pft.com bruce Allen won’t let Scot McCloughan talk to media

[Skins-in-CT]

2 hours ago, hailer21 said:

The facts are that the organization has muzzled GMSM, done almost nothing to tamp media speculation based on conflicting reports, our GM isn't at a major off-season event even though he's muzzled to help him focus on personnel and this organization has a long history of turmoil and idiotic decision making. What's your judgement?

 

I am not sitting in judgment because we don't know what the story is, only a bunch of hit pieces from local media with no actual sources.  Granted the team did not tell us, the fans, anything but then again they don't have to, do they.  No, we WANT them to.  I can sit back and wait until they do because it doesn't affect my day either way.  Is my life going to be affected because the team won't tell me what's going on?  I have been a fan for 40 years...this is nothing new.

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

True or False: Bruce Allen ends every executive meeting by turning to SM, making a drinking motion, and saying, "Lay off of this stuff. It's the curse of you people....."

[Califan007 The Constipated]

10 minutes ago, TheGreek1973 said:

not even, especially since she was buried a couple of weeks ago.  Now if he started drinking at the funeral and was not been sober since...I will go along with anything, including a dying pet.

 

What if your 75 year old mother was having an extremely hard time dealing with the passing of her mother?

[purbeast]

36 minutes ago, Alexa said:

I think it is safe to say that Scot had some kind of issue drinking again. All you have to do is put the dots together. Cooley's comments, then Scot isn't at work and can't talk. Then you have some weird statement by Bruce on a station in Tennessee. The entire thing has been so badly mismanaged. Always a sheet show over in Ashburn.

LOLWUT?

 

I guess the local media has now brainwashed people into thinking that Cooley didn't preface his comments stating that it was just 100% complete brain storming as to what the problem could be.  Just goes to show you how the media can push an agenda and story a certain way to get the mob to believe something.

[SkinsGuy]

2 minutes ago, TheGreek1973 said:

not even, especially since she was buried a couple of weeks ago.  Now if he started drinking at the funeral and was not been sober since...I will go along with anything, including a dying pet.

 

Or maybe he is taking care of her affairs. When someone dies, they leave a lot of things behind that need to be taken care of.

 

When my father died a over a decade ago, he had named my sister the executor of his estate. It isn't as simple as just selling his house and his cars, giving his clothes to goodwill and moving on. A lot has to be done, and it all has to be done with the approval of the state the person lived in, the county they resided in, and the courts.

 

It took months. This may be one thing Scott is dealing with now. Getting his grandmother's affairs in order while he takes phone calls from agents and prospects that are at the combine.

 

Now I don't know if that is what he is doing or not, but it is no less plausible than the bat-**** crazy stuff fans have decided to run with here.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Just now, purbeast said:

LOLWUT?

 

I guess the local media has now brainwashed people into thinking that Cooley didn't preface his comments stating that it was just 100% complete brain storming as to what the problem could be.  Just goes to show you how the media can push an agenda and story a certain way to get the mob to believe something.

 

1. Our GM has lost two jobs because of his drinking in the past.

2. Our GM has not stopped drinking and, in fact, drinks of ESPN reporters.

3. The team's #1 homer/mouthpiece radio personality speculated that he was drinking.

4. He's kinda MIA dealing with "family matters."

 

I mean, it's not exactly a leap here. I think it was always 50/50 that Scot would flame out here.  I actually thought it was going to happen last year during the whole reporter/sidepiece/wife debacle. (That's the one time the Redskins under Snyder ever successfully swept a scandal under the rug by the way). 

3 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

Or maybe he is taking care of her affairs. When someone dies, they leave a lot of things behind that need to be taken care of.

.

 

1. It's not THAT difficult - especially if the person is 100. All my grandparents lived into their 80s and their estates were simple because you can do most of the legwork in the years before their passing.

2. He's rich. Hire someone to do the grunt work. Would anyone here miss three weeks of work to clean out grandma's attic?

