Bruce Allen, Scot McCloughlan, Jay Gruden, and all that stuff like that there

[Dissident2]

56 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Cole: “From what I know, it was Scot and Dan one on one.”

 

 

But now?

 

"The then-GM met for five hours one night that summer to try and convince owner Dan Snyder and president Bruce Allen that the time had come, and the team needed to move from Robert Griffin III to Kirk Cousins."

 

When did Bruce Allen get added to the side that needed to be convinced?...What "high-ranking front office officials" would not include Allen? Was there a THIRD meeting that lasted 5 hours and that Allen was part of? lol...I mean, I know it now helps push a certain narrative right now to claim Allen was at the meeting and needed to be convinced as well. But for ****'s sake, I can NOT be the only one who notices these things, can I?

 

Some will no doubt claim it doesn't matter if Allen was there or not...but I would strongly disagree. If he wasn't there in the meeting, why is Allen being inserted into it after the fact? The answer to that is what's important.

 

Yes, I will indeed be one of those who claims Allen's physical presence at the meeting does not matter whatsoever in the overall scheme of this argument. First off, to suggest he was not a part of this decision would be lunacy. Let's just make that clear. Whether he was physically in that meeting or not, he WAS part of the decision. Maybe he was there that particular night by phone. Maybe the things SM said to Dan that night were later reported back to Allen. Clearly, though, more discussions took place before and after that meeting, and Allen was obviously a part of the final decision to remove Griffin's starting status. Two hours, five hours ... what difference doe that really make? 

 

The far more important take-aways from that piece for me are:

1. SM wanted to extend Kirk in 2015, and that was rejected

2. This quote: "What those on the coaching and scouting staffs did see, eventually, was a blurring of lines that created a level of tension in the upper reaches of the club"

3. This quote: "Some veterans felt like McCloughan was simply trying to uphold the culture that he and Gruden had worked to build, which is seen as a “Seattle” thing (McCloughan worked for the Seahawks from 2011-13) to do—If you see something, say something."

 

First point lets us know pretty conclusively that if anyone had a problem with extending Kirk, it wasn't SM. 

 

Second point reflects something that many have been criticizing the FO structure for for some time: a lack of transparency, confusion as to who does what, roles that are not clearly defined, all of which lead to organizational dysfunction. 

 

Third point reinforces the story of Allen berating SM for speaking to a player after practice who was having difficulty. It also - for me - reinforces the feeling I got from Scot that, despite his flaws, he came across as a real human being, someone people could rally behind and respect on a personal level because of the way he treated players and the way he obviously cared about them. To me, that tone stands in stark contrast to the politician/Fembot vibe we've gotten from Allen since Day One. 

 

I don't consider SM a "holy martyr" by any stretch, but I do believe this: In the interest of the Redskins truly changing their culture and becoming an upper echelon team again, the wrong man was fired. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

47 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

If it doesn't add clarity, logic or accuracy it's of very little use to me.

To be fair, I don't have time to read the novel you've written analyzing the "poor writing" and your own rebuttals.

 

With that said, I'm convinced its going to require multiple depositions and sworn statements from everyone involved before you will be willing to believe that all is not well in Washington.

 

 

[chrisxcore]

Breeland going strong on Twitter, 'defending' himself in light of the Breer article. Something tells me he won't be around for the long-term.

 

My goodness, what a mess. I keep thinking it can't get worse, but it somehow does. It always does. 

[DJHJR86]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

When did a 2-hour meeting become a 5-hour meeting...and why?...Or were there two separate meetings to convince Snyder to start Cousins: one was 2 hours and one was 5 hours? lol...

 

Why does it matter about the length of the meeting?  And couldn't Cole be mistaken or wrong when he says "from his understanding" it was Scot and Dan one on one?  Allen very well could've been there too and Cole didn't know that.  I really don't understand why you are hung up on this point.  Virtually every other media member involved has said the Cousins/Griffin decision was split between Gruden/SM and Snyder/Allen.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

26 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

Yes, I will indeed be one of those who claims Allen's physical presence at the meeting does not matter whatsoever in the overall scheme of this argument. First off, to suggest he was not a part of this decision would be lunacy.

 

No one suggested that.

 

 

Quote

Let's just make that clear. Whether he was physically in that meeting or not, he WAS part of the decision. Maybe he was there that particular night by phone. Maybe the things SM said to Dan that night were later reported back to Allen. Clearly, though, more discussions took place before and after that meeting, and Allen was obviously a part of the final decision to remove Griffin's starting status. Two hours, five hours ... what difference doe that really make?

