MANDATORY MINICAMP

[Bretsky]

What should Green Bay do if AROD does not show up to mandatory mini camp ?

IF he does not come this is the first mandatory camp he's missed. Normal rules would be to find a player $93,000 for skipping the 3 day mandatory mini camp.

But if you follow the rules, you run the risk of alienating Rodgers more.

Reports are the WR's are showing up. Most think RODGERS is going to be AWOL.

How should Green Bay handle this ??

[Joemailman]

If you don't fine him, you set a precedent that could cost you in the future. I don't think whether they fine him or not will affect Rodgers' decision on whether to play for the Packers.

[red]

i don't think you can alienate him any more then he is now

[MadtownPacker]

If he doesn’t show up they should put 12s on all the tackle dummies and make sure the media cameras can see it.

[Zool]

They should write 50 more articles per day. All of them speculating about the future of Rodgers on the Packers.

Or Erin could fucking come out and say what he wants.

[texaspackerbacker]

Of course you fine him, not that it would mean anything to his bank account anyway.

[King Friday]

There isn't a choice. It is a mandatory team workout. If you aren't there for any reason other than one that has previously been run past team leadership for approval, you will be fined the amount allowed in the CBA.

Anything else sets a bad precident.

[Upnorth]

You done him then once he shows up to regular trainging camp etc you erase it as part of the 'negotiations'

[bobblehead]

Trade him. Let the Bortles era begin!!

[Spaulding]

Although I agree you set a dangerous precedent, he's not your normal player. Face of the franchise, reigning MVP and HOF at the most important position I think gives you a little slack in how you handle things. I voted you avoid giving him the fine as a show good faith that you're allowing him to have his hissy fit with hope he returns to play at least the coming year. The posts on this cost being inconsequential makes sense but it's throwing him a bone none the less. Baby steps.

Neither the Packers or Rodgers wins if he sits out and so if the Packers are completely adamant on not trading him this year then I think you find coming round like Peter King intimated and ride the marriage one more year to see if a Super Bowl is in the cards and then trade him if he still wants it done.

[call_me_ishmael]

You treat all players fairly but you don't treat all players the same. You don't fine him obviously.

The Peter King solution is what's going to happen. He's going to be a Packer or retired this year and a somebody else in 2022. Sad that it ends this way. My question is why.

[Joemailman]

I don't care for the Peter King Solution. Don't like the idea of your team leader with 1 foot out the door. Packers had a coaching situation like that back in 1998. Didn't like it at all.

[Spaulding]

I don't care for the Peter King Solution. Don't like the idea of your team leader with 1 foot out the door. Packers had a coaching situation like that back in 1998. Didn't like it at all.

I agree but I think if this is the course that is agreed upon, it will be done so in secret with nobody beyond the front office and Rodgers knowing it. If the case, everyone will put on smiles for 2021 season and Rodgers will get an early audition to see if he has the chops to join his fiancé in acting post football career :)

[Tony Oday]

Fine him and hold his rights so either retire or play, you are signed for 3 years princess.

[red]

You treat all players fairly but you don't treat all players the same. You don't fine him obviously.

The Peter King solution is what's going to happen. He's going to be a Packer or retired this year and a somebody else in 2022. Sad that it ends this way. My question is why.

The peter king solution is not a solution at all, it's just the teams plan all along, the one that Rodgers hates

[Bretsky]

Look the other way . Gutebag has his share of f'ck ups and among them is losing the support of his QB. Highly unlikely he gets fined. They are kissing his ass up and down hoping he changes his mind and stops what is formally considered a hold out now

[sharpe1027]

They have to fine him, I don't think it's even an option to look the other way according to the NFL rules.

[Bretsky]

They have to fine him, I don't think it's even an option to look the other way according to the NFL rules.


Maybe the media is full of shit, but I listed to three shows at ESPN Wisconsin today debating this and noting it was Packers discretion

[texaspackerbacker]

Yeah, I doubt very much the league would force a fine, but it still is the smart thing to do. I doubt if even Rodgers himself would say otherwise.