[SkinInsite]

We would have won multiple championships by now if it weren't' for you meddling media!

[HTTRDynasty]

Another possible theory:

 

We all know Scot is an extremely straight shooter - sometimes to his detriment (and the team's).  What if, last year at the combine, he was a little too free and loose with our draft plans to the other GMs and/or scouts?  We have all heard that the Colts had a good idea we were looking to draft Kelley in the first last year.  Most were assuming Scot gave it away from the strong hints he gave in the JLC interview last year, but what if he was giving stronger hints when among the other teams at the combine?  Not maliciously.  He just couldn't help himself.  That might be a good reason to keep him away this year, in one of the most important drafts in this franchise's history.

 

Just spit-balling.  It's probably not true, but I'm tired of the drinking speculation so wanted to offer up another theory.

[SkinInsite]

6 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

1. Our GM has lost two jobs because of his drinking in the past.

2. Our GM has not stopped drinking and, in fact, drinks of ESPN reporters.

3. The team's #1 homer/mouthpiece radio personality speculated that he was drinking.

4. He's kinda MIA dealing with "family matters."

 

I mean, it's not exactly a leap here. I think it was always 50/50 that Scot would flame out here.  I actually thought it was going to happen last year during the whole reporter/sidepiece/wife debacle. (That's the one time the Redskins under Snyder ever successfully swept a scandal under the rug by the way). 

 

1. It's not THAT difficult - especially if the person is 100. All my grandparents lived into their 80s and their estates were simple because you can do most of the legwork in the years before their passing.

2. He's rich. Hire someone to do the grunt work. Would anyone here miss three weeks of work to clean out grandma's attic?

 

I'd like to see a player miss three week of games for a death in the family.

[markshark84]

6 minutes ago, purbeast said:

LOLWUT?

 

I guess the local media has now brainwashed people into thinking that Cooley didn't preface his comments stating that it was just 100% complete brain storming as to what the problem could be.  Just goes to show you how the media can push an agenda and story a certain way to get the mob to believe something.

 

Yeah totally ---- Just like a couple years ago when a certain reporter started spewing fake news to push an agenda...... that ended up being true. 

[purbeast]

7 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

1. Our GM has lost two jobs because of his drinking in the past.

2. Our GM has not stopped drinking and, in fact, drinks of ESPN reporters.

3. The team's #1 homer/mouthpiece radio personality speculated that he was drinking.

4. He's kinda MIA dealing with "family matters."

 

I mean, it's not exactly a leap here. I think it was always 50/50 that Scot would flame out here.  I actually thought it was going to happen last year during the whole reporter/sidepiece/wife debacle. (That's the one time the Redskins under Snyder ever successfully swept a scandal under the rug by the way). 

America - where you are guilty until proven innocent.

 

Absolutely nothing of what you just posted has anything but speculation to say in regards of "saying it is safe to say he is drinking again" no matter how you spin it.

[Mr. Sinister]

3 minutes ago, SkinInsite said:

We would have won multiple championships by now if it weren't' for you meddling media!

 

Nah, we'd definitely have more collective brain cells, though. 

[Tay]

We don't know all of the details, but if Scot is having problems it's likely in the Redskins best interest to keep as much in house as possible. Holding a press conference to announce this would only appease the local media, but it would then become a national story. A national story confirming Scot is continuing to struggle would hurt Scot's reputation even further, and create a new unnecessary spotlight on the team.

 

It's probably the best bet to allow continued speculation.

[purbeast]

3 minutes ago, markshark84 said:

 

Yeah totally ---- Just like a couple years ago when a certain reporter started spewing fake news to push an agenda...... that ended up being true. 

Have you missed the past week, when KC was offered and signed the EFT, with his own agent saying that things are positive going towards a LTD, yet the whole media the past month has been saying as if it was factual that he will be shipped out and that they aren't even talking or having discussions going on, and KC wants to leave DC, etc.?

