NFL vs Colin K settled

[Myles]

23 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

Then why doesn't that apply to the owners/GMs?  If politics have no place in the workplace, then shouldn't the owners and GMs ignore his politics and sign him regardless?  Furthermore, he didn't "swindle" the league.  He was treated unfairly and discriminated against, so the league had to compensate him for their own wrongdoing. 

 

 

No he wasn't.     He just thought that there were not consequences to actions.  

[lollygagger8]

 

 

 

What a joke. 

[aaron11]

23 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

 He was treated unfairly and discriminated against, so the league had to compensate him for their own wrongdoing. 

 

who gets away with protesting at work, in uniform, while in front of paying customers against the owners wishes?

 

he was not treated unfairly, he brought this on him self.  the sad thing is this is an important issue that he might have gotten the league behind if he went through the right channels.  he was lazy and took the easy route 

 

there is no guarantee at all he would have won in court either.  lawyers have said it was far from a slam dunk.  the league just wanted this to be over

[Valpo2004]

On 2/16/2019 at 7:19 PM, crazycolt1 said:

Businesses do it everyday. It's cheaper just to settle than to pay lawyers millions of dollars to take it through the court system.

 

Not to the tune of 60 to 80 million dollars.  

 

I'm sorry if that is the settlement amount that means that there was something there that the NFL realized they couldn't win.  

 

Lawsuits are expensive but not 60 million expensive.  

[aaron11]

2 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Not to the tune of 60 to 80 million dollars.  

 

 

is there an actual source on this amount?  

[crazycolt1]

8 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Not to the tune of 60 to 80 million dollars.  

 

I'm sorry if that is the settlement amount that means that there was something there that the NFL realized they couldn't win.  

 

Lawsuits are expensive but not 60 million expensive.  

For one thing there has been no confirmation on what the settlement was so this is all speculation.

 

7 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

is there an actual source on this amount?  

No.

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Myles said:

No he wasn't.     He just thought that there were not consequences to actions.  

Personally I don't think this whole thing started as a protest. I think he was sitting and pouting over being benched. Then all of a sudden this come up and he ran with it.

[DaveA1102]

1 hour ago, aaron11 said:

who gets away with protesting at work, in uniform, while in front of paying customers against the owners wishes?

 

he was not treated unfairly, he brought this on him self.  the sad thing is this is an important issue that he might have gotten the league behind if he went through the right channels.  he was lazy and took the easy route 

 

there is no guarantee at all he would have won in court either.  lawyers have said it was far from a slam dunk.  the league just wanted this to be over

 

Just to be clear, this was not a settlement in relation to the actions of kneeling and protesting.

 

This was a settlement on the collusion between NFL franchises to not sign him.  This does not mean all teams colluded, just that at least two did.

 

Before anyone launches into hearsay about him swindling money when he couldn't get a job, etc. just worth noting that, per a couple of articles I have read, collusion is *extremely* difficult to prove in law and so it can only be assumed there was at least some evidence of this. 

 

Also important to note how much the NFL hates settling cases, especially of this level.

 

Finally, the main point is that we will never know the truth as all parties signed a confidentiality agreement.  I have tried to put what we can assume based on the facts in this post, but obviously there is also a bit of conjecture here.

[Goatface Killah]

2 hours ago, aaron11 said:

who gets away with protesting at work, in uniform, while in front of paying customers against the owners wishes?

 

he was not treated unfairly, he brought this on him self.  the sad thing is this is an important issue that he might have gotten the league behind if he went through the right channels.  he was lazy and took the easy route 

 

there is no guarantee at all he would have won in court either.  lawyers have said it was far from a slam dunk.  the league just wanted this to be over

This is such a false equivilency.

 

He is forced to stand for the national anthem at work. There are not many jobs that do that.

 

You cant force that on someone and not give them a choice to participate.

 

And that is why he got the money. The NFL brought politics into the work place, not Colin Kaepernick.

[aaron11]

10 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

You cant force that on someone and not give them a choice to participate.

actually they can.  he doesnt have to work there if he doesnt like it

 

the nba has had an anthem policy for a long time now

[Goatface Killah]

19 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

actually they can.  he doesnt have to work there if he doesnt like it

 

the nba has had an anthem policy for a long time now

No youre wrong, because he is a union employee, and as I know because I am also a union employee, those right to work rules dont apply to him.