 

Breer never said any of the things you're speculating about. He was incredibly clear and direct: a 5-hour meeting took place where SM had to convince Snyder and Allen to let Gruden name Cousins the starter. Period. It matters if Allen was included because it either directly or indirectly points to Allen NOT being on board for starting Cousins. There hasn't been a single report about that meeting that claimed Allen didn't support Cousins. Now, though, we get one.

 

And again, if the time of the meeting doesn't matter, why increase it by so much? Would a story saying SM needed 15 minutes to convince Snyder to let Cousins start give you or anyone the same feeling as him needing 5 hours to do so? Increasing the meeting time to 2 1/2 times the reported length increases just how stubborn and clueless and blinded by his love of Griffin Snyder apparently must have been. It gets parroted by Skins fans on this very site..."Why would Scot need to stand on the table for 5 hours!!!"...Again, what if he only needed 15 minutes, and spent the rest of the 2hour meeting discussing other things related to the team, Griffin, etc, etc? If none of that matters to you, all that tells me is that you're so wedded to your opinion that you won't let little things like accuracy and facts sway you.

 

 

Quote

The far more important take-aways from that piece for me are:

 

1. SM wanted to extend Kirk in 2015, and that was rejected

2. This quote: "What those on the coaching and scouting staffs did see, eventually, was a blurring of lines that created a level of tension in the upper reaches of the club"

3. This quote: "Some veterans felt like McCloughan was simply trying to uphold the culture that he and Gruden had worked to build, which is seen as a “Seattle” thing (McCloughan worked for the Seahawks from 2011-13) to do—If you see something, say something."

 

First point lets us know pretty conclusively that if anyone had a problem with extending Kirk, it wasn't SM. 

 

Second point reflects something that many have been criticizing the FO structure for for some time: a lack of transparency, confusion as to who does what, roles that are not clearly defined, all of which lead to organizational dysfunction. 

 

Third point reinforces the story of Allen berating SM for speaking to a player after practice who was having difficulty. It also - for me - reinforces the feeling I got from Scot that, despite his flaws, he came across as a real human being, someone people could rally behind and respect on a personal level because of the way he treated players and the way he obviously cared about them. To me, that tone stands in stark contrast to the politician/Fembot vibe we've gotten from Allen since Day One.

 

 

1) Keim says he heard something definitely different in terms of when Scot M wanted to extend Cousins, and how he viewed Cousins during camp. What that tells me? That there are too many stories floating around even among "sources" to latch onto one as truth.

 

2) Agree.

 

3) You left off the part where it's said that it may not be best for GMs to take on that roll...thus by doing so it could screw with any positive "culture". Now, the article blandly says this by saying in the "Football world" it would be argued that a GM's place is not to do things such as this. And this would be at least the 2nd time Scot would have done so. The importance? What if Gruden felt his authority was being undermined by Scot interacting with the players privately who are having issues with their coaches? (which is what it sounded like was happening in the article)...Shouldn't that play a role in how things are perceived? Wouldn't players "loving" Scot also start to create a wedge between the players and Gruden, especially since Scot was supposed to have final say-so over the roster?...Cozy up to the guy who has control of your spot on the roster, not the guy who actually is responsible for on-field play? Is this was indeed the case, I would definitely side with Allen and Gruden...wouldn't give a **** if players love the down-to-earth, real GM or not. The law would be, if a player has a problem, Scot, he does NOT go to you. He addresses it with the coaches. If a player does go to you, let him know the correct way of handling those matters. And definitely don't go in and invite them INTO your office.

 

 

21 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

To be fair, I don't have time to read the novel you've written analyzing the "poor writing" and your own rebuttals.

 

With that said, I'm convinced its going to require multiple depositions and sworn statements from everyone involved before you will be willing to believe that all is not well in Washington.

 

 

 

If you aren't reading what I'm posting, you fall into the TL:DR but I'll find a way to criticize your opinion anyway group lol...go get your name tag.

[shmohawk]

16 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

To be fair, I don't have time to read the novel you've written analyzing the "poor writing" and your own rebuttals.

 

With that said, I'm convinced its going to require multiple depositions and sworn statements from everyone involved before you will be willing to believe that all is not well in Washington.

 

 

 

That's not a fair characterization of his criticisms of the article, although you admitted to not reading his criticisms.  His criticisms are that the article lacked any objectivity, and further overdramatized events despite contradictory time-stamped information existing.  The article contained in-depth discussion of Scot's viewpoint, but