Despite speculation NFL Kaepernick settlement < $10M

...does the NFL reaching a settlement mean that they indeed DID collude to keep them out of the NFL? CK's record before he was benched in 2016 was a putrid 1-11. Overall he had a losing record over his career. Once he was figured out, that was it. I'm sure footage of him missing Moss and another WR on the last couple plays of the SB did him no favors, either. Did he really deserve a job?

If the NFL indeed colluded, I would hope the entire league would protest by sitting out an entire weekend of games.

Damn, blew that one. That was to rnargi's last line

I thought the terms of the settlement were supposed to be under NDA.

From the NFL standpoint I think they just want this whole thing behind them. Kaepernick getting paid at all has to be considered a win for him.

Only reason I posted this is because right after the rumored settlement leaked, the $$$ were estimated between 60 and 80 million.

In comment 14351708 rnargi said:

Quote:

...does the NFL reaching a settlement mean that they indeed DID collude to keep them out of the NFL? CK's record before he was benched in 2016 was a putrid 1-11. Overall he had a losing record over his career. Once he was figured out, that was it. I'm sure footage of him missing Moss and another WR on the last couple plays of the SB did him no favors, either. Did he really deserve a job? If the NFL indeed colluded, I would hope the entire league would protest by sitting out an entire weekend of games.

It doesn't. It just wanted this over with as quickly as possible and it knew these two (not very bright) individuals could be bought. 10 million to the NFL is like 50 cents to us. Why keep dragging this out in courts when you can just snap your fingers and make it disappear for almost nothing.

In comment 14351708 rnargi said:

Quote:

...does the NFL reaching a settlement mean that they indeed DID collude to keep them out of the NFL? CK's record before he was benched in 2016 was a putrid 1-11. Overall he had a losing record over his career. Once he was figured out, that was it. I'm sure footage of him missing Moss and another WR on the last couple plays of the SB did him no favors, either. Did he really deserve a job? If the NFL indeed colluded, I would hope the entire league would protest by sitting out an entire weekend of games.

I imagine if they had solid, irrefutable evidence of collusion, they would've received a lot more than $10M, especially considering what QBs make per season.

Sounds more like an amount the NFL gave to just make it go away. Plus, their legal fees probably would've exceeded that if they went to trial.

it never sounded like collusion was provable, and at that price I'm guessing that's the case. The NFL got those 2 to never speak about it again, money well spent for them.

Those 2 get a payday for doing nothing, and look like even bigger suckers for taking a much smaller sum. They really fought the good fight.

-Brett Favre probably

.

In comment 14351786 RobCrossRiver56 said:

Quote:

.

WSJ in this case, but I do too.

many BBIers were so quick to point out how guilty the NFL was a month ago when rumors were of $30 mil+...

In comment 14351708 rnargi said:

Quote:

...does the NFL reaching a settlement mean that they indeed DID collude to keep them out of the NFL? CK's record before he was benched in 2016 was a putrid 1-11. Overall he had a losing record over his career. Once he was figured out, that was it. I'm sure footage of him missing Moss and another WR on the last couple plays of the SB did him no favors, either. Did he really deserve a job? If the NFL indeed colluded, I would hope the entire league would protest by sitting out an entire weekend of games.

Blackmail pays well

So they look less like assholes.

"people briefed on the deal" could be literally anyone.

if someone at NFL leaked it then they violated the terms of settlement
and Kaep can sue again

In comment 14351998 giantfan2000 said:

Quote:

if someone at NFL leaked it then they violated the terms of settlement and Kaep can sue again

Is that true? I thought that typically the party offering the settlement sets the terms of the NDA, and they typically require the party receiving the settlement to sign the NDA. I didn't think most NDA's were two-way, at least not in a situation like this.

I'm not an attorney and definitely could be wrong on this. Would love to hear from an attorney who could verify or set me straight.

In comment 14351720 giants#1 said:
[quote

I imagine if they had solid, irrefutable evidence of collusion, they would've received a lot more than $10M, especially considering what QBs make per season.

Sounds more like an amount the NFL gave to just make it go away. Plus, their legal fees probably would've exceeded that if they went to trial. [/quote]
The fact that they settled for so little, if in fact these numbers are correct, shows that they didn't have much of a case. It shows that the NFL just wanted this to go away rather than spend a lot of money on lawyers.

but this reeks of NFL leaking fake news.

I dont think Kaepernick sacrificed so much, and you're telling me he saw 10m and OK'd the settlement?


yeah...


right.


damage control!