Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Kaep/Reid Collusion Case Settled

Tepper's Chest Hair

By Tepper's Chest Hair,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Mage Grand Master

Mage

Posted
Posted
On 2/15/2019 at 11:08 PM, Iron Saint said:

Why does anyone sue anyone? Because they felt they were wronged by someone or something and they believe they’re in the right. 

I’ll use an example from our camp; after the farce that is known as “Bountygate”, Vilma pursued litigation against Goodell for defamation due to the claims Goodell made against him and others during the League’s witch-hunt. Even though Goodell ended up weaseling his way out of the case, Vilma was adamant on not settling out of court because he felt he was in the right and stood by his principles. Had Goodell not been able to avoid testifying and Vilma would’ve accepted a settlement before discovery, that would’ve been selling out all the same.

Kaepernick was adamant he was colluded against enough to file the suit. Now, considering the fact the NFL decided to write a check that big just to make him go away (and sign a NDA), that leads me to believe the NFL’s case wasn’t as strong as they hoped (probably paper thin like their Bountygate case was) and likely did collude against Kaepernick. Had they been confident in their case, they would’ve willingly let the case get to discovery and play out like they did for Deflategate, but they didn’t. They refused to publicly show their cards leading me to believe they were caught red handed and chose to settle and save face as opposed to being caught red handed, lose the case, and still have to pay.

However, it’s a bit unfortunate the latter didn’t happen because that likely would’ve cemented Goodell getting fired.

Sticking by his principles =/= taking the money and running.

Dude, what in the world are you talking about?

Yes, people sue because they are wronged.  And what in the world do you think they are looking for every time they sue?  You do realize that is the point of suing, right?  To receive monetary (or some form of) compensation due to what the other party did to you.  Otherwise, there would literally be no point in suing.  It isn't like we are talking about some court case that is meant to change a law.  Kaep sued because he was being colluded against and was seeking compensation for losses.

In all likelihood, the NFL paid Kaepernick what he would have gotten had he taken the case to court and won.  Settling saves both sides time and money, or in the NFL's case (since money probably wasn't the issue) saves anything they don't want leaking.

And your facts are wrong.  Vilma didn't settle out of court because he didn't have a settlement offer.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000046175/article/source-jonathan-vilma-saints-lb-has-no-nfl-settlement-offer

There is no source that says Vilma wouldn't have agreed to any settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sgt Schultz Grand Master

Sgt Schultz

Posted
Posted

There are now reports out there that the $60-80 million is pretty far from the truth.  The latest I saw was based on reports that the NFL basically settled for what they believed their court and arbitration costs were going to be, which would be well under $60M (and one report places it around $10M).

People are going to believe whichever set of numbers are in line with their own biases.  They are all based on rumor and speculation.

We will probably never know.  That sage, Stephen A. Smith wants Kaepernick to release the details of the settlement, which would almost certainly void it.  Whether the number is closer to $10M or $80M, it is easy for him to say because his stake in it is $0.  Amazing how people in general are very bold with other people's money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

There are now reports out there that the $60-80 million is pretty far from the truth.  The latest I saw was based on reports that the NFL basically settled for what they believed their court and arbitration costs were going to be, which would be well under $60M (and one report places it around $10M).

People are going to believe whichever set of numbers are in line with their own biases.  They are all based on rumor and speculation.

We will probably never know.  That sage, Stephen A. Smith wants Kaepernick to release the details of the settlement, which would almost certainly void it.  Whether the number is closer to $10M or $80M, it is easy for him to say because his stake in it is $0.  Amazing how people in general are very bold with other people's money.

Yeah, Florio had a pretty good breakdown of that here.

Kaepernick's settlement may not have been as significant as some believe

The most telling things for me are the fact that the figure didn't require the approval of NFL owners and the fact that his lawyer immediately launched into "somebody should sign this guy" mode. But Florio listed way more reasons than that to believe that it was far from a blockbuster settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Iron Saint Enthusiast

Iron Saint

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Mage said:

In all likelihood, the NFL paid Kaepernick what he would have gotten had he taken the case to court and won.  Settling saves both sides time and money, or in the NFL's case (since money probably wasn't the issue) saves anything they don't want leaking.

And your facts are wrong.  Vilma didn't settle out of court because he didn't have a settlement offer.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000046175/article/source-jonathan-vilma-saints-lb-has-no-nfl-settlement-offer

There is no source that says Vilma wouldn't have agreed to any settlement.

So he accepted the settlement he likely would’ve gotten even if the case had played out in a court of law but since the case didn’t get that far Kaepernick doesn’t even get the satisfaction of embarrassing the NFL and having to sign a NDA? At that point why not take it to court and humiliate the NFL if you’re still getting paid the same amount? It just proves he sold out and was all about the money since the beginning.

And my facts are right. Re-read what I said. I said, “HAD Goodell not been able to avoid testifying”. HAD, that implies a hypothetical situation, i.e. didn’t happen. I know reading comprehension is low on the hierarchy of student skills in North Carolina public schools but come on.

And why would he need to accept a settlement? It was only for a year suspension, he was suing Goodell for two things, to clear his name and the satisfaction of making Goodell squirm like the weasel he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...