 

And he is apart of a very powerful union. 

 

The NBA anthem policy was bargained in negotiations. The NFLs was not.

 

 

[DaveA1102]

A really interesting read from Peter King, if a bit lengthy, but gives good perspective:

 

There is far more we don’t know about the Colin Kaepernick/NFL/collusion settlement than we know, because the terms of the deal announced Friday are confidential and have not leaked. So it’s wrong to knock Kaepernick for caving, because we don’t know what his options were; if he and his counsel felt they faced a certain loss in the case to be heard by arbitrator Stephen Burbank, why just take the loss without dinging the NFL? It’s wrong to assume the NFL felt it was going to lose the case and thus settled; if that were the case, why would Kaepernick have taken a deal?

 

I know three things that influence my opinion of the case:

 

• One: When the depositions given by NFL people in the case were complete, those inside the league felt confident that nothing was said by a league executive or employee that could be deemed damaging enough to prove the case that two or more teams colluded to limit Kaepernick’s NFL employment. Very confident. Maybe that’s right; maybe it isn’t. Now, in the time between the end of the depositions and now, could some attorney have told Roger Goodell or his top legal lieutenant, Jeff Pash, that they might have liability with something in one or more of the depositions? I don’t know that. But the big reason why so many who covered this story were surprised was because they didn’t see it coming—that’s how confident the NFL was in its case.

• Two: The NFL is coming off a strong season, with no mega-controversies (till the woefully handled missed pass-interference call in the NFC title game, with the league office’s clumsy attempt to bury it by ignoring it for 10 days) and an uptick in TV ratings and an influx of new stars like surprising young MVP Patrick Mahomes, Baker Mayfield and Saquon Barkley. The Bears and Rams and Chargers lifted dormant or down markets. Concussions were down a significant 23 percent year over year, giving hope that the game can be made safer. Roger Goodell mostly stayed out of sight during 2018, which turned out to be a pretty good strategy—fans didn’t have the commissioner on whom to focus their anger. With all that giving the NFL momentum this offseason, it’s probably a smart investment for the league to make the Kaepernick problem go away.

• Three: This comes from an excellent summation of the legality of the settlement from the University of New Hampshire’s associate dean of the School of Law, Michael McCann, writing for Sports Illustrated: “The loser of Burbank’s award could have challenged it in federal court, thereby creating public records with detailed information about the grievance. The NFL has long tried to avoid the discovery process and disclosure of any discovery.” Smart. So even if the NFL were to win the arbitration, Kaepernick could have appealed, and attorney Mark Geragos could have filed to force an appeals court to open up the NFL’s depositions.

 

In the end, if you’re talking a just way for this to end and you believe (as I do) that Kaepernick is likely to never play in the NFL again, he deserves a multi-million-dollar settlement, if that’s what he got. He did exacerbate what was a dicey situation already with his own actions, once wearing socks with pigs dressed as police officers. There were times when critics saw him as more interested in being a victim than a football player. Regardless, he didn’t deserve to be shunned by 32 teams.

 

I’ll always think Kaepernick hasn’t found NFL employment in 25 months because of business reasons, not football ones. I believe some teams have had interest in signing Kaepernick as a backup quarterback who may have been able to work his way into the starting job—on some teams—when the noise died down. But interested coaches and GMs with some franchises would have had to battle the business side of the organization and possibly the owner to get the deal done. That wouldn’t have to happen in a place like New England. If Bill Belichick wanted Kaepernick, I’ve got to think owner Robert Kraft would agree to let him make that move. (Maybe that’s why that rumor got some legs over the weekend, though I couldn’t find any confirmation of any interest by New England in Kaepernick.)

 

In the end, this became about more than whether Kaepernick’s free-wheeling style of play would fit a particular offense. It became about business, and whether Kaepernick would have indelibly affected the bottom line over the football product.

 

In my opinion, those issues are more specious than real, but I’m not the one running a team. It’s an unfulfilling end to the Kaepernick/NFL saga, if this is it. But we don’t get to choose the end that seems most satisfying or fair.

