It's almost an opposite analogy of this one.
What is another possible reason for offering this tryout, if it wasn't to trick him into dropping future lawsuits?
Do you and Bearfoot believe they offered it out of kindness, or do you think *I'm* stupid enough to believe that?

Now, before some ignoramus comes on here accusing me of _defending _ Kaepernick, let me help you out.
I think he _*should*_ have signed the waiver and tried out at the Atlanta stadium *IF* he ever wanted to play in the NFL again.
I'm not saying the decision was right org wrong, it was his to make.
What I AM saying, is don't ask me to read a contract and think I'm too stupid to know what it means.
I don't know that I would want a QB playing on my team that WAS that stupid.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Just thinking out loud here. Why would the NFL pay out a settlement 8 months ago to Colin and not already have a no sue clause in it already? Are the lawyers for the NFL that incompetent? Are Collins lawyers that awesome? 

Why, oh why, do they need another one 8 months later? Who didn't do their job? 

This isn't rocket science. A settlement of around 10 million comes with a clause that says "you got us this time but don't let the door hit you in the ass" goodbye.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> The facts DO speak for themselves.
> No Bearfoot, I'm asking YOU the question because you seem to think there's someone out there stupid enough to believe anything but the truth.
> So, one more time, since you don't believe the NFL was setting him up with a waiver to prevent future lawsuits, *what is the real explanation?*
> Just one plausible alternative.
> If you can't or won't offer anything to explain why we saw the NFL offer something we've never seen before, then those of us with logical brains will apply Occam's razor.


The real explanation is they have settled their differences earlier this year. 

For some reason they decided to give him a chance. Be it pr it Jayzee or whatever. They needed to make sure they were covered. The settlement isn't even a year old. 

Maybe even the workout was part of the settlement. No one knows what was in the settlement. Rumor was it was 10 million but we don't really know.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> No Bearfoot, *I'm asking YOU* *the question* because you seem to think there's someone out there stupid enough to believe *anything but the truth*.


I've asked you questions you won't answer.
I already know the truth you won't admit.
But that has nothing to do with this topic.



farmrbrown said:


> If you can't or won't offer anything to explain why we saw the NFL offer something we've never seen before, then those of us with logical brains will apply Occam's razor.


The fact you haven't seen it is meaningless.
"Logical brains" don't jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts.

If you won't answer my questions, I have to apply the same razor too.
I already know the truth though.



farmrbrown said:


> do you think *I'm* stupid enough to believe that?


No comment.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://sports.yahoo.com/about-3-ye...t-on-colin-kaepernicks-workout-080610370.html


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Occam's Razor:

Fact: Colin settlement was in March 2019. True fact

Settlements have a no sue clause: 90% fact

NFL set up an unprecedented workout for a former back up QB : fact

Colin wore a Kunta Kinte shirt to the workout : fact

Colin changed the venue 2 hours before making it near impossible for some scouts to see him perform. : Fact

Before the workout Colin called out the NFL for not being fair. : Fact

Conclusion: NFL is greedy and corrupt.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> https://sports.yahoo.com/about-3-ye...t-on-colin-kaepernicks-workout-080610370.html


Just another *opinion*.




> About 3 years of NFL hypocrisy was summed up in *one coach's comment* on Colin Kaepernick's workout


There are lots of others who think differently.
There are even more who don't care at all.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Why was this different that most any other tryout?
Uh, well, a unique situation and a unique individual would be my first uneducated guess.
Agents and lawyers and handlers and influencers for both athletes and teams are neither dumb enough to fall for level 101 schemes nor do they really expect their counterparts to either. Colin is no Gump and the NFL isn't Lombardi so I wouldn't look for any virtue. Just sports politico.
Now I have to go turn the compost pile.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> That's a nice story and I hate to sound like someone else on here, but what does that have to do with the NFL and Kaepernick?
> Kaepernick hasn't been to rehab, didn't ask for a tryout and isn't repentant about anything he's said or done.
> It's almost an opposite analogy of this one.
> What is another possible reason for offering this tryout, if it wasn't to trick him into dropping future lawsuits?
> ...


She was showing how a person acts when they really want a chance to come back, what it looks like when someone wants to play.

