Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Vikings Release Statement On Kluwe Allegations
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Krauser


Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 2229
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swiss_vike wrote:
As said, he should have taken what the Vikings gave him. They did alot. A strong comittement to a tolerant workplace.


They had that commitment anyway, supposedly, and yet this still happened.

The Vikings commitment to a tolerant workplace isn't a favor to Chris Kluwe, or any kind of concession.

If you don't understand that, you have a lot to learn.

swiss_vike wrote:
There was no need to say that the whole organisation was a bunch of bigots that needs to change, because that's simply not true. I'm surprised you would think that.


Read more carefully. I didn't say that.

It's possible that Priefer's comments were considerably more extensive than the one he eventually admitted to, reflecting some personal animus against Kluwe or a team culture where such things were permitted, if not encouraged. It's possible that the Vikings decided to push Kluwe off the team because of his activism, and that decision involved Spielman and others above Priefer's level.

Even in those cases, the Vikings wouldn't be "a bunch of bigots". But they would need to do some work to live up to their promises of a strong commitment to a tolerant workplace.

The only evidence we have that they have that commitment is the fact that they say they do. Whatever evidence there might be in the report showing that they failed to live up to that standard has been suppressed.

swiss_vike wrote:
I was wrong about Zygi apologising, I apologize.


You were. And so I think my point stands.

The team has not admitted any wrongdoing, or even that the culture of the team was part of the problem. The scope of Priefer's admission of guilt was very limited, even if the apology was admirably whole hearted. The team has rallied around him, from players to management.

Kluwe was hoping to have a different effect, to bring about some kind of change. I really don't think a lawsuit was his goal. I think he (naively) thought that he had enough proof that the Vikings would have to reckon with his charges.

Instead they (including Priefer, who I think has been entwined with management throughout this):
-- issued a blanket denial
-- promised to investigate, named independent investigators
-- kept Priefer on the team
-- dragged out the investigation (including uncooperative witnesses and people changing their stories)
-- refused to release the results
-- released a separate legal brief instead, creating a misleading impression that that was representative of the investigation's findings
-- smeared Kluwe's character
-- issued a brief, limited apology while otherwise denying all charges and maintaining that the team did nothing wrong

I still think Kluwe is a credible witness of what happened behind closed doors -- a loose cannon and a jerk but not a liar or a delusional idiot.

I think it's all too likely that Priefer tried to bully him about his political and social views, and made disparaging remarks about his religion.

I think it would be just like Rick Spielman to come up with a plan to get rid of a punter who was about as good as usual in 2012 for about the same price as most veteran punters, because he became a "distraction" by writing an editorial in favor of same sex marriage, and to defend that decision in terms of football performance, sticking to that story no matter what.

I think it would be just like a team that always talks about improving the team culture without the team culture getting noticeably better to let this all happen, and then circle the wagons and deny there was any problem in the first place.

So I have a problem with how this all went down.

That's it from me on this topic until there's either a settlement or a lawsuit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
milanb


Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 6173
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vike daddy wrote:
wcblack34 wrote:
There could be any number of causes of action. It could be a suit for Negligent Inflection of Emotional Distress.

if you go to confession in front of a priest and he laughs at your sin, or yawns, could he be sued for Negligent Genuflection of Emotional Distress...?


In high school I had a French teacher who would flunk students for negligent inflection.
_________________

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. — Ecclesiastes 9:11

But that’s the way to bet. — Jimmy The Greek
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swiss_vike


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 989
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Krauser wrote:
They had that commitment anyway, supposedly, and yet this still happened.


Well. Total surveillance, here we come. Good luck with that.

swiss_vike wrote:
There was no need to say that the whole organisation was a bunch of bigots that needs to change, because that's simply not true. I'm surprised you would think that.


Krauser wrote:
Read more carefully. I didn't say that.


Well, as Kluwe, you think the Vikings didn't do enough. I think they did alot more than what would have been required.

You are well aware that such instances happen almost everyday inside any large organisation? Just normally, they get handled as they should be: among the participants. If Priefer and Kluwe would have a talk about it like adults are supposed to do, this wouldn't happen at all.

The worst thing that could happen to any organisation (and any society) is the supervision of every word and action of its employees (or citizens). Some prefer that, and I can understand the urge, but I'm not one of those.

Krauser wrote:
swiss_vike wrote:
I was wrong about Zygi apologising, I apologize.


You were. And so I think my point stands.


Well, Kluwe didn't demand an apology from Zigy. So my point still stands in that the Vikings did in fact do what Kluwe wanted.

Krauser wrote:
The team has not admitted any wrongdoing, or even that the culture of the team was part of the problem.


And who's to say there is anything wrong with the culture of the team? Right, Kluwe makes these allegations. This does not make them true, as all other accounts contradict what Kluwe said.

