Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ A1Janitor said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ dadevike said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ dadevike said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy. I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK. This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were. Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble. Shows character. (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)
Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests. CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution. The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.
The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business. But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league. He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league. He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too. Now for that he gets more criticism? Whatever.
The waiver was for any iinjuries he may have gotten during the workout. It wasnt a wipe the slate clean waiver.
FROM PFT:
The Colin Kaepernick saga has inadvertently shed light on a subject that has previously been overlooked.
The waiver presented to, and rejected by, Kaepernick prompted reports and takes suggesting that Kaepernick should have signed the waiver because it was essentially the same as the waiver that would be signed by a free agent who reports to a team facility for a normal tryout, which has yet to happen in more than 32 months of Kaepernick’s time as a free agent. PFT obtained one team’s waiver, and it was obvious that a standard tryout waiver does not attempt to secure a broad release of any and all claims directly or indirectly to the workout, as Kaepernick’s was.
It also has become obvious that different teams use different waivers. Most recently, Howard Bryant of ESPN posted the waiver used by the Bears.
In attempting to obtain these waivers, another dynamic has become obvious: The players typically sign the waivers and proceed, without even informing their agents that they were asked to sign a document limiting their legal rights.
Multiple agents told PFT this week that they weren’t even aware of the practice of players signing tryout waivers. They are now, and it raises important questions regarding the language that could be snuck into the waivers — and whether an effort should be undertaken to standardize the waivers with preapproved language that all teams use.
so according to 1 teams waiver this was excessive? I have seen multiple reports that the waiver is the same on that is given to players that attend the NFL combine, so it would be an NFL waiver and not an individual teams waiver.
either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested.
"either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested."
That is incorrect.
Here is paragraph 7 of the proposed Waiver:
"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." (Emphasis added.)
you might want to try reading that again... how could that release the NFL from anything preceding the workout as you previously suggested? its a pretty standard waiver of liability, you likely sign something like that if you were to go to certain higher risk activities and dont even read them.
anything that happened prior to the workout couldnt be related, even indirectly, to the workout.
The words are clear.
yeah, clearly not saying what he was inferring that they were saying.
Which brings us back to a shitshow, and Sticky was right.
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ A1Janitor said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ dadevike said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ dadevike said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy. I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK. This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were. Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble. Shows character. (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)
Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests. CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution. The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.
The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business. But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league. He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league. He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too. Now for that he gets more criticism? Whatever.
The waiver was for any iinjuries he may have gotten during the workout. It wasnt a wipe the slate clean waiver.
FROM PFT:
The Colin Kaepernick saga has inadvertently shed light on a subject that has previously been overlooked.
The waiver presented to, and rejected by, Kaepernick prompted reports and takes suggesting that Kaepernick should have signed the waiver because it was essentially the same as the waiver that would be signed by a free agent who reports to a team facility for a normal tryout, which has yet to happen in more than 32 months of Kaepernick’s time as a free agent. PFT obtained one team’s waiver, and it was obvious that a standard tryout waiver does not attempt to secure a broad release of any and all claims directly or indirectly to the workout, as Kaepernick’s was.
It also has become obvious that different teams use different waivers. Most recently, Howard Bryant of ESPN posted the waiver used by the Bears.
In attempting to obtain these waivers, another dynamic has become obvious: The players typically sign the waivers and proceed, without even informing their agents that they were asked to sign a document limiting their legal rights.
Multiple agents told PFT this week that they weren’t even aware of the practice of players signing tryout waivers. They are now, and it raises important questions regarding the language that could be snuck into the waivers — and whether an effort should be undertaken to standardize the waivers with preapproved language that all teams use.
so according to 1 teams waiver this was excessive? I have seen multiple reports that the waiver is the same on that is given to players that attend the NFL combine, so it would be an NFL waiver and not an individual teams waiver.
either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested.
"either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested."
That is incorrect.
Here is paragraph 7 of the proposed Waiver:
"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." (Emphasis added.)
you might want to try reading that again... how could that release the NFL from anything preceding the workout as you previously suggested? its a pretty standard waiver of liability, you likely sign something like that if you were to go to certain higher risk activities and dont even read them.
anything that happened prior to the workout couldnt be related, even indirectly, to the workout.
The words are clear.
yeah, clearly not saying what he was inferring that they were saying.
