Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
karlydee2

NFL Players Union andn Owners should sue Trump for Intentional Interference of Contractual Relations

63 posts in this topic

Because the Govt. is enjoined from censoring speech, Trump could not have been acting in his official capacity when he has said " something must be done about this" "the owners are afraid of their players" and "fire the sob"

 

The Players Union and the Owners should sue him for the tort of  Intentional Interference of Contractual Relations  (a common law tort regarding the intentional interference between two contracted parties by a  third party)

 

His intentional interference in their contractual relationship may have caused a drop in revenue or loss of future earnings.

 

1600 players 32 Billionaire owners

 

I say they make him a pauper.

 

His position as POTUS does not perotect him from personal liability regarding actions taken in a personal capacity. Since POTUS can't in any way attempt to censor speech -- it must have been a personal act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to happen.  As I stated on the other thread, the NFL has already had meetings to discuss how to diffuse this situation going forward.  DirecTv is offering refunds and advertisers are getting nervous about the declining TV numbers.  The last thing the NFL wants is more controversy.  May be a fun thought, but it will never happen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cprenegade said:

Not going to happen.  As I stated on the other thread, the NFL has already had meetings to discuss how to diffuse this situation going forward.  DirecTv is offering refunds and advertisers are getting nervous about the declining TV numbers.  The last thing the NFL wants is more controversy.  May be a fun thought, but it will never happen.  

Advertisers are not worried

The game streamed on Amazon Prime tonight -- with advertisers

Many watch NFL Mobile on Verizon -- or other streaming platforms

 

This canard about dropping ratings is BS  -- because of non-broadcast and non-cable/satellite avenues to watch NFL games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, karlydee2 said:

Advertisers are not worried

The game streamed on Amazon Prime tonight -- with advertisers

Many watch NFL Mobile on Verizon -- or other streaming platforms

 

This canard about dropping ratings is BS  -- because of non-broadcast and non-cable/satellite avenues to watch NFL games

Perhaps.  Maybe not worried, yet, but advertisers always are looking at what is going on with their golden goose.  The Ravens/Jags game was streamed exclusively by yahoo outside of the Baltimore and Jacksonville markets.  The feedback from many people was that the stream was choppy in places and not quite up to normal standards.  A lot of people still go to bars to watch NFL football on Sunday.   The bar I have gone to fills up about an hour before game time.  Many places offer tail gate parties that start around 10am east coast time.  Advertisers may not be worried, but they sure are following developments at this point.  

Quote

 

In the wake of the large-scale protests displayed last weekend during NFL games, a majority of league sponsors have been restrained on the issue. However across social media, there is a trend developing with the hashtags #BoycottNFLSponsors and #PunchThemInTheWallet.

In a report from Bloomberg Politics, executive vice president of Baker Street Advertising Bob Dorfman said he thinks the sponsors will take a hushed approach. Their fear would be to distance them from their customers. He said it seems that any statement made by corporations could be interpreted as disrespectful to certain clientele.

A report in the Wall Street Journal said that DirecTV will refund subscribers who are opposed of the protest. DirecTV offers the NFL Sunday Ticket package, and allows subscribers to view out-of-market games to follow their favorite teams and players.  The fallout from this is far from over, and will be a hot topic issue in the coming weeks.

http://abc7ny.com/sports/nfl-sponsors-react-to-national-anthem-protests/2464351/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suit is just another nut bag expensive waste of time by liberals that have heads on backwards and lawyers who would be happy to take money for any cause.  Advertisers should cut spending for what they did against flag, anthem and country.  Standing and linking arms does not cut it.  They should stand at attention with helmet held to side and hand over their hearts.  This action by players ticking off significant customers is a bad performance and bad business decision.  It has to have an affect on their performance on the field as mentally they are all wrapped up in the emotions rather than focusing doing their best in play for customers.  Freedom of expression is fine, fine if the players are wanting to shoot themselves in their feet; but it is also fine turning backs on the entire NFL and advertisers until the overpaid so called professional players get it right.  That too is a freedom of expression.  We all have the right, we all have accountability and we all suffer the pain.  They should all feel the financial pain for actions against Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, woody said:

Suit is just another nut bag expensive waste of time by liberals that have heads on backwards and lawyers who would be happy to take money for any cause.  Advertisers should cut spending for what they did against flag, anthem and country.  Standing and linking arms does not cut it.  They should stand at attention with helmet held to side and hand over their hearts.  This action by players ticking off significant customers is a bad performance and bad business decision.  It has to have an affect on their performance on the field as mentally they are all wrapped up in the emotions rather than focusing doing their best in play for customers.  Freedom of expression is fine, fine if the players are wanting to shoot themselves in their feet; but it is also fine turning backs on the entire NFL and advertisers until the overpaid so called professional players get it right.  That too is a freedom of expression.  We all have the right, we all have accountability and we all suffer the pain.  They should all feel the financial pain for actions against Americans.

:lol:

Thanks for the laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, karlydee2 said:

Because the Govt. is enjoined from censoring speech, Trump could not have been acting in his official capacity when he has said " something must be done about this" "the owners are afraid of their players" and "fire the sob"

 

The Players Union and the Owners should sue him for the tort of  Intentional Interference of Contractual Relations  (a common law tort regarding the intentional interference between two contracted parties by a  third party)

 

His intentional interference in their contractual relationship may have caused a drop in revenue or loss of future earnings.

 

1600 players 32 Billionaire owners

 

I say they make him a pauper.

 

His position as POTUS does not perotect him from personal liability regarding actions taken in a personal capacity. Since POTUS can't in any way attempt to censor speech -- it must have been a personal act.

You should stop posting about the law, your lack of knowledge and amateurish interpretations of statutes just makes you look foolish.

An outside party making a comment such as the one made by President Trump is nowhere near the level needed for either the owners or the players to claim interference in a contractual relationship..

Nothing personal, but your post is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ivanbalt said:

:lol:

Thanks for the laugh.

In case you have bad cells on your hard drive, it is not a laugh.  You think it is a laugh, I think it is a reflection about just how serious this is.  You don't see it, that is your problem.  I do see it and the repercussions are not over and done.  Professional sports are not deserving of loyal Americans as long as this behavior continues.  Enough of us feel that way and the league and their advertisers will feel the pressure.  It was another bad decision all around.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bluto said:

You should stop posting about the law, your lack of knowledge and amateurish interpretations of statutes just makes you look foolish.

An outside party making a comment such as the one made by President Trump is nowhere near the level needed for either the owners or the players to claim interference in a contractual relationship..

Nothing personal, but your post is nonsense.

 

3 minutes ago, woody said:

.  

 

Yes.

Edited by woody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, woody said:

In case you have bad cells on your hard drive, it is not a laugh.  You think it is a laugh, I think it is a reflection about just how serious this is.  You don't see it, that is your problem.  I do see it and the repercussions are not over and done.  Professional sports are not deserving of loyal Americans as long as this behavior continues.  Enough of us feel that way and the league and their advertisers will feel the pressure.  It was another bad decision all around.  

 

You can't see it, but your faux nationalism is hilarious.  Don't worry, Trump is proud of your attitude.  That's why he stirred things up last Friday, to keep people focused away from things like yet another failure at repealing Obamacare.

He's going to need your outrage a lot over the next few years as his agenda continues to fail, so don't wear yourself out.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ivanbalt said:

You can't see it, but your faux nationalism is hilarious.  Don't worry, Trump is proud of your attitude.  That's why he stirred things up last Friday, to keep people focused away from things like yet another failure at repealing Obamacare.

He's going to need your outrage a lot over the next few years as his agenda continues to fail, so don't wear yourself out.  :lol:

We'll see.  I don't need Trump, you or anyone else to tell me about behavior or how to be a good American, a respectful American and respectful of those that have served it constructively and well with pride and loyalty.  Those that turn their backs on America should suffer the consequences of their actions.  End of story.  Your occularrectitis is showing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, woody said:

We'll see.  I don't need Trump, you or anyone else to tell me about behavior or how to be a good American, a respectful American and respectful of those that have served it constructively and well with pride and loyalty.  Those that turn their backs on America should suffer the consequences of their actions.  End of story.  Your occularrectitis is showing.  