Everything the Vikings publish you take with a grain of salt. Everything Kluwe alleges, you seem to believe.

I strongly believe that Vikings culture is no different than any other sports organisation culture you could imagine.

Krauser wrote:
The scope of Priefer's admission of guilt was very limited, even if the apology was admirably whole hearted. The team has rallied around him, from players to management.


Which is probably a good indicator of his overall character. On the other hand, Kluwe's apology was a little light hearted.

Kluwe was mad he got sacked. That's why he brought out the dirt. I think that a theory that might be very close to reality.

Krauser wrote:
I think it's all too likely that Priefer tried to bully him about his political and social views, and made disparaging remarks about his religion.


Maybe Priefer was fed up because Kluwe didn't have his head in the game? Maybe he was provoked by Kluwe because Kluwe constantly made jokes about God and what not? Who knows what the trigger was. It doesn't really matter. Priefer owned up to his comments. That should be it.

Krauser wrote:
I think it would be just like Rick Spielman to come up with a plan to get rid of a punter who was about as good as usual in 2012 for about the same price as most veteran punters, because he became a "distraction" by writing an editorial in favor of same sex marriage, and to defend that decision in terms of football performance, sticking to that story no matter what.


Look, when it happend, no one was really surprised. It was, to the point, almost exactly the same situation as the year before with Longwell. Good, but declining player who was to expensive to keep around, to be replaced by a rookie.

Krauser wrote:
That's it from me on this topic until there's either a settlement or a lawsuit.


We'll see.
_________________
Ponder is not done in Minnesota...yet. I think now, he might be. Will miss you, Samantha Hottie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swiss_vike


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 989
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wcblack34 wrote:
I'm not going to give a lecture on Civil Procedure, but you can bring a case for damn near anything.


That's too bad. I would have liked to hear that lecture.

Anyway, of course you can bring a case for damn near anything. But that's not the point. The question in regards to Kluwe and his case is this: is there a realistic chance that his case will be winnable? You know, he has to pay for it if he doesn't win. How much is he willing to risk his own money to basically getting nothing material back (as he intents to give anything to some organisations)?

I'm quite sceptical that he'll risk much.
_________________
Ponder is not done in Minnesota...yet. I think now, he might be. Will miss you, Samantha Hottie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wcblack34


Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 6380
Location: Anywhere but Wisconsin.
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

swiss_vike wrote:
wcblack34 wrote:
I'm not going to give a lecture on Civil Procedure, but you can bring a case for damn near anything.


That's too bad. I would have liked to hear that lecture.

Anyway, of course you can bring a case for damn near anything. But that's not the point. The question in regards to Kluwe and his case is this: is there a realistic chance that his case will be winnable? You know, he has to pay for it if he doesn't win. How much is he willing to risk his own money to basically getting nothing material back (as he intents to give anything to some organisations)?

I'm quite sceptical that he'll risk much.


If his lawyers are taking his case on a contingent fee basis: He. Does. Not. Have. To. Pay. If. He. Loses.

Additionally, lawyers often take high profile cases like these on a reduced/no fee basis because they know it's worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free advertising. Had you ever heard of Halunen before this?

And we have no idea if his case is winnable or not. We don't even know what his case is, although you seem to think you do. We don't even know how his fees, or lack thereof, are structured with his attorney. You also don't know Kluwe's goals. If he just wants to see the full report, and the Vikings are stonewalling him, all he needs to do is bring the case and compel the report during the discovery process.

So no, the question isn't whether the case is winnable or not. The question is "what is the case?" Depending on that answer, there are many other questions before we get to whether the case is winnable or not. There is much more involved than any of us are privy to. The question might just be "what does Kluwe have to do to get his hands on the full report?" It might be "how much can Kluwe harass the organization before he decides he's spent enough money?" It might be as simple as "how are his legal fees structured?"
_________________
“Your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park. Enjoy the ride.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vike daddy


Most Valuable Poster (2nd Ballot)

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 75212
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

as the second round of settlement negotiations move forward, i imagine the sticking point will be the release of the full and non-filtered investigation report.

Kluwe seems to want it out there, perhaps to embarrass the Vikings and get his redemption. if what he wants is to move society forward and shine a light on the subject of intolerance, can that be done to his satisfaction without the full report being made public?
_________________


Webmaster wrote:
Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
since72


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 3561
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vike daddy wrote:
as the second round of settlement negotiations move forward, i imagine the sticking point will be the release of the full and non-filtered investigation report.

Kluwe seems to want it out there, perhaps to embarrass the Vikings and get his redemption. if what he wants is to move society forward and shine a light on the subject of intolerance, can that be done to his satisfaction without the full report being made public?