[aaron11]

15 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

No youre wrong, because he is a union employee, and as I know because I am also a union employee, those right to work rules dont apply to him.

 

And he is apart of a very powerful union. 

 

The NBA anthem policy was bargained in negotiations. The NFLs was not.

 

 

 

he had the option to stay in the locker room during the anthem.  he didnt choose that though, he chose to steal the spotlight against the leagues wishes

 

they definitely do not have to allow players to protest on camera with no way to stop them 

[Goatface Killah]

59 minutes ago, DaveA1102 said:

 

Just to be clear, this was not a settlement in relation to the actions of kneeling and protesting.

 

This was a settlement on the collusion between NFL franchises to not sign him.  This does not mean all teams colluded, just that at least two did.

 

Before anyone launches into hearsay about him swindling money when he couldn't get a job, etc. just worth noting that, per a couple of articles I have read, collusion is *extremely* difficult to prove in law and so it can only be assumed there was at least some evidence of this. 

 

Also important to note how much the NFL hates settling cases, especially of this level.

 

Finally, the main point is that we will never know the truth as all parties signed a confidentiality agreement.  I have tried to put what we can assume based on the facts in this post, but obviously there is also a bit of conjecture here.

Im just amazed at the amount of people who honestly have no clue what they are talking about and still speak on this.

 

If anything they said were true, Kap gets nothing and that is the end of it.

 

Just now, aaron11 said:

 

he had the option to stay in the locker room during the anthem.  he didnt choose that though, he chose to steal the spotlight against the leagues wishes

 

But he doesnt have to.

 

There are no rules against what he did. Without fans whining about it, the NFL doesnt do a thing to him. The backlash forced it. And they just got punished for circumventing the process of collective bargaining.

 

You can paint this as Colin breaking some rule, but he absolutely didnt, the NFL did. And the NFL knows this.

 

That why they settled.

[aaron11]

10 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

Im just amazed at the amount of people who honestly have no clue what they are talking about and still speak on this.

 

If anything they said were true, Kap gets nothing and that is the end of it.

 

 

But he doesnt have to.

 

There are no rules against what he did. Without fans whining about it, the NFL doesnt do a thing to him. The backlash forced it. And they just got punished for circumventing the process of collective bargaining.

 

You can paint this as Colin breaking some rule, but he absolutely didnt, the NFL did. And the NFL knows this.

 

That why they settled.

 

what did the league do to him exactly?  he wasnt a good qb and was going to be cut,  he actually asked for his own release

 

i have not seen any proof of collusion, if there was then he has a legit complaint.  otherwise he got what he asked for, which was to be released.  maybe 32 teams decided on their own they didnt want him

[Goatface Killah]

1 minute ago, aaron11 said:

 

what did the league do to him exactly?  he wasnt a good qb and was going to be cut,  he actually asked for his own release

 

i have not seen any proof of collusion 

 

That is whats called an opinion. 

 

He obviously has some proof of collusion, which is a violation of his rights, not only as a human being, but as a union employee who is protected under a contract.

 

If he had no proof, as you claim, the NFL doesnt give away all this money.

 

Its that simple.

 

If you were honest, you would just admit that it is all about his political views. I dont think he is a great QB either, but he has started a championship game which makes him better than the majority of QBs with a roster spot right now.

 

 

[aaron11]

5 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

 

If he had no proof, as you claim, the NFL doesnt give away all this money.

i dont agree with that.  they had the money to make it go away so they did

 

i also dont think he got 10s of millions either

[Goatface Killah]

Just now, aaron11 said:

i dont agree with that.  they had the money to make it go away so they did

 

i also dont think he got 10s of millions either

 

They would never do that because it sets a precedent for the future. This opens doors to future lawsuits and only strengthens the union. For comparison, my employer fights the UAW on everything for that reason.

 

And idk what he got, but it was a substantial amount of money, I can assure you of that, because it is gonna be based on his potential earnings. Blake Bortles (who is a good comparison for Kaep) made a % ton of money last year. That number isnt surprising to me at all.

