Here’s more from today’s memo, which also says the team responsible for a canceled game because of an outbreak among unvaccinated players/staff will be responsible for financial losses and subject to potential discipline from the commissioner. Wow. pic.twitter.com/Q86a2WcG1K
Article doesn't say who, but apparently 13 teams have reached the 85% vaccinated threshold. That's a lot better than I would have thought. Hopefully the Chiefs are one of them.
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Yeah, it seems dicey to not pay them. Flu shots are available, but if a player decides to skip the shot and misses a game due to the flu, they still get paid.
Originally Posted by wazu:
Article doesn't say who, but apparently 13 teams have reached the 85% vaccinated threshold. That's a lot better than I would have thought. Hopefully the Chiefs are one of them.
Originally Posted by comochiefsfan:
It will be flat out embarrassing if any games have to be canceled this year.
Feel how you want about the vaccine, but if my employer is hanging my multi million dollar salary over my head over getting it or not, you better believe that needle is going in my arm.
They didn't have to cancel any games last year, with one less week, and there were a half dozen outbreaks.
Vaccine or not, it's unlikely to be a big issue. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Based on everything we've heard and read, I'm certain the Chiefs are one of them.
Guessing so. With the culture they have, it probably wasn't even a fight. Kelce even partnered with Walgreens to promote the vaccine to the public. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wazu:
Guessing so. With the culture they have, it probably wasn't even a fight. Kelce even partnered with Walgreens to promote the vaccine to the public.
I'm not sure what kelce getting paid by Walgreens has to do with any other player on the Chiefs [Reply]
While the penalties are pretty stiff, it's hard for me to imagine a ton of games being cancelled this year. Players sitting out? Sure. But I think most teams are 50%+ vaccinated, so you'd think that would prevent too many cases where a game has to be actually cancelled. [Reply]
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
Did that go through the NFLPA? I don’t mind the forfeiting part, but the nobody gets paid part seems like it could cause some legal issues with contracts. I mean players get paid when they get injured right? Why would they not if they got sick?
The difference is that a game being cancelled is a HUGE financial hit to the league, where an injured player doesn't cause the game to be cancelled.
I'm sure they can justify not paying players for a game that didn't exist. Again, I don't really think this is gonna matter, but I'm pretty confident the league's lawyers have signed off on it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wazu:
Article doesn't say who, but apparently 13 teams have reached the 85% vaccinated threshold. That's a lot better than I would have thought. Hopefully the Chiefs are one of them.
I think this is way more of the story here. The NFL doesn't want to put these rules in place. They want teams to hit the threshold so they don't have to deal with cases anymore. I don't get punishing the other team for this. But you'd have thought the Jon Rahm situation would have nudged players to consider. [Reply]
So, not just the players on the team that causes the forfeit don't get paid, but BOTH team's players don't get paid. I completely misread that the first time I went through it. [Reply]