NFL UK Forums - View Single Post - 2019 season (continuing to update)
View Single Post
Old 16.02.2019, 10:24 PM
RichardCunliffe's Avatar
RichardCunliffe RichardCunliffe is offline
Hall of Fame
Join Date: 13.09.2006
Posts: 18,297

Originally Posted by European Bob View Post
Not obviously at all. Often you just pay someone to get rid of them. Whatever they paid him won't represent anything except the value of getting rid of the lawsuit, is my guess. Bad publicity, management time taken by it rumbling on, the ongoing cost of lawyers to represent you, airing dirty linen in public (even if you win there may be bad things that come out or confidential things you don't want out there in public). An amount offered may factor in how much you are potentially on the hook for if you lost in court, but often it does not, especially if you are very confident of winning. Certainly in the area of litigation I personally work in, the sad reality is that it is almost always better business to pay someone off who doesn't deserve it than it is to fight and win. The only times where that isn't true is where the person suing you is in cloud cuckoo land with their financial demands. You may chose to fight it just to prove a point, but it's actually a victory that comes with a metaphorical punch in the stomach. And Kaepernick obviously wasn't in cloud cuckoo land.

None of us knows the details, but I personally think Kaepernick would have had a very hard time winning this in court. Not unless there was an absolutely smoking gun of an email out there somewhere saying "right, so we're all agreed - nobody hire this guy". If the NFL owners were colluding, they'd have to be pretty stupid to leave such a paper trail, especially as there are people with the financial means to get access to, you'd think, some pretty good lawyers who would have warned them about paper trails long before any discussions ever took place. The whole don't sign them argument falls flat with Reid anyway - because someone signed him. Then offered him a 3-year deal at the end of it for a lot of money. That drug testing claim he made really damaged his credibility as a claimant, I think. As for Kaepernick, he obviously hasn't signed, but his lawsuit is about collusion. And 31 front offices all independently deciding they don't want to go there is not collusion. Collusion requires a concerted effort to sideline him. I don't believe that ever existed. What we do have though is a league where talent has always needed to outweigh distraction to get you a job, a largely conservative ownership group and - I'd be inclined to guess - a largely conservative fan base as well. Ownership, independent of each other, decided they did not want to go there. Ironically, I can think of one team that almost certainly would not have been put off by Kaepernick. A liberal fanbase, with a liberal ownership and a young, open-minded head coach. The San Francisco 49ers. The team who signed Richard Sherman, fellow vocal protestor, last year. Too bad Kaepernick voided his deal with them and walked out. I'm also certain that if another front office thought they could get a net-net advantage over other teams by signing Kaepernick then they would not hesitate.
Thanks for going into more detail on this EB, especially as it's clear you know a lot more about this than I do.

I think if I'd used the word 'feared' not 'found, it would have been a more accurate version of my point of view. Both sides can claim a victory of one form or another, and I understand why a league worth billions would find it easier to just pay off and move on, but to the general public it still looks like a 'win' for CK. Imo.

As you say, we don't (and won't) know the details, and the NFL will be hopeful everyone can now finally move on, so I can see the 'win' from their perspective.
Reply With Quote