 

I have yet to hear 1 person in the media eat crow and say how absolutely wrong they were with their speculation and made up crap.

[SkinsGuy]

2 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

1. It's not THAT difficult - especially if the person is 100. All my grandparents lived into their 80s and their estates were simple because you can do most of the legwork in the years before their passing.

2. He's rich. Hire someone to do the grunt work. Would anyone here miss three weeks of work to clean out grandma's attic?

 

It's obvious you've never been the executor of an estate. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so clueless about it and what it entails.

 

The simple fact is, the people on this board who keep pointing to the drinking, it's because they WANT it to be drinking. There some on this thread that are actually drooling at the prospect of the drinking story being true. Some, just because they don't like Scott. Many, though, because they are just used to negativity. The last couple of years of quiet from the front office has unnerved them.

 

Don't get me wrong. They want the team to win, no doubt, but they have gotten so used to being negative, they are actually wanting the three-ring circus back (at least on this board), because that is just what they are used to. Look at how stir crazy some were acting before this broke. Now look at this thread. There are some that actually seem happy about all this.

 

Because they are back in their comfort zone.  

 

 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

8 minutes ago, purbeast said:

America - where you are guilty until proven innocent.

 

Absolutely nothing of what you just posted has anything but speculation to say in regards of "saying it is safe to say he is drinking again" no matter how you spin it.

 

Again, I'm not saying he is "drinking again." As far as I can tell, he's always been drinking. He's never stopped drinking. He drank in front of ESPN reporter when he was in exile for drinking.

 

The question with him is whether drinking is interfering with his work like it has twice in the past. The facts that he's been out of the picture for a while, is missing the Combine, and is being slandered by Cooley are the things pointing in that direction.

 

Also, you guys need to stop quoting law to me. Because I can come back with the ability to admit prior bad acts if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial impact. And then what do you got? Bupkus, I say. Bupkus.

[markshark84]

5 minutes ago, purbeast said:

Have you missed the past week, when KC was offered and signed the EFT, with his own agent saying that things are positive going towards a LTD, yet the whole media the past month has been saying as if it was factual that he will be shipped out and that they aren't even talking or having discussions going on, and KC wants to leave DC, etc.?

 

I have yet to hear 1 person in the media eat crow and say how absolutely wrong they were with their speculation and made up crap.

 

Oh man --- so you believe everything people say?  Sometime people say things that aren't true.  This front office has been guilty of that too many times to count.  I don't think they have earned the benefit of the doubt --- and that's an understatement.

 

And I really haven't heard anyone (since KC was tagged) that "he will be shipped out and that they aren't even talking or having discussions going on."  They said the latter portion prior to him being tagged --- and that was true.  Now, I don't scour the web but the sentiment I have taken away has been that they want to sign him but the sides are off by about 4M per year in compensation and there needs to be more on the guaranteed side.

 

And how many members of the media "eat crow" when they are wrong????? Come on. You should know better.  They don't care if they are right or wrong, just how many clicks they get.

[purbeast]

2 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

Again, I'm not saying he is "drinking again." As far as I can tell, he's always been drinking. He's never stopped drinking. He drank in front of ESPN reporter when he was in exile for drinking.

 

The question with him is whether drinking is interfering with his work like it has twice in the past. The facts that he's been out of the picture for a while, is missing the Combine, and is being slandered by Cooley are the things pointing in that direction.

 

Also, you guys need to stop quoting law to me. Because I can come back with the ability to admit prior bad acts if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial impact. And then what do you got? Bupkus, I say. Bupkus.

Except that the bolded never happened.  

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

7 minutes ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

It's obvious you've never been the executor of an estate. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so clueless about it and what it entails.

 

 

 

 

I honestly didn't do every well in Wills and Trusts. It's unbelievably boring.

 

But I know this: rich dudes typically don't require a month of vacation to clean up grandma's estate.