But apparently you want to tell others how to be a "good American".  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ivanbalt said:

But apparently you want to tell others how to be a "good American".  :rolleyes:

Notice how the folks who are outraged about the protests don't want to talk about the subject of the protest? The reason; it's outside their comfort zone. All the faux outrage is exactly what Donny wanted. Well played Donny. You got'em hook line and sinker.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karlydee has made this declaration of other other threads regarding the NFL players. It's amusing that he/she always wants a thread of their very own. I guess we can never have too many threads about this subject. (Kidding of course.) ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bluto said:

You should stop posting about the law, your lack of knowledge and amateurish interpretations of statutes just makes you look foolish.

An outside party making a comment such as the one made by President Trump is nowhere near the level needed for either the owners or the players to claim interference in a contractual relationship..

Nothing personal, but your post is nonsense.

BS -- he said they should fire them.

 

1. you can't fire a contractual entity -- you can end the contract for breach or cause.

 

He interfered in their business.

 

You don't know what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, people take Facebook memes seriously . ....

Who knew .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FatBoy said:

Notice how the folks who are outraged about the protests don't want to talk about the subject of the protest? The reason; it's outside their comfort zone. All the faux outrage is exactly what Donny wanted. Well played Donny. You got'em hook line and sinker.  

 

I'm White, but my kids are mixed. One of my children has already been subjected to an Unconstitutional Search while in a car with 3 other minors (no parents were called).

Because my child and friends are brown skinned.

Racism is rampant in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mcorioles said:

LOL this reeks of desperation.

Trump never settles (except for Trump U) oh plus,  when he and his daddy entered into a Consent Decree with the DOJ regarding racially discriminatory housing practices in the 1970's (how they got rich BTW)

 

The suit would stick -- and they should do it. Trump should be sued into paupership

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, karlydee2 said:

Because the Govt. is enjoined from censoring speech, Trump could not have been acting in his official capacity when he has said " something must be done about this" "the owners are afraid of their players" and "fire the sob"

 

The Players Union and the Owners should sue him for the tort of  Intentional Interference of Contractual Relations  (a common law tort regarding the intentional interference between two contracted parties by a  third party)

 

His intentional interference in their contractual relationship may have caused a drop in revenue or loss of future earnings.

 

1600 players 32 Billionaire owners

 

I say they make him a pauper.

 

His position as POTUS does not perotect him from personal liability regarding actions taken in a personal capacity. Since POTUS can't in any way attempt to censor speech -- it must have been a personal act.

Silly little snowflakes ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, karlydee2 said:

BS -- he said they should fire them.

 

1. you can't fire a contractual entity -- you can end the contract for breach or cause.

 

He interfered in their business.

 

You don't know what you are talking about.

He expressed an opinion. He would have interfered in their business if he ORDERED them to be fired. You cannot be sued for having an opinion on what some company should do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, karlydee2 said:

I'm White, but my kids are mixed. One of my children has already been subjected to an Unconstitutional Search while in a car with 3 other minors (no parents were called).

Because my child and friends are brown skinned.

Racism is rampant in the US.

We'll be interested to hear how the suit works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, karlydee2 said:

BS -- he said they should fire them.

 

1. you can't fire a contractual entity -- you can end the contract for breach or cause.

 

He interfered in their business.

 

You don't know what you are talking about.

In the NFL you can cut or release a player anytime you want. They may be still owed money but would no longer be on the team.

Do you really follow football ..???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, karlydee2 said:

I'm White, but my kids are mixed. One of my children has already been subjected to an Unconstitutional Search while in a car with 3 other minors (no parents were called).

Because my child and friends are brown skinned.

Racism is rampant in the US.

Did you file a complaint or lawsuit ..???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a silly proposition. 

If Trump is acting in his personal capacity,then he would legally have no more influence than you or I.  And since, as you state, he must have been acting in his personal capacity, this proposal for a lawsuit is meaningless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0