[jvan1973]

43 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i dont agree with that.  they had the money to make it go away so they did

 

i also dont think he got 10s of millions either

They certainly didn't make it go away.   They settled on an issue that is extremely difficult to prove.  They had some evidence the NFL didn't want the public to know

[Lucky Colts Fan]

50 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i dont agree with that.  they had the money to make it go away so they did

 

I disagree.  It doesn't matter how rich you are.  If you are innocent, you don't settle just to "make it go away".

 

And if you have the money, you fight it tooth-and-nail to preserve your image.

 

Unless the court proceedings becoming public would damage your image more than the speculation we now have due to the settlement.

[Myles]

I think the NFL just settled for pennies to try to end this.  

Kaep got shots with Denver, Seattle and Baltimore, but he blew each one.  

 

If there was evidence of collusion, he would have continued with his suit.    My guess is that the only evidence was something like an owner saying that he does not want the circus that Kaep would bring.   Perhaps another owner agreed.

 

Kaep brought this on himself.  

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Just now, Myles said:

Kaep brought this on himself.

 

True.

 

The American Flag and National Anthem aren't the symbols of police misconduct.

 

Kap and the other kneelers have a legitimate point about police misconduct, but went about raising awareness and affecting change in the wrong way.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

1 hour ago, GoatBeard said:

 

If you were honest, you would just admit that it is all about his political views.

 

This isn't about his political views and it never has been. There are other players in the NFL who hold views similar to Kap's. I agree with some of his political views on social injustice. The problem they had with Kap is how he expressed his views and not the view itself. The way he chose to express his views was viewed as offensive to many of the NFL's customers and it affected the bottom line. It is not about politics at all. It's about MONEY! The NFL can make more money without Kap playing than it can with him playing and because of that he doesn't have a job. 

[Myles]

18 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

True.

 

The American Flag and National Anthem aren't the symbols of police misconduct.

 

Kap and the other kneelers have a legitimate point about police misconduct, but went about raising awareness and affecting change in the wrong way.

For me, it was kind of meh until he decided to make a veterans day celebration about himself.   They had veterans from many wars being honored.   We all know that most veterans have deep respect for the flag.   Many had friends and family brought home in a box covered with the flag.   Kaep should have taken this day off.  

Then of course his socks which depicted police as pigs.   That word is nearly as offensive to police officers as the "N" word is to black people.   Bad move by Kaep.

There was also his Castro shirt.   Very hateful towards Cuban Americans.  

Let's not forget the company he keeps.   His girlfriend calling the Ravens owner a slave owner.

 

If I'm an owner, group those things together, and there is no way I sign him to be a part of my team.   Kaep showed too much lack of character.

[NFLfan]

49 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

They certainly didn't make it go away.   They settled on an issue that is extremely difficult to prove.  They had some evidence the NFL didn't want the public to know

 

Exactly.

 

Btw, I read that Kaepernick is still trying to play in the NFL. His lawyer said that he thinks the Panthers would be interested. Eric Reid was part of that suit. Reid he was just re-signed by the Panthers. 

[Valpo2004]

33 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

True.

 

The American Flag and National Anthem aren't the symbols of police misconduct.

 

Kap and the other kneelers have a legitimate point about police misconduct, but went about raising awareness and affecting change in the wrong way.

 

Yes because no one ever used the national anthem to make a point about the way African Americans are treated in this country.

 

[crazycolt1]

42 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I disagree.  It doesn't matter how rich you are.  If you are innocent, you don't settle just to "make it go away".

 

And if you have the money, you fight it tooth-and-nail to preserve your image.

 

Unless the court proceedings becoming public would damage your image more than the speculation we now have due to the settlement.

Money being paid to make things go away happens everyday in the business world.

It happens in the courts systems too.

The thing with lawsuits is it is the lawyers who get paid the most. The longer things get stretched out the more money the lawyers make. Settling a lawsuit where the details on the settlement is a secret is a legal way to pay the people off thus making it go away.

 

[crazycolt1]

19 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

Yes because no one ever used the national anthem to make a point about the way African Americans are treated in this country.

 

IMO they went about it the wrong way too.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

29 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

Yes because no one ever used the national anthem to make a point about the way African Americans are treated in this country.

 

 

I do see a lot of similarities between the civil rights movement that was going on in 1968 and the civil rights movement going on now.  It's sad that it's still such a big issue that's led to Black Lives Matter, Hands Up Don't Shoot, etc.