Which brings us back to a shitshow, and Sticky was right.
uhm... ok. the part about it being a shit show hasnt been refuted by anybody on any side of this issue as far as I know. this whole thing has been a shit show with a constantly changing narrative IMO. I think the biggest thing is there are many angles to view it from, there is hardly a 1 or the other thing with the whole situation.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ dadevike said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ dadevike said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy. I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK. This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were. Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble. Shows character. (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)
Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests. CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution. The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.
The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business. But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league. He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league. He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too. Now for that he gets more criticism? Whatever.
The waiver was for any iinjuries he may have gotten during the workout. It wasnt a wipe the slate clean waiver.
FROM PFT:
The Colin Kaepernick saga has inadvertently shed light on a subject that has previously been overlooked.
The waiver presented to, and rejected by, Kaepernick prompted reports and takes suggesting that Kaepernick should have signed the waiver because it was essentially the same as the waiver that would be signed by a free agent who reports to a team facility for a normal tryout, which has yet to happen in more than 32 months of Kaepernick’s time as a free agent. PFT obtained one team’s waiver, and it was obvious that a standard tryout waiver does not attempt to secure a broad release of any and all claims directly or indirectly to the workout, as Kaepernick’s was.
It also has become obvious that different teams use different waivers. Most recently, Howard Bryant of ESPN posted the waiver used by the Bears.
In attempting to obtain these waivers, another dynamic has become obvious: The players typically sign the waivers and proceed, without even informing their agents that they were asked to sign a document limiting their legal rights.
Multiple agents told PFT this week that they weren’t even aware of the practice of players signing tryout waivers. They are now, and it raises important questions regarding the language that could be snuck into the waivers — and whether an effort should be undertaken to standardize the waivers with preapproved language that all teams use.
so according to 1 teams waiver this was excessive? I have seen multiple reports that the waiver is the same on that is given to players that attend the NFL combine, so it would be an NFL waiver and not an individual teams waiver.
either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested.
"either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested."
That is incorrect.
Here is paragraph 7 of the proposed Waiver:
"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." (Emphasis added.)
you might want to try reading that again... how could that release the NFL from anything preceding the workout as you previously suggested? its a pretty standard waiver of liability, you likely sign something like that if you were to go to certain higher risk activities and dont even read them.
anything that happened prior to the workout couldnt be related, even indirectly, to the workout.
Wrong again. Where do you see that matters preceding the workout are exempted from the release? It just is not there. What preceded the workout is not only related to the workout, it it DIRECTLY related to the workout. It is the very reason he is getting a league-organized workout. Nobody else gets such a thing. It is unique to CK because of the unique matters that occurred with CK prior to the workout.
If the NFL had wanted to exempt from the release matters preceding the workout, it would have been a simple matter for the NFL's lawyers to make that clear and explicit. Instead, they required CK to release "ANY AND ALL CLAIMS ... RELATED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE WORKOUT." While CK's claims against the NFL do not ARISE out of the workout, all of his claims against the NFL are RELATED to the workout.
I have drafted hundreds of releases and waivers. What the NFL gave to CK is a very broad release. That was not by accident.
Quote: @dadevike said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ dadevike said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ dadevike said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ dadevike said:
I don't get the hatred for this guy. I'm old so I generally support young people doing their thing so long as it is not illegal. I see no reason not to support CK. This guy risked an NFL QB career to bring attention to other people at risk. He was not at risk. Others were. Whether you agree with him or not, I think that's noble. Shows character. (Hence the Nike and other endorsement deals.)
Lots of people do not like how another conducts his protest. The communist Chinese government does not like the Hong Kong protests. CK was not only not breaking the law, what he did is entirely protected under the Constitution. The negative reaction seems purely emotional/irrational, not the product of thoughtful reflection.
The NFL is a business and may have decided he was bad for business. But the owners/teams may have colluded (illegally) in keeping him out of the league. He sued. They would like him to trade a dog and pony show workout in exchange for a release of all his claims against the league. He said no - I would have counseled him to reject it, too. Now for that he gets more criticism? Whatever.
The waiver was for any iinjuries he may have gotten during the workout. It wasnt a wipe the slate clean waiver.
FROM PFT:
The Colin Kaepernick saga has inadvertently shed light on a subject that has previously been overlooked.
The waiver presented to, and rejected by, Kaepernick prompted reports and takes suggesting that Kaepernick should have signed the waiver because it was essentially the same as the waiver that would be signed by a free agent who reports to a team facility for a normal tryout, which has yet to happen in more than 32 months of Kaepernick’s time as a free agent. PFT obtained one team’s waiver, and it was obvious that a standard tryout waiver does not attempt to secure a broad release of any and all claims directly or indirectly to the workout, as Kaepernick’s was.