Think before you post.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> That's a nice story and I hate to sound like someone else on here, but what does that have to do with the NFL and Kaepernick?
> Kaepernick hasn't been to rehab, didn't ask for a tryout and isn't repentant about anything he's said or done.
> It's almost an opposite analogy of this one.
> What is another possible reason for offering this tryout, if it wasn't to trick him into dropping future lawsuits?
> ...


If Kaepernick truly wants a redo, he needed to show he was serious about a second chance. Perhaps his girlfriend could have stopped insutling those who intended to attend the workout and he could have offered them a bit of respect and courtesy, kinda like the player I mentioned. 

Nobody discussed your ability to read a contract, but the contract isn't available for reading so you're simply offering snippets of something someone claims is a contract.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> If Kaepernick truly wants a redo, he needed to show he was serious about a second chance. Perhaps his girlfriend could have stopped insutling those who intended to attend the workout and he could have offered them a bit of respect and courtesy, kinda like the player I mentioned.
> 
> Nobody discussed your ability to read a contract, but the contract isn't available for reading so you're simply offering snippets of something someone claims is a contract.


The waiver is available to read for those willing to seek it out. I believe it has been posted here before but if not here is a link.

https://www.theroot.com/here-s-the-waiver-colin-kaepernick-was-asked-to-sign-to-1839922238


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> She was showing how a person acts when they really want a chance to come back, what it looks like when someone wants to play.
> 
> Think before you post.


Really?
So show of hands, how many others think I'm a damn idiot?
Read MY post again.
It's as obvious as the sun in the sky that Kaepernick is an overrated has been, a spoiled brat, and doesn't really WANT a job that bad in the NFL.
I thought I made that clear in my FIRST post on this thread, but somehow I KNEW someone would think the opposite because I also view the NFL owners as a bunch of sneaky low lifes who tried to pull a fast one by adding in the clause that was referred to repeatedly.

So what we have here is a guy who doesn't want a job and employers who never intended to give him one either.
It was all BS.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> If Kaepernick truly wants a redo, he needed to show he was serious about a second chance. Perhaps his girlfriend could have stopped insutling those who intended to attend the workout and he could have offered them a bit of respect and courtesy, kinda like the player I mentioned.
> 
> Nobody discussed your ability to read a contract, but the contract isn't available for reading so you're simply offering snippets of something someone claims is a contract.


Read what I just posted to HD.
The same goes to you.

His girlfriend problem has a solution too.
Either he feels the same way (very likely) or he needs to grow a pair and deal with it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> Read what I just posted to HD.
> The same goes to you.


You seem upset.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> You seem upset.


Yeah, I get that way when people think my IQ is missing 100 points.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, I get that way when people think my IQ is missing 100 points.


No one said that, other than you

You missed the point, and became defensive. Calm down.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, I get that way when people think my IQ is missing 100 points.


No one says that at all.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, I get that way when people think my IQ is missing 100 points.


you had no problem suggesting the same of me and others.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Meanwhile, Carli Lloyd has had two offers from NFL teams.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Meanwhile, Carli Lloyd has had two offers from NFL teams.












Seriously? That is amazing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> You missed the point, and became defensive. Calm down.


I detect a pattern.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Seriously? That is amazing.


I thought so too. She says currently she is concentrating on the 2020 Olympics but after that it "could be" game on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The waiver is available to read for those willing to seek it out. *I believe it has been posted here before* but if not here is a link.


It was in the links you posted.
You should read your own sources more carefully.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> The waiver is available to read for those willing to seek it out. I believe it has been posted here before but if not here is a link.
> 
> https://www.theroot.com/here-s-the-waiver-colin-kaepernick-was-asked-to-sign-to-1839922238


maybe you posted the wrong link because I saw no actual waiver. Just discussion of claimed contents from shadowy sources. 

I’ve yet to see all clauses and subclauses and signatory lines.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> maybe you posted the wrong link because I saw no actual waiver. Just discussion of claimed contents from shadowy sources.
> 
> I’ve yet to see all clauses and subclauses and signatory lines.


Right under 

I"I were representing Kaepernick, and if the goal were to have a genuine workout aimed at enhancing his chances of being signed by an NFL team, I would have asked immediately for the document to be revised to specifically clarify that any and all potential employment rights would be preserved. If the league had refused, I wouldn’t have signed it, because the language leaves the door sufficiently ajar for a subsequent defense to a collusion/retaliation case that signing the waiver extinguished the claims.