 

I just don't like to see actions that end up being divisive when they were intended to raise awareness and bring people together.

 

I think a better method involving the National Anthem might have been to display a prayer toward the flag while standing on the sideline, and when asked why they were doing it, the protester could say "I am still praying for the day when African-Americans are treated equally by American police officers."

 

 

I don't think that could be misconstrued as disrespecting the flag the way kneeling has been. 

[crazycolt1]

The second that Kaepernick signed his settlement is when he sold out. If he was so concerned about injustice he would have wanted all this to be public.

Just maybe his lawyers advised him to take the money? If so, why?

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I think a better method involving the National Anthem might have been to display a prayer toward the flag while standing on the sideline, and when asked why they were doing it, the protester could say "I am still praying for the day when African-Americans are treated equally by American police officers."

 

 

I don't think that could be misconstrued as disrespecting the flag the way kneeling has been. 

A very good idea IMO. 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

38 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Settling a lawsuit where the details on the settlement is a secret is a legal way to pay the people off thus making it go away.

 

But the NFL wouldn't want to "pay anyone off" when it damages their image if they did nothing wrong.

 

The image of "The Shield" is priority #1 for the owners, so the only way this makes sense is if the image of The Shield would have taken more damage if the details were made public.

 

The worse they look in the end, the more money they lose in the long run, so there must have been information that would have made them look really bad compared to us speculating about secret information.

[Goatface Killah]

1 hour ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

This isn't about his political views and it never has been. There are other players in the NFL who hold views similar to Kap's. I agree with some of his political views on social injustice. The problem they had with Kap is how he expressed his views and not the view itself. The way he chose to express his views was viewed as offensive to many of the NFL's customers and it affected the bottom line. It is not about politics at all. It's about MONEY! The NFL can make more money without Kap playing than it can with him playing and because of that he doesn't have a job. 

 

You have zero evidence of that. 

 

1. The argument that Kaep hurt ratings is the most made example of this. But, TV ratings are down across the board because less and less people are paying for TV packages that show the games. And the decrease in ratings is in line with this trend.

 

2. The NFLs revenue INCREASED during this whole saga. You cant win the argument under that circumstance.

 

3. The TV money was already paid and no argument can be made that he hurt the TV money until the next agreement, which will certainly be for more money than the current one. And again, you cant win that argument under those circumstances.

 

And lets be real here, this is phony outrage at its best. I know nobody who actually stopped watching the NFL because of this, and you dont either.  Flipping back and forth between golf and football instead of just watching football is not hurting their bottom line. And thats what most of these people were doing. Very few felt enough conviction to give up something they enjoyed enough to spend money on. Losing fans doesnt necessarily mean a loss in revenue. Nike is a great example that Kaep is most definitely not bad for business. 

 

The fact is, there is no way the NFL settles this if there is any chance they can win. Because if they had won, it strengthens their position in future instances like this. But settling opens the door for even more lawsuits. 

 

Its very possible that CK has evidence the league pressured teams to avoid him. And thats all it takes for a discrimination claim.

[NFLfan]

19 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I do see a lot of similarities between the civil rights movement that was going on in 1968 and the civil rights movement going on now.  It's sad that it's still such a big issue that's led to Black Lives Matter, Hands Up Don't Shoot, etc.

 

I just don't like to see actions that end up being divisive when they were intended to raise awareness and bring people together.

 

I think a better method involving the National Anthem might have been to display a prayer toward the flag while standing on the sideline, and when asked why they were doing it, the protester could say "I am still praying for the day when African-Americans are treated equally by American police officers."

 

 

I don't think that could be misconstrued as disrespecting the flag the way kneeling has been. 

 

Do you recall the basketball player Chris Jackson who became a Muslim? He prayed exactly how you are recommending. That outraged people. I think he said something about the flag standing for "tyranny". That is all I remember but that guy was blackballed. He had been a pretty good player before that, IIRC. I think he played for the Nuggets. 

[crazycolt1]

Assuming the settlement is 80 million?

Break it down : There is 32 owners. Paying 80 million split 32 ways is less than 3 million apiece.

That is small change to most of these owners. Hell, Irsay just spent more than that on a couple of guitars.