[sharpe1027]

In Article 42, Section 1(vi) and 1(vii) it reads, "Any such fines shall be mandatory, and shall not be reduced in amount or waived by the Club, in whole or in part, but must be paid by the player or deducted by the Club."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29553309/expect-nfl-training-camp-holdouts-2020-why-to-do-coronavirus

[ThunderDan]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29553309/expect-nfl-training-camp-holdouts-2020-why-to-do-coronavirus

The fines are mandatory for training camp.

OTAs, required mini-camps are not mandatory but at the teams choice.

[sharpe1027]

The fines are mandatory for training camp.

OTAs, required mini-camps are not mandatory but at the teams choice.

This is why I keep coming back. Thank you.

[bobblehead]

Fine him. When a reporter asks say its just paperwork and you will likely forgive them when Training camp starts.

[Rastak]

Fine him. When a reporter asks say its just paperwork and you will likely forgive them when Training camp starts.


The one thing he has in his pocket is show up, grab his hammy, limp around every time he tests it after going full bore and collect 30 million and the Packers can't do a damn thing.

I don't expect this because it's pretty damn low. Same with playing like shit on purpose and making sure the team knows damn well he is. I can't see that either so there has to be another way this plays out which likely is he shows up and says "this is it", make the best deal you can next year. Who knows though.

[bobblehead]

The one thing he has in his pocket is show up, grab his hammy, limp around every time he tests it after going full bore and collect 30 million and the Packers can't do a damn thing.

I don't expect this because it's pretty damn low. Same with playing like shit on purpose and making sure the team knows damn well he is. I can't see that either so there has to be another way this plays out which likely is he shows up and says "this is it", make the best deal you can next year. Who knows though.

Yea, with everything that has gone on, if he "pulls" that, the packer do have a damn thing they can do. They can file a lawsuit for breach of contract. Show MRIs and such to prove he is faking it. Also, the NFLPA really frowns on this kind of thing because it weakens them in future negotiations.

[Rastak]

Yea, with everything that has gone on, if he "pulls" that, the packer do have a damn thing they can do. They can file a lawsuit for breach of contract. Show MRIs and such to prove he is faking it. Also, the NFLPA really frowns on this kind of thing because it weakens them in future negotiations.


Yes they could. Proving he's faking is one helluva high bar in a lawsuit. Surprised you even said that. I've seen it a bunch of times when players are trying to get traded. I'm injured, soft tissue that you can't get on an MRI. You need absolute proof to win a lawsuit. Good luck with that.

That said, I HIGHLY doubt that will happen. Just pointing out he has that kind of lowlife option that I believe he would 100% get away with. If the fanbase believes he is full of shit it would wreck his reputation.



edit:

One other thing is, the first time you get hit you wobble around and answer the questions wrong. Then you say you have a blinding headache, or whatever. They cannot test for that. I wouldn't be too smug. That said again, I highly doubt he goes that route.

[sharpe1027]

Yes they could. Proving he's faking is one helluva high bar in a lawsuit. Surprised you even said that. I've seen it a bunch of times when players are trying to get traded. I'm injured, soft tissue that you can't get on an MRI. You need absolute proof to win a lawsuit. Good luck with that.

That said, I HIGHLY doubt that will happen. Just pointing out he has that kind of lowlife option that I believe he would 100% get away with. If the fanbase believes he is full of shit it would wreck his reputation.



edit:

One other thing is, the first time you get hit you wobble around and answer the questions wrong. Then you say you have a blinding headache, or whatever. They cannot test for that. I wouldn't be too smug. That said again, I highly doubt he goes that route.

I don't know. For a civil suit, you may just need to show it is more likely than not.

[Rastak]

I don't know. For a civil suit, you may just need to show it is more likely than not.


You have any examples of recent NFL team lawsuits contending a player isn't really hurt? I don't. Can you imagine if a team sued a player saying they were faking an injury and a court bought that? What a shit deal for players actually hurt with teams threating to sue if they didn't play hurt. Man, that would be a crazy deal that would likely never happen.

[sharpe1027]

You have any examples of recent NFL team lawsuits contending a player isn't really hurt? I don't. Can you imagine if a team sued a player saying they were faking an injury and a court bought that? What a shit deal for players actually hurt with teams threating to sue if they didn't play hurt. Man, that would be a crazy deal that would likely never happen.

There are reasons other than likelihood of success not to sue. I was mainly pointing out it's probably not as hard as you claimed to win.