Here is the document in full:"

It is right there or you can easily Google it as well.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Hopefully this scum is now gone and finished for good.
Worthless to any team.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Right under
> 
> I"I were representing Kaepernick, and if the goal were to have a genuine workout aimed at enhancing his chances of being signed by an NFL team, I would have asked immediately for the document to be revised to specifically clarify that any and all potential employment rights would be preserved. If the league had refused, I wouldn’t have signed it, because the language leaves the door sufficiently ajar for a subsequent defense to a collusion/retaliation case that signing the waiver extinguished the claims.
> 
> ...


It still doesn't say what you claimed earlier.
It only pertains to one specific workout.

It's very clear.

"In consideration for the opportunity to participate in *the Workout*, Player, for himself, his personal representatives, executors, administrators, heirs, successors and assigns, hereby releases, discharges, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless National Invitational Camp, Inc., National Football Scouting, Inc., the owner(s), operator(s) and manager(s) of the Facility, any and all individuals participating in or present at *the Workout*, including, without limitation,Joe Philbin, the National Football League (“NFL”)and each of its 32 NFL Member Clubs, and each of the foregoing parties’respective direct and indirect affiliates, partners, subsidiaries, agents, representatives, employees, shareholders, officers, directors, attorneys,insurers, successors and assigns(collectively, the “Released Parties”), from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, grievances, costs, losses, expenses, damages, injuries, illnesses, and losses (including death) caused by, *arising out of, occurring during, or related directly or indirectly to the Workout*, Player’s presence at the Facility, and any medical treatment or services rendered in connection with or necessitated by Player’s participation in *the Workout.*"

The waiver in full without any hype:
https://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/nov-16-workout-release-and-waiver.pdf


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It still doesn't say what you claimed earlier.
> It only pertains to one specific workout.
> 
> It's very clear.
> ...


You quoted it in bold yourself.
"related directly or *indirectly* to the workout."
The preceding phrase covered all parties of the 32 Member Clubs "direct and indirect" affiliates etc. from all suits grievances, etc.
Kaepernick had settled with the NFL union but still had the option of legal action against the owners if they HAD blackballed him, a violation of their collective bargaining agreement.

The standard waiver players sign for tryouts only includes the physical injury language not "any and all other claims"..."related directly or *indirectly*


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

He is a direct representative of the many ails in this country,...… 7 million to play a school game and people who work with the convalescent get pennies, way to get those priorities right.


Millions to play a game and some of our best hero`s get 30k a year...…..really making the world a better place.


I paraded around the tele and played with my ball while ……...never mind.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> maybe you posted the wrong link because I saw no actual waiver. Just discussion of claimed contents from shadowy sources.
> 
> I’ve yet to see all clauses and subclauses and signatory lines.


It was after "slave auction" and before "disappointed in Colin's actions".


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

It's really a big stretch to say a second string QB was blackballed at all. 

Antonio brown, arguably the best wide receiver today, currently has no job solely based on his attitude. He has apologized and may end up with a job someday. 

Myles Garrett, suspended indefinitely for hitting another player, lost his appeal today. 

What is it that makes Colin so special that he thinks the world revolves around him? Even better, why do other people think that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> The standard waiver players sign for tryouts only includes the physical injury language not "any and all other claims"..."related directly or *indirectly*


Waivers can say whatever the parties want them to say.

This one still only applies to that *one* workout. ("the workout")
He had his chance and he decided to play his game instead of football.

What is in other waivers is really irrelevant.
You've shown no evidence to support your claim, so I have no reason to think it's true.



farmrbrown said:


> The preceding phrase covered all parties of the 32 Member Clubs "direct and indirect" affiliates etc. *from all suits grievances*, etc.


Not "etc".
Only those *related* to "the workout".
You already said so:


farmrbrown said:


> You quoted it in bold yourself.
> "*related* directly or indirectly to the workout."


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Waivers can say whatever the parties want them to say.
> 
> This one still only applies to that *one* workout. ("the workout")
> He had his chance and he decided to play his game instead of football.
> ...


Not a lawyer here but I have to side with you on this one. (I have got extensive knowledge in contracts though and it looks pretty standard)


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> you had no problem suggesting the same of me and others.