It also has become obvious that different teams use different waivers. Most recently, Howard Bryant of ESPN posted the waiver used by the Bears.
In attempting to obtain these waivers, another dynamic has become obvious: The players typically sign the waivers and proceed, without even informing their agents that they were asked to sign a document limiting their legal rights.
Multiple agents told PFT this week that they weren’t even aware of the practice of players signing tryout waivers. They are now, and it raises important questions regarding the language that could be snuck into the waivers — and whether an effort should be undertaken to standardize the waivers with preapproved language that all teams use.
so according to 1 teams waiver this was excessive? I have seen multiple reports that the waiver is the same on that is given to players that attend the NFL combine, so it would be an NFL waiver and not an individual teams waiver.
either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested.
"either way it was simply a waiver for injuries associated with the work out and not some broad reaching waiver of liability covering anything that had happened prior to that work out as your post suggested."
That is incorrect.
Here is paragraph 7 of the proposed Waiver:
"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." (Emphasis added.)
you might want to try reading that again... how could that release the NFL from anything preceding the workout as you previously suggested? its a pretty standard waiver of liability, you likely sign something like that if you were to go to certain higher risk activities and dont even read them.
anything that happened prior to the workout couldnt be related, even indirectly, to the workout.
Wrong again. Where do you see that matters preceding the workout are exempted from the release? It just is not there. What preceded the workout is not only related to the workout, it it DIRECTLY related to the workout. It is the very reason he is getting a league-organized workout. Nobody else gets such a thing. It is unique to CK because of the unique matters that occurred with CK prior to the workout.
If the NFL had wanted to exempt from the release matters preceding the workout, it would have been a simple matter for the NFL's lawyers to make that clear and explicit. Instead, they required CK to release "ANY AND ALL CLAIMS ... RELATED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE WORKOUT." While CK's claims against the NFL do not ARISE out of the workout, all of his claims against the NFL are RELATED to the workout.
I have drafted hundreds of releases and waivers. What the NFL gave to CK is a very broad release. That was not by accident.
OK. either way, he didnt sign it and he is still out of a job. so what difference does it make? by not signing it, what will that gain him? he already settled so his grievances are settled are they not?
are you going to quit watching the nfl because of cks protest/not playing? me either, so whats the point of the outrage over if or if not hes being black balled? this is like all those that piss and moan on twitter about how politically bent twitter is....
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
OK. either way, he didnt sign it and he is still out of a job. so what difference does it make? by not signing it, what will that gain him? he already settled so his grievances are settled are they not?
are you going to quit watching the nfl because of cks protest/not playing? me either, so whats the point of the outrage over if or if not hes being black balled? this is like all those that piss and moan on twitter about how politically bent twitter is....
That's true. But I suspect he would have been out of an NFL job whether he signed that release or not. At least this way he gets to keep whatever causes of actions he had before the workout.
As for the outrage, you got the wrong guy. I think CK got a raw deal, but I was never outraged enough to stop watching the NFL because of it. I am not that principled.
I'll just go back to where I started: I don't get the hatred for a young, idealistic guy who showed the courage of his conviction and stood up (or knelt) for the sake of his less fortunate brothers. I think history will be kind to CK.
Quote: @dadevike said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
OK. either way, he didnt sign it and he is still out of a job. so what difference does it make? by not signing it, what will that gain him? he already settled so his grievances are settled are they not?
are you going to quit watching the nfl because of cks protest/not playing? me either, so whats the point of the outrage over if or if not hes being black balled? this is like all those that piss and moan on twitter about how politically bent twitter is....
That's true. But I suspect he would have been out of an NFL job whether he signed that release or not. At least this way he gets to keep whatever causes of actions he had before the workout.
As for the outrage, you got the wrong guy. I think CK got a raw deal, but I was never outraged enough to stop watching the NFL because of it. I am not that principled.
I'll just go back to where I started: I don't get the hatred for a young, idealistic guy who showed the courage of his conviction and stood up (or knelt) for the sake of his less fortunate brothers. I think history will be kind to CK.
what causes of action would he still have available after getting his pay off?
I am with you on the outrage part, IMO he got what he deserved (he was the one that opted out of his deal in San Fran after all) but if some team had signed him... well no skin off my ass in the grand scheme of things.
as far as history... he will be out of sight and out of mind, IMO that is the reason for all this, he needed to get his name back out there to keep the story alive and the endorsement money flowing.
|