[sharpe1027]

On the flip side, do you have examples of a recent player faking an injury? If it never really happens, there won't be any lawsuits.

[Rastak]

There are reasons other than likelihood of success not to do so. I was mainly pointing out it's probably not as hard as you claimed to win.


With a concussion I would venture nearly impossible. Preponderance of the evidence with no way to test?

I suppose he could retire, then pop up like Favre. I'm only pointing out he has a few options. Packers hold most but not all the cards. I still say he reports most likely.

[Rastak]

On the flip side, do you have examples of a recent player faking an injury? If it never really happens, there won't be any lawsuits.

A good question, it's been a while and alot of times we'd never know about. I don't have names, several players get called for faking injuries on the field. Look man, I know it seems I'm trolling, I recall reading a few times where fan bases suspect it's like the blue flu during a work stoppage. I only point out he can pull that.


edit:

I guess this is what I am taking about. Can't prove a back injury that suddenly disappears as it's hard to detect and prove.


https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/10/16/jalen-ramsey-is-cured/

[sharpe1027]

With a concussion I would venture nearly impossible. Preponderance of the evidence with no way to test?

I suppose he could retire, then pop up like Favre. I'm only pointing out he has a few options. Packers hold most but not all the cards. I still say he reports most likely.
All true, however, the situation is a bit different when there's clear motive and a history of actions that tell a compelling story for why someone is faking. Don't you think?

[Rastak]

All true, however, the situation is a bit different when there's clear motive and a history of actions that tell a compelling story for why someone is faking. Don't you think?


I agree, however, court requires proof and not "Your honor we feel he is faking and want 30 Million dollars" just because he is motivated to be guilty of such. You need a bit more than that, wouldn't you agree? You level a lawsuit, kind of like Trump's guys did in Pennsylvania, the Republican judge told Giuliani "you can't come to court with a theory, you need evidence".


edit: Sharpe, appreciate the debate, I am bored as hell tonight as you may have noticed.


double edit: Sharpe is probably fuck you.....(I didn't exactly articulate that right, meaning you might think that my motive)

[sharpe1027]

I agree, however, court requires proof and not "Your honor we feel he is faking and want 30 Million dollars" just because he is motivated to be guilty of such. You need a bit more than that, wouldn't you agree? You level a lawsuit, kind of like Trump's guys did in Pennsylvania, the Republican judge told Giuliani "you can't come to court with a theory, you need evidence".


edit: Sharpe, appreciate the debate, I am bored as hell tonight as you may have noticed.

You definitely need facts, but you don't need the same level of proof as a criminal case.

[Rastak]

You definitely need facts, but you don't need the same level of proof as a criminal case.


Agreed, it is a smaller standard but you need more than a theory, you need at least SOME evidence as a preponderance isn't "we simply think this is the case".

[bobblehead]

You have any examples of recent NFL team lawsuits contending a player isn't really hurt? I don't. Can you imagine if a team sued a player saying they were faking an injury and a court bought that? What a shit deal for players actually hurt with teams threating to sue if they didn't play hurt. Man, that would be a crazy deal that would likely never happen.

Martellus Bennett.

[bobblehead]

I agree, however, court requires proof and not "Your honor we feel he is faking and want 30 Million dollars" just because he is motivated to be guilty of such. You need a bit more than that, wouldn't you agree? You level a lawsuit, kind of like Trump's guys did in Pennsylvania, the Republican judge told Giuliani "you can't come to court with a theory, you need evidence".


edit: Sharpe, appreciate the debate, I am bored as hell tonight as you may have noticed.


double edit: Sharpe is probably fuck you.....(I didn't exactly articulate that right, meaning you might think that my motive)

Don't bring in politics, or I feel compelled to respond. But trump was suing criminally and not civilly. Big difference just on that merit.

[bobblehead]

Agreed, it is a smaller standard but you need more than a theory, you need at least SOME evidence as a preponderance isn't "we simply think this is the case".

Actually a jury is allowed to consider "we think he is lying" as evidence. As in "we think that given all the drama around it Rodgers was lying about his headache."

I agree its unlikely to happen generally speaking, but again, the NFLPA frowns on it. Ramsey is widely regarded as an asshole and gets no endorsements and after football will be regarded as a punk. Rodgers doesn't want that. He has an addiction to crack...as in people kissing his.