No, I didn't suggest y'all were stupid, rather not admitting that this tryout wasn't legitimate instead of a ruse.
I'll admit to not thinking that, when I first heard the story. I just assumed that he blew an opportunity to play because of his ego. But when I thought about it for 5 minutes, I realized that when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Why would all 32 teams get a waiver for any claims from the workout if only 25 showed up to participate?
Doesn't that sound the least suspicious even if you didn't know about the other specific language?
Above all, I don't know anyone naive enough to believe that they would even consider hiring him after what happened before.
I don't think anyone is dumb enough to really believe that, no matter what they posted.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Waivers can say whatever the parties want them to say.
> 
> This one still only applies to that *one* workout. ("the workout")
> He had his chance and he decided to play his game instead of football.
> ...


Why do you now omit the key word "indirectly"?
Is it because you know it makes all the difference?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> No, I didn't suggest y'all were stupid, rather not admitting that this tryout wasn't legitimate instead of a ruse.
> I'll admit to not thinking that, when I first heard the story. I just assumed that he blew an opportunity to play because of his ego. But when I thought about it for 5 minutes, I realized that when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
> Why would all 32 teams get a waiver for any claims from the workout if only 25 showed up to participate?
> Doesn't that sound the least suspicious even if you didn't know about the other specific language?
> ...


FB, I do listen to your posts and respect what you say but all 32 teams didn't show up. The NFL represents all 32 teams though so they had to include every conceivable option just in case. Even a mom and pop company with a backwoods lawyer would include that basic stipulation. That's basic litigation 101. 

I agree that the NFL put the clause in to protect themselves. Colin wants to protect himself too. I get that too. But would you hire a guy (even if he was an awesome carpenter/handyman) if he began his interview with calling you a slave holder and even wore a T-shirt to put emphasis on that sentiment? 

I would guess, no you wouldn't. Neither will any of the other 2 teams.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Why do you now omit the key word "indirectly"? Is it because you know it makes all the difference?


I didn't omit anything that made any difference.
That was you:


farmrbrown said:


> The preceding phrase covered all parties of the 32 Member Clubs "direct and indirect" affiliates *etc*. from all suits grievances, *etc*.


I posted a link to all 3 pages.
The *real* "keyword" is "related".
Context matters.



farmrbrown said:


> *Why would all 32 teams get a waiver* for any claims from the workout if only 25 showed up to participate?


Because he's not trying out for any specific team regardless of who showed up that day.
He would have been trying out for eligibility in "the NFL" *as a whole*.
It's not rocket science.

(Also, it's clearly stated in the first paragraph of the waiver):
https://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/nov-16-workout-release-and-waiver.pdf


> *for purposes of Player’s consideration for prospective employment by NFL Clubs.*


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> FB, I do listen to your posts and respect what you say but all 32 teams didn't show up. The NFL represents all 32 teams though so they had to include every conceivable option just in case. Even a mom and pop company with a backwoods lawyer would include that basic stipulation. That's basic litigation 101.
> 
> I agree that the NFL put the clause in to protect themselves. Colin wants to protect himself too. I get that too. But would you hire a guy (even if he was an awesome carpenter/handyman) if he began his interview with calling you a slave holder and even wore a T-shirt to put emphasis on that sentiment?
> 
> I would guess, no you wouldn't. Neither will any of the other 2 teams.


Heck no, nobody wants a guy like that on their team, I wouldn't either. Pros are different from college but it still takes cohesion for a team to win and no team gets to the top with rifts and divisions among themselves.
I get that he believes in his cause, but as an owner or a coach, I wouldn't have much tolerance for it if it caused friction on the team. That's just business.
But I forgot to reply to you earlier when you were talking about the settlement they made and how that should have prevented any further legal actions, making that waiver null and void instead of relevant.
This explains why they could be worried about another suit.

https://larrybrownsports.com/footba...nick-camp-workout-offer-second-lawsuit/524647


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't omit anything that made any difference.
> That was you:
> 
> I posted a link to all 3 pages.
> ...


If that were true, why is the word "indirectly" in there?
Tell me what context would that word have in anything resulting "directly" from the workout?
If it makes no difference, why did it not state "directly", and leave it at that?