[purbeast]

Just now, markshark84 said:

 

Oh man --- so you believe everything people say?  Sometime people say things that aren't true.  This front office has been guilty of that too many times to count.  I don't think they have earned the benefit of the doubt --- and that's an understatement.

 

And I really haven't heard anyone (since KC was tagged) that "he will be shipped out and that they aren't even talking or having discussions going on."  They said the latter portion prior to him being tagged --- and that was true.  Now, I don't scour the web but the sentiment I have taken away has been that they want to sign him but the sides are off by about 4M per year in compensation and there needs to be more on the guaranteed side.

 

And how many members of the media "eat crow" when they are wrong????? Come on. You should know better.  They don't care if they are right or wrong, just how many clicks they get.

I never said they said that after he was tagged.  I was referring to how sure they were about everything going on behind the scenes PRIOR to that.  Which was my whole point, in that they were completely wrong about what was going on recently so the fact they got something right in the past means absolutely nothing to me.

[SkinsGuy]

Just now, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

I honestly didn't do every well in Wills and Trusts. It's unbelievably boring.

 

But I know this: rich dudes typically don't require a month of vacation to clean up grandma's estate.

 

It hasn't been a month.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Just now, purbeast said:

Except that the bolded never happened.  

 

It's not a defense to say "I don't know this for a fact" prior to a slanderous or libelous statement.

 

Write a letter to the editor saying "I don't know if it's true, but it's possible that my neighbor Mr. Jones is a pedophile." Tell me what happens afterwards.

[purbeast]

2 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

It's not a defense to say "I don't know this for a fact" prior to a slanderous or libelous statement.

 

Write a letter to the editor saying "I don't know if it's true, but it's possible that my neighbor Mr. Jones is a pedophile." Tell me what happens afterwards.

I'm guessing that you didn't actually hear what was said and rather just read about it after the media spin that was put on it, purposefully leaving parts out.

[markshark84]

1 minute ago, purbeast said:

I never said they said that after he was tagged.  I was referring to how sure they were about everything going on behind the scenes PRIOR to that.  Which was my whole point, in that they were completely wrong about what was going on recently so the fact they got something right in the past means absolutely nothing to me.

 

As I said, I never heard what you are referring to with him not being a skin; all I heard was they hadn't begun negotiations --- which was true. 

 

But with a front office (sans SM) as incompetent as this one, I don't put anything past them.  The media has also been more right than wrong vs. this front office.  If that means nothing to you --- well at least enjoy the Kool-Aid.

[theTruthTeller]

1 hour ago, onedrop said:

Redskins Park is in Ashburn, VA. If Redskins employees are employed in the Commonwealth they can be fired at anytime for any reason whatsoever. As long as they aren't given a specific reason they would generally have no leg to stand on (we arent talking about obvious EOE violations) Over the years I have seen or used the magic phrase "were going in a different direction" dozens and dozens of times. Correct or not VA is a right to work state and employers have much more leeway. Nfl, Redskins team specific contracts notwithstanding of course.

"Right to work" (whether a union can force an employee to join the union in order to get a job, or whether they can forcibly extract union dues from a non-member employee's paycheck) and "at-will employment" (the consequences of firing an employee without cause) are two different things, but neither is likely to apply to SM employment with the Skins, which is surely governed by a contract which specifies what will happen in the event of a termination.  Because of Scot's past, it almost definitely has a reduced liability, or no liability, to the Skins if drinking can be shown to have impaired his duties, regardless of whatever state law dictates for an at-will employee.  Otherwise, Scot - if terminated for a change in "direction" - would likely receive the remainder of his salary.  It's highly unlikely that any GM in the NFL can't be terminated at the will of the owner ( or the BoD in GB's case); it's just a matter of how much that termination will cost.

 

if the problem is drinking, and he is getting help from a legit detox facility, I applaud the FO for standing by SM.  It's his story to tell when he is ready.