- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Serious question about this kapernick thing (however u spell his name)
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:13 pm
I don't know much about the NFL, so go easy on my question.
So obviously the NFL isn't racist, as 70 percent of the players are black.
So my question is: Is there anything legally wrong with the owners just coming out and saying him "we don't like his attitude etc, so we don't want to hire him to play on our teams". Can't they just flat out say the precise reason they don't want to hire him?
Just like hiring for an office- if someone you interview has a reputation of being a pain to work with or a trouble maker, you don't HAVE to hire them no matter how skilled they are. Is that not the case with the NFL?
Another question- is he a pain in the behind in general in other facets of life? Just curious if he's annoying in all things like most SJWs seem to be.
So obviously the NFL isn't racist, as 70 percent of the players are black.
So my question is: Is there anything legally wrong with the owners just coming out and saying him "we don't like his attitude etc, so we don't want to hire him to play on our teams". Can't they just flat out say the precise reason they don't want to hire him?
Just like hiring for an office- if someone you interview has a reputation of being a pain to work with or a trouble maker, you don't HAVE to hire them no matter how skilled they are. Is that not the case with the NFL?
Another question- is he a pain in the behind in general in other facets of life? Just curious if he's annoying in all things like most SJWs seem to be.
16
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:16 pm to berrycajun
I can only answer your 2nd question. He wasn't thought of negatively before all the SJW stuff. He'd also probably have a starting job in Miami this year if it wasn't for the Castro stuff.
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:19 pm to berrycajun
quote:
So my question is: Is there anything legally wrong with the owners just coming out and saying him "we don't like his attitude etc, so we don't want to hire him to play on our teams". Can't they just flat out say the precise reason they don't want to hire him?
I'm certainly no lawyer, but if all the owners got together and colluded to keep him out of the NFL, he probably would have a case?
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:22 pm to berrycajun
Ar one point a few years ago Mike Greenberg, host of a very popular talk show on ESPN radio, actually said this (I SWEAR I am not making this up): "I have seen the future, and his name is Colin Kaepernick".
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:40 pm to berrycajun
Chris Jackson had Kaepernick beat. But, unlike the NFL, the NBA fined him for not standing during the anthem. Of couse, that was a while back and I'm sure they wouldn't do it now.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:42 pm to Revelator
Again, I literally don't know anything about the NFL (I'm female and only watch LSU and my son play)
Do you really think they all got together and decided this? Or individually have they each decided that he's too much of a nuisance and there are other players almost as good for less money that they'd rather hire? NFL fans want to watch football. Maybe the owners each decided his drama wasn't worth it. Or maybe the owners each take personal offense to his disrespecting the anthem. But I find it hard to believe there's not one lefty SJW owner. Is there not one that would want to hire him?
Do you really think they all got together and decided this? Or individually have they each decided that he's too much of a nuisance and there are other players almost as good for less money that they'd rather hire? NFL fans want to watch football. Maybe the owners each decided his drama wasn't worth it. Or maybe the owners each take personal offense to his disrespecting the anthem. But I find it hard to believe there's not one lefty SJW owner. Is there not one that would want to hire him?
This post was edited on 8/25/17 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:43 pm to berrycajun
why would they want to keep him out?
he's brought a huge amount of attention to the nfl.
just look how many times the nfl has been mentioned when an article appears about him...there's no such thing as free bad publicity.
he's making the owners bank.
he's brought a huge amount of attention to the nfl.
just look how many times the nfl has been mentioned when an article appears about him...there's no such thing as free bad publicity.
he's making the owners bank.
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:47 pm to mahdragonz
I thought Many stopped watching NFL games because of him. There is such a thing as bad publicity when it leads to "boycotting"
Personally, if I were an owner, I would not hire anyone being disrespectful during the anthem. It sets a bad example to young boys watching and it would flat out just infuriate me every game and I wouldn't want to deal with it.
Personally, if I were an owner, I would not hire anyone being disrespectful during the anthem. It sets a bad example to young boys watching and it would flat out just infuriate me every game and I wouldn't want to deal with it.
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:49 pm to mahdragonz
Right
Where do you people come from?
Where do you people come from?
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:49 pm to berrycajun
quote:
Do you really think they all got together and decided this?
No I do not. I think Kaepernick is a marginal player and the owners, individually think he isn't worth the meda circus that would follow if they hired him. And let's be honest, most of the owners are older white men who think things like not standing for the anthem is very disgraceful.
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:49 pm to berrycajun
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/5/21 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:51 pm to berrycajun
quote:
I thought Many stopped watching NFL games because of him. There is such a thing as bad publicity when it leads to "boycotting"
If this were hurting the NFL, you can bet your sweet pigskin they would have put out libel or defamation lawsuits to the outlets who were reporting on kaepernick.
the would make a case it was hurting their brand.
they haven't.
there is no actual boycott happening.
Posted on 8/25/17 at 8:53 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
there is no actual boycott happening.
I don't believe this
Posted on 8/25/17 at 9:00 pm to berrycajun
quote:
So my question is: Is there anything legally wrong with the owners just coming out and saying him "we don't like his attitude etc, so we don't want to hire him to play on our teams". Can't they just flat out say the precise reason they don't want to hire him?
I am sure they could. But it would just create a shite storm. They are being smart by staying out of it, at least by not taking any public stand One way or the other.
Posted on 8/25/17 at 9:03 pm to berrycajun
quote:
So obviously the NFL isn't racist, as 70 percent of the players are black.
wait wut? you saying that none of that 70% racist?
Posted on 8/25/17 at 9:08 pm to graychef
Interesting. That's a very good point. They hired other "sitters"
Posted on 8/25/17 at 9:09 pm to BamaFinland
I'm saying the protesters saying kapernick not being hired is because he's black is BS. 70 percent of the players hired are black.
(I don't think that 70 percent hiring spells racism towards whites either- blacks are USUALLY better at most football positions so it makes sense that it's 70/30)
(I don't think that 70 percent hiring spells racism towards whites either- blacks are USUALLY better at most football positions so it makes sense that it's 70/30)
This post was edited on 8/25/17 at 9:12 pm
Posted on 8/25/17 at 9:13 pm to mahdragonz
I'm pretty sure I heard reports the viewers had dropped significantly several months ago
Posted on 8/25/17 at 9:15 pm to berrycajun
The NFL is a private business (more or less). If the owners feel that the players, their employees, don't uphold an image that they want to promote, they have every right to not hire them/renew their contracts. The NFL is a job. If the players don't fit what the teams are looking for, they don't get a job.
And yes, he is much more of a pain in the arse than what he's worth. He doesn't bring enough talent to the league to be taken on as a QB. Too much controversial media attention to take on a QB that doesn't bring in good QB skills. However, if the NFL comes out and says they won't sign him because of his beliefs, they will face serious backlash. But, they don't have to sign him to still be able to respect his opinions.
And yes, he is much more of a pain in the arse than what he's worth. He doesn't bring enough talent to the league to be taken on as a QB. Too much controversial media attention to take on a QB that doesn't bring in good QB skills. However, if the NFL comes out and says they won't sign him because of his beliefs, they will face serious backlash. But, they don't have to sign him to still be able to respect his opinions.
Posted on 8/25/17 at 9:18 pm to berrycajun
I've seen all of this scrolled along the bottom of the ESPN coverage of Little League World Series. They've pretty much concluded, they don't want him on their teams and added that aside from that, he wasn't good enough to make it.
This doesn't mean he has no talent, but for whatever reason he just hasn't been able to stay with the herd.
This doesn't mean he has no talent, but for whatever reason he just hasn't been able to stay with the herd.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News