> Because he's not trying out for any specific team regardless of who showed up that day.
> He would have been trying out for eligibility in "the NFL" *as a whole*.
> It's not rocket science.
> 
> ...


I understand that and agree that it would be normal under any other circumstance, but as the last link I provided explains, it also conveniently protects those teams that had no intention of offering him employment, even if they were illegally colluding among themselves NOT to do it.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

mreynolds said:


> It was after "slave auction" and before "disappointed in Colin's actions".


Crap, I lost interest around 'slave auction'. Did you make it far enough to find out if the coaches are allowed to beat the slaves after the auction?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *If *that were true, why is the word "indirectly" in there?


It's standard "legal-speak".
There's also no "if it's true".
It's clearly stated.



farmrbrown said:


> Tell me what context would that word have in anything resulting "directly" from the workout?


If he was to get hurt and *someone else* had to spend money to take care of him, that would be an "indirect loss".



farmrbrown said:


> as the last link I provided explains


That's someone's opinion combined with a ton of speculation.
It doesn't change the actual wording of the waiver.

That is the only binding "contract".

What some third party thinks about it is sports trivia, which coincidentally is how the person in your link makes a living.



farmrbrown said:


> it also conveniently protects those teams that had no intention of offering him employment, *even if they were illegally colluding* among themselves NOT to do it.


Not if he could prove they were doing that, since it wouldn't be *related* *to the Workout*, directly nor indirectly.

You just keep repeating the same lines, thinking the waiver will be different *this* time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *If it makes no difference*, why did it not state "directly", and leave it at that?


No one said it "makes no difference".
I said context matters and "related" was the real keyword.
All the words "make a difference".
None of them make it a conspiracy.

You often paraphrase things to argue against when you're the only one who actually used those words. It's the pattern thing again.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's standard "legal-speak".
> There's also no "if it's true".
> It's clearly stated.
> 
> ...


Nope, THAT was covered in the part earlier in the waiver.


> his personal representatives, executors, administrators, heirs, successors and assigns, hereby releases, discharges, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless National Invitational Camp, Inc., National Football Scouting, Inc., the owner(s), operator(s) and manager(s) of the Facility, any and all individuals participating in or present at *the Workout*






> That's someone's opinion combined with a ton of speculation.
> It doesn't change the actual wording of the waiver.
> 
> That is the only binding "contract".
> ...


Not just sports commentators, but his lawyers also had the same opinion.
And if you read it closely, you would have seen how the words used in section 2 relate to this "workout" and any future claims of proving that.


> 2.
> Player
> acknowledges
> that
> ...


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> Crap, I lost interest around 'slave auction'. Did you make it far enough to find out if the coaches are allowed to beat the slaves after the auction?


Apparently they beat Colin 11.9 million times a year last time he was a slave. Makes you wonder why he wants to go back to it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Nope, THAT was covered in the part earlier in the waiver.


Then I guess you will have to ask them to see precisely what they meant.
It really makes no difference to me.



farmrbrown said:


> Not just sports commentators, but* his lawyers* also had the same *opinion*.


Of course they do. 
They bill by the hour.



farmrbrown said:


> And *if you read it closely*, you would have seen how the words used in section 2 relate to this "workout" and any future claims of proving that.


If you read it closely, you would have seen all your claims are meaningless.
The waiver still only applies to "the workout". 

Repeating it won't change it, and it passed boring a couple of pages back.
I'm getting off this merry-go-round.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then I guess you will have to ask them to see precisely what they meant.
> It really makes no difference to me.
> 
> 
> ...


Yep.
No amount of logic will change or even open a mind that's never wrong.
Fortunately he has lawyers who can read and understand what was being asked of him to sign.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> No amount of logic will change or even open a mind that's never wrong.
> Fortunately he has lawyers who can read and understand what was being asked of him to sign.


All you can do is provide the facts. You can't make them look at them with an open mind. This thread is a perfect example of many forming an opinion when they had not even read the actual contract.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

None of you guys are lawyers and even if you were we are tired of all the bs back and forth.

Kaepernick has left the stadium


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> No amount of logic will change or even open a mind that's never wrong.
> Fortunately he has lawyers who can read and understand what was being asked of him to sign.


I can't take your word for that without verification.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> No amount of logic will change or even open a mind that's never wrong.
> Fortunately he has lawyers who can read and understand what was being asked of him to sign.