Acting like this was some kind of blow to the owners is a joke at best. It's worth that much to make it go away.

Then we have Kaepernick: Who in the end took the money and got paid. So much for making a statement he was so worried about.

[Myles]

9 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

 

You have zero evidence of that. 

 

1. The argument that Kaep hurt ratings is the most made example of this. But, TV ratings are down across the board because less and less people are paying for TV packages that show the games. And the decrease in ratings is in line with this trend.

 

2. The NFLs revenue INCREASED during this whole saga. You cant win the argument under that circumstance.

 

3. The TV money was already paid and no argument can be made that he hurt the TV money until the next agreement, which will certainly be for more money than the current one. And again, you cant win that argument under those circumstances.

 

And lets be real here, this is phony outrage at its best. I know nobody who actually stopped watching the NFL because of this, and you dont either.  Flipping back and forth between golf and football instead of just watching football is not hurting their bottom line. And thats what most of these people were doing. Very few felt enough conviction to give up something they enjoyed enough to spend money on. Losing fans doesnt necessarily mean a loss in revenue. Nike is a great example that Kaep is most definitely not bad for business. 

 

The fact is, there is no way the NFL settles this if there is any chance they can win. Because if they had won, it strengthens their position in future instances like this. But settling opens the door for even more lawsuits. 

 

Its very possible that CK has evidence the league pressured teams to avoid him. And thats all it takes for a discrimination claim.

Lots of opinions in here and very few facts.  

"And lets be real here, this is phony outrage at its best. I know nobody who actually stopped watching the NFL because of this, and you dont either.  "

I actually know several who stopped.   Well, at least 4.   I didn't, but I never claimed I would.  

 

"The fact is, there is no way the NFL settles this if there is any chance they can win"

That is NOT a fact.   If the NFL thought there was even a chance they could lose, settling for what is to them, pennies is the wise choice.  

 

 

[Valpo2004]

31 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I do see a lot of similarities between the civil rights movement that was going on in 1968 and the civil rights movement going on now.  It's sad that it's still such a big issue that's led to Black Lives Matter, Hands Up Don't Shoot, etc.

 

I just don't like to see actions that end up being divisive when they were intended to raise awareness and bring people together.

 

I think a better method involving the National Anthem might have been to display a prayer toward the flag while standing on the sideline, and when asked why they were doing it, the protester could say "I am still praying for the day when African-Americans are treated equally by American police officers."

 

 

I don't think that could be misconstrued as disrespecting the flag the way kneeling has been. 

 

You really don't understand the will of many Americans to simply avoid this issue all together.  It would have been considered "offensive" in one way or another no matter what they did.  

 

Also I should point out that many people of various religions kneel when they pray.  

[Myles]

Interesting article from Aug of 2018. 

 

SBN: If the NFL was to settle, does that mean they’ve basically admitted guilt or that they felt like they could not win in this situation?

Thomas: It doesn’t necessarily mean they are admitting guilt. They just may want to make it all go away. Also, they may just want to save money. The process and the amount of money that they may have to spend depending this collusion claim may end up being an astronomical amount to the point that it may be cheaper for them to settle. That may be the reason why as well. But, no, just because they settle doesn’t mean they are admitting guilt. There could be a myriad of other reasons.

 

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/8/31/17803884/colin-kaepernick-nfl-collusion-case-explained

[Valpo2004]

9 minutes ago, Myles said:

Lots of opinions in here and very few facts.  

"And lets be real here, this is phony outrage at its best. I know nobody who actually stopped watching the NFL because of this, and you dont either.  "

I actually know several who stopped.   Well, at least 4.   I didn't, but I never claimed I would.  

 

"The fact is, there is no way the NFL settles this if there is any chance they can win"

That is NOT a fact.   If the NFL thought there was even a chance they could lose, settling for what is to them, pennies is the wise choice.  

 

 

 

They likely thought there was a good chance of losing OR they where trying to avoid something being made public.

 

[Myles]

3 minutes ago, Valpo2004 said:

 

They likely thought there was a good chance of losing OR they where trying to avoid something being made public.

 

I don't think it would take "a good chance", just any chance really.    Settling was the most economical choice to make.   Also makes this mostly go away.    I think Kaep looks worse after settling than the NFL does.