Kluwe's attorney (Kluwe himself appears clueless) must realize by now they've been had by Zygi's legal team with their CYA "investigation". The Vikings control the "report". A report put together by people the Vikings hired. (It might be noted that one of the independent investigators is a judge who ruled favorably for the Vikings in the Williams StarCaps case) It can say anything the Vikings want. So far we've been told the report could only corroborate one offensive statement that Priefer made. Do you think they neglected to corroborate offensive statements that Kluwe might have made in the locker room? If the Vikings (according to Kluwe) were receiving angry phone calls because of Kluwe's PUBLIC tweets attacking a religious organization, what does he say behind the PRIVATE closed doors in the locker room? After all, the team claims in their legal summary of the report that one reason Kluwe was terminated was because he had become a distraction, however not because of his beliefs. Do you think there might be some detail in the report about what those distractions were?

I think Kluwe's attorney clued him in on how the game is being played. That's why they're back to negotiating; to get whatever they can and go away claiming victory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swiss_vike


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 989
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wcblack34 wrote:
If his lawyers are taking his case on a contingent fee basis: He. Does. Not. Have. To. Pay. If. He. Loses.


You don't know this. I don't know this. I'm aware of this, as you mentioned it before.

wcblack34 wrote:
Additionally, lawyers often take high profile cases like these on a reduced/no fee basis because they know it's worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free advertising. Had you ever heard of Halunen before this?


Yeah. And Halunen got public attention with the Kluwe case _without_ going to court about it. That's pefectly played by Halunen. Free advertising at its best.

And a lawsuit would only be advertising if the result is well sellable. It might not be. Halunen will certainly take into acount winnability as well. Why risk loosing a helpless case?

wcblack34 wrote:
And we have no idea if his case is winnable or not. We don't even know what his case is, although you seem to think you do.


It was you that speculated which cases might come. I frankly don't know. I tried to explain why I think that those cases you brought up are probably not winnable based on what we know. You might have explained why I'm wrong in thinking that, but you didn't. All you said is that I can't know what they have up their sleeve. But that's irrelavant.

Of course, they could have a recording between Priefer, Spielmann and Wilf that explicitely says that they fired Kluwe for his believes and his actions. But that's irrelevant. Again, I outlined why I think his cases are not winnable based on what we know.

Why do you think he has a winnable case (any)? What known facts are there to make you think so?
_________________
Ponder is not done in Minnesota...yet. I think now, he might be. Will miss you, Samantha Hottie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wcblack34


Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 6380
Location: Anywhere but Wisconsin.
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

swiss_vike wrote:
wcblack34 wrote:
If his lawyers are taking his case on a contingent fee basis: He. Does. Not. Have. To. Pay. If. He. Loses.


You don't know this. I don't know this. I'm aware of this, as you mentioned it before.

wcblack34 wrote:
Additionally, lawyers often take high profile cases like these on a reduced/no fee basis because they know it's worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free advertising. Had you ever heard of Halunen before this?


Yeah. And Halunen got public attention with the Kluwe case _without_ going to court about it. That's pefectly played by Halunen. Free advertising at its best.

And a lawsuit would only be advertising if the result is well sellable. It might not be. Halunen will certainly take into acount winnability as well. Why risk loosing a helpless case?

wcblack34 wrote:
And we have no idea if his case is winnable or not. We don't even know what his case is, although you seem to think you do.


It was you that speculated which cases might come. I frankly don't know. I tried to explain why I think that those cases you brought up are probably not winnable based on what we know. You might have explained why I'm wrong in thinking that, but you didn't. All you said is that I can't know what they have up their sleeve. But that's irrelavant.

Of course, they could have a recording between Priefer, Spielmann and Wilf that explicitely says that they fired Kluwe for his believes and his actions. But that's irrelevant. Again, I outlined why I think his cases are not winnable based on what we know.

Why do you think he has a winnable case (any)? What known facts are there to make you think so?


The difference between you and I is that I have not stated in any certain terms that his case (whatever it may be) is or isn't winnable. I have stated that we have received one side's interpretation of a report that it itself paid for and that there may be other information out there. Your position, on the other hand, is that Kluwe can't win "based on what we know" and therefore shouldn't try.

You are clearly biased against Kluwe and are unwilling to concede that there may well be other factors in play here other than "what is known". What isn't known is absolutely relevant. If you only filed lawsuits based on what you knew at the time of the filing, there would hardly be any lawsuits. Filing said lawsuit allows one to use the legal process to obtain information from the adverse party that may not be available to them without the legal system.