I've heard mention a few times that Nike was interested in filming the workout and kept thinking another commercial was in the works but I didn't realize his signature shoes will be hitting shelves in early December. 

Could it possibly be that the whole workout/waiver debate was nothing more than a brilliant marketing scheme to put Kaepernick in the news and generate interest in those expensive athletic shoes?

Given the amount of public sympathy, I would suggest that waiver is going to make Nike a lot of money.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Ya know, that's a good possibility.
In today's world it doesn't make a difference how good or bad everyone thinks you are, it's all about the money.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> All you can do is provide the facts. You can't make them look at them with an open mind. This thread is a perfect example of many *forming an opinion when they had not even read the actual contract*.


LOL
Scroll back through to see who actually did that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> In today's world it doesn't make a difference how good or bad everyone *thinks* you are


What matters is how you really are.
Evidence doesn't lie.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Ya know, that's a good possibility.
> In today's world it doesn't make a difference how good or bad everyone thinks you are, it's all about the money.


I really don't have any belief that the NFL or Kaepernick are good or bad people but there have been a few points that have left me with questions.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What matters is how you really are.
> Evidence doesn't lie.


That's true.
What puzzles me the most is, as I alluded to and with many examples in the news to choose from, that no matter what the evidence shows people will STILL think whatever they want about you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> no matter what the evidence shows people will STILL think whatever they want about you.


I think most go with the evidence that can be confirmed.

Opinions about evidence isn't always the same as what it really shows.

Denial of facts don't change them.
The truth comes out once you see the patterns repeated over time.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I think most go with the evidence that can be confirmed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The last 3 sentences are true.
The 1st sentence goes against everything we see today. I think MOST people DON'T go with the evidence, whether confirmed or not.
If not most it is certainly a LARGE portion of society.
Ex: How many Democrats watched the evidence presented this week and still have the same opinion?
What percentage of the population is that?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> The last 3 sentences are true.
> The 1st sentence goes against everything we see today. I think MOST people DON'T go with the evidence, whether confirmed or not.
> If not most it is certainly a LARGE portion of society.
> Ex: How many Democrats watched the evidence presented this week and still have the same opinion?
> What percentage of the population is that?


I think that it's gotten to the point where many people have a healthy mistrust for the evidence presented by the media and the media picks the narrative. 

The media thrives on political or celebrity news and this would be the perfect example. According to the media, one of the best players in the history of football, has been blackballed by an organization of bad white men for his social conscience. 

The media needs front page news and like any other event of their chosing, they threw as many details, factual or not on the front page and if you look at the opinions presented here, some took that 'evidence' and concluded that the NFL tried to pull a fast one, some felt Kaepernick remains blackballed, regardless of his level of skill, some, like myself felt that Jay-Z may have facilitated the workout and others believed he'd sold out and gone corporate. 

How many have watched this all play out and even when presented with facts, still follow the media evidence?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Ex: How many Democrats watched the evidence presented this week and still have the same opinion?


There was very little *real* evidence presented.
There was lots of innuendo and hearsay and lots of Democrats trying to run a con game.

Honest people will go with the credible and verifiable evidence.
They may not be a majority.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> I think that it's gotten to the point where many people have a healthy mistrust for the evidence presented by the media and the media picks the narrative.
> 
> The media thrives on political or celebrity news and this would be the perfect example. According to the media, one of the best players in the history of football, has been blackballed by an organization of bad white men for his social conscience.
> 
> ...


I don't know, but I agree with what you're saying.
But I was referring to how hard it is for people to change their opinion or consider doing so, despite anything they see or hear that is credible or verified.
I seldom watch football anymore, but I think I can still spot good talent when I see it. I wasn't impressed with Kaepernick's talent and apparently neither were any head coaches in the NFL either, because he wasn't starting at QB when he left.
Besides that, talent isn't everything, it takes something more intangible to lead a team, especially a championship one. But that "something" is what every great QB has and Kaepernick is missing.

You know, you were talking about Tebow earlier, I guess in comparison because of his onfield "displays" and claiming he was blackballed too.
I did follow Tebow at U of F (can't help it, I'm a Gator) and while he had a stellar run as an amateur, an obvious love of the game, decent talent and that "something" that leads a team to championship play, I wondered if he would actually make it in the NFL. He was big and tough enough to run the ball and scramble in the NCAA, but that won't get you far in the Pro's.
And sure enough, he washed out.
But I confess that I never heard him say he was blackballed though. The league DID pass a rule about public displays that the media called "the Tebow rule" and referred to it as "kneebowing".
I even did a google search and found nothing.
What did you see that I didn't?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> The league DID pass a rule about public displays that the media called "the Tebow rule" and referred to it as "kneebowing".
> I even *did a google search and found nothing*.
> What did you see that I didn't?


https://www.bing.com/search?q="the+...-16&sk=&cvid=79C4528E14B14620845480EAB97C2B37

http://madeira.hccanet.org/project1_2010/ksmithp1/smithkp1/media2.html

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/346014-tim-tebow-rule-the-ncaa-bans-eye-black-messages


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> https://www.bing.com/search?q="the+Tebow+rule"&qs=n&form=CHRDEF&pc=U316&sp=-1&pq="the+tebow+rule"&sc=2-16&sk=&cvid=79C4528E14B14620845480EAB97C2B37
> 
> http://madeira.hccanet.org/project1_2010/ksmithp1/smithkp1/media2.html
> 
> https://bleacherreport.com/articles/346014-tim-tebow-rule-the-ncaa-bans-eye-black-messages


That was known, but not what I asked wr about...



> But I confess that I never heard him say he was blackballed though.





wr said:


> I mentioned Tebow because he is another player who also very publicly indicated that he felt the league blackballed him because of his activism.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> That was known, but not what I asked wr about...


I dont know if he himself said it but, like Colin, the media was all over it. 

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--...t-like-following--media-frenzy-054940389.html


_"He seems like a great guy to have on a team, and I'd be tempted to bring him in as our backup," one NFC head coach told me Wednesday. "But it's just not worth dealing with all the stuff that comes with it._"


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> I dont know if he himself said it but, like Colin, the media was all over it.
> 
> https://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--...t-like-following--media-frenzy-054940389.html
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting that, even if it wasn't from Tebow, I hadn't heard that from the media either since I don't pay attention to the NFL and very little to college football anymore.
I just figured he didn't cut the mustard in the pros.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> I dont know if he himself said it but, like Colin, the media was all over it.
> 
> https://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--...t-like-following--media-frenzy-054940389.html
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting that, even if it wasn't from Tebow, I hadn't heard that from the media either since I don't pay attention to the NFL and very little to college football anymore.
I just figured he didn't cut the mustard in the pros.
His sacks, fumbles and throwing accuracy seemed to be reason enough for me.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> Thanks for posting that, even if it wasn't from Tebow, I hadn't heard that from the media either since I don't pay attention to the NFL and very little to college football anymore.
> I just figured he didn't cut the mustard in the pros.


Like Colin, he would be a great backup. Really good insurance. 

Another QB that washed out from injuries is Teddy Bridgewater. He has been quietly backing up Drew Brees for a few years now. After Drew went down this year he came in and won every game he started in. He wont be a backup next year I will bet 100 dollars. This could have been Colin or Tim except for the drama surrounding them. Some of the drama was deserved and some of it not but drama nonetheless.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Some of the drama was deserved and some of it not but drama nonetheless.


Epstein didn't kill himself but Kaepernick sure did............


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Redskins sign receiver Jordan Veasy, who was part of Colin Kaepernick's workout 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...aepernicks-workout/ar-BBXNvZ7?ocid=spartanntp

_The Washington Redskins signed wide receiver Jordan Veasy to their practice squad Wednesday, and Veasy told the Washington Post he doesn't believe he'd have a job without that workout._


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Redskins sign receiver Jordan Veasy, who was part of Colin Kaepernick's workout
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...aepernicks-workout/ar-BBXNvZ7?ocid=spartanntp
> 
> _The Washington Redskins signed wide receiver Jordan Veasy to their practice squad Wednesday, and Veasy told the Washington Post he doesn't believe he'd have a job without that workout._


That is, I don't even have a word for it.

Someone help me out, what is a good word to describe the insult to Kaep with this news.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> That is, I don't even have a word for it.
> 
> Someone help me out, what is a good word to describe the insult to Kaep with this news.


In my best Dr Phil voice

"How does that make you feel?"


Colin will not get a job because he pretty much called every owner a slave owner and the NFL the "Plantation". I really don't think he wanted a job, I think he just wanted more media time.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

No insult to Kapernick. He chose who he worked out with to give them a chance as well. Not even the same position.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Redskins sign receiver Jordan Veasy, who was part of Colin Kaepernick's workout


At least something good came from it all.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> In my best Dr Phil voice
> 
> "How does that make you feel?"
> 
> ...


I respect what he did and the sacrifice he made to draw attention to his cause. But I certainly don’t blame any owner for not hiring him at this point given his continuing showboating and insulting behavior.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-injury-plagued-Lions-sign-11th-QB-year.html


> *Colin Kaepernick is passed over again as the injury-plagued Detroit Lions sign their ELEVENTH quarterback of the year instead of going with the controversial free agent*
> 
> *The Lions have become the latest injury-plagued team to pass on controversial free agent QB Colin Kaepernick in spite of an urgent need at the position*
> *Rather than adding Kaepernick, who has not played since the 2016 NFL season, Detroit opted to sign Kyle Sloter off of the Arizona Cardinals' practice squad*
> *Sloter is the 11th quarterback to be signed by the Lions this year after injuries to longtime starter Matthew Stafford (back) and backup Jeff Driskel (hamstring)*


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Lisa in WA said:


> I respect what he did and the sacrifice he made to draw attention to his cause. But I certainly don’t blame any owner for not hiring him at this point given his continuing showboating and insulting behavior.


Oh, I respect his cause too. But if he really wanted to further that cause he would have been better to do without the name calling. It makes him just as bad as those he seems to criticize constantly. That's why I don't think he is a good face for the cause. 

Just my Nickle.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...d-injury-plagued-Lions-sign-11th-QB-year.html


The lions wanted him too until he called them slave owners. No business based on PR wants that kind of negative attention.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> The lions wanted him too until he called them slave owners.


Some never seem to learn when they should stop talking and be happy with what they have.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Not even the same position.


"Unemployed" isn't really a "position".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> I respect what he did and the sacrifice he made to draw attention to his cause. But I certainly don’t blame any owner for not hiring him at this point given his continuing showboating and insulting behavior.


What was his cause?


----------



## CKelly78z (Jul 16, 2017)

HDRider said:


> What was his cause?


Boosting his own persona/media presence by not standing for the national anthem, because of racism/civil rights aggressions.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> What was his cause?


It started as racial inequalities and turned into a flame war. I don't think he really knows what is fighting for.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> It started as racial inequalities and turned into a flame war. I don't think he really knows what is fighting for.


What does he have against Betsy Ross?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> What does he have against Betsy Ross?


It's not the flag really that he is protesting.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> It's not the flag really that he is protesting.


Why?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

mreynolds said:


> In my best Dr Phil voice
> 
> "How does that make you feel?"
> 
> ...


Controversy might not get you a job playing ball but it does sell shoes and jerseys, which does generate a pretty decent living.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Why?


I know you're trying to get at something here but I don't understand the "why" question. 

My opinion of that Colin did way back when is I thought it was the wrong place and wrong time. But it's not my choice to tell someone how, what and when to protest. I didn't have an issue with it like many others did. I just didn't agree with the venue. 

Where he ripped it with me is instead of sticking to the issue at hand he is all about "me" instead. He called out Ray Lewis as a house slave and Ray has his actual boots and money on the ground and has for over a decade. For Colin's very same cause. 

So I don't know why.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I know you're trying to get at something here but I don't understand the "why" question.
> 
> My opinion of that Colin did way back when is I thought it was the wrong place and wrong time. But it's not my choice to tell someone how, what and when to protest. I didn't have an issue with it like many others did. I just didn't agree with the venue.
> 
> ...


Me either


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

https://babylonbee.com/about



> Gardener In Background Of Kaepernick Video Receives Call From Washington Redskins











"U.S.—A gardener visible in several shots of Colin Kaepernick's workout video has been signed as a lineman by the Washington Redskins.

After noticing the man's speed, raw strength, and dedication, the Redskins signed the gardener as an offensive lineman."
https://babylonbee.com/news/gardene...7rBzlikFpKO52Hs5g6gnNR5d-SiiGyCbaPP6EfacsVZpY


----------