And no, a case does not have to be won ("winning" in a legal sense can mean many different things to many different people) in order to be good advertising. Halunen and his firm can claim that they fight for the little guy, or that they aren't afraid to take on billion dollar companies. Very, very useful branding. Even moreso in today's ultra-competitive legal market.
_________________
“Your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park. Enjoy the ride.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
since72


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 3561
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Krauser wrote:
Instead they (including Priefer, who I think has been entwined with management throughout this):
-- issued a blanket denial
-- promised to investigate, named independent investigators
-- kept Priefer on the team
-- dragged out the investigation (including uncooperative witnesses and people changing their stories)
-- refused to release the results
-- released a separate legal brief instead, creating a misleading impression that that was representative of the investigation's findings
-- smeared Kluwe's character
-- issued a brief, limited apology while otherwise denying all charges and maintaining that the team did nothing wrong


It's easy to be critical, but if you were the owner of a billion dollar business, would you have done this...?

-- admit your company has a culture of hate and intolerance and that you wrongfully fired an employee for their political beliefs
-- do not look into the charges to see if there's any truth, do not use any company money by hiring independent investigators
-- Fire a coach based on an internet rant by a bitter ex-employee before finding out if there is any truth to the allegations
-- Hurried through the the investigation and just accepted initial denials and let uncooperative witnesses alone
-- release the results of every piece of dirt that happened in an NFL locker room, no matter if relevent to the situation or not.
-- do not cover your legal bases (especially when threatened with a lawsuit) and allow your adversary to color public opinion of the report
-- fail to mention the bitter ex-employee's hypocritical offensive behavior that may have helped cause a rift between coach and player.
-- Admit to all charges, even those that could not be corroborated, claimed wrongdoing (in addition to one Priefer comment) when there is no evidence of wrongdoing (other than one Priefer comment)


Krauser wrote:
So I have a problem with how this all went down.


In the end we have a coach who will attend sensitivity training and be suspended 2-3 games without pay for making one (corroborated) comment. A coach can't be suspended based on your speculation, only what can legally be proven.

Can anyone provide reasons why this suspension is too lenient by NFL standards? Can someone give examples of other Viking coaches being suspended? I don't remember any. Outside of the Vikings, I can only think of Belichik who was suspended zero games after evidence was provided of years of cheating. Then there were the New Orleans coaches that received some pretty stiff suspensions. They were paying players to cripple opponents. And of course I know those suspensions were issued by the NFL. The New Orleans Saints did not fire or suspend their coaches for that scandal. So what's the precedent for teams issuing coaching suspensions?

I think a multigame suspension is a pretty effective way to change the workplace environment in the Vikings locker room.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Gnat


Moderator
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 36517
Location: Minneapolis
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lot's of stuff from Training Camp and interviews including Priefer that you can find from Ben Goessling.

www.twitter.com/GoesslingESPN

Quote:
Loeffler: Never thought Priefer's comment was serious.


Quote:
Loeffler: Kluwe laughed at the comment, too.


Not saying that this means all that much, but some interesting quotes all around from Zimmer, Priefer, Loeffler, and Spielman. I do think that it is good to hear from the Vikings beyond the press release which is always going to be fairly tame, and what Kluwe has been saying.
_________________
Gnat's Movie Reviews

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Klomp


Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 7313
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Full Press Conferences

Rick Spielman
Mike Priefer
Cullen Loeffler
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vike daddy


Most Valuable Poster (2nd Ballot)

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 75212
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Priefer: “I’m not going to change the way I coach and I’m not going to change the way I teach, but I’ve learned a lesson. I have learned a lesson here. That’s a great thing about this situation, I’m going to look back and say something good had to come from this. But I learned a hard lesson, I’ve got to be sensitive to other people in what I say and that’s not going to happen again.”

Zimmer: "We all make mistakes, we all try to learn from our mistakes. And I think this guy is a very high-character, quality person that I want to stand behind. Honestly, I want to stand behind him because I know what is inside of him, I know what’s in his heart. And he made a mistake, and if anyone here hasn’t made a mistake, I want you to raise your hand, because I know I’ve made plenty.”

General Manager Rick Spielman indicated that the team considered firing Priefer, but thought a suspension was more appropriate.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/24/mike-priefer-ive-learned-a-hard-lesson/
_________________


Webmaster wrote:
Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SodakViking


Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Posts: 1670
Location: 605
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Man, everyone involved looks bad.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vike daddy


Most Valuable Poster (2nd Ballot)

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 75212
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kluwe: “Players who get caught smoking weed or DUI get [a suspension of] four games.... The NFL is a league where you can get redemption for killing someone, for beating your wife in an elevator, for driving drunk, for a whole variety of things...."


The NFL is suspending Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice two games under the personal conduct policy for an altercation that left his then-fiancee (now wife) unconscious in an Atlantic City casino elevator in February.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/ravens/2014/07/24/ray-rice-suspension-baltimore-janay-palmer/12783281/


so Ray Rice was suspended two games for an act of physical violence with a real victim, and Priefer was suspended for three games for a verbal insult(s).

does Kluwe really feel Priefer's suspension was too light?
_________________


Webmaster wrote:
Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 22 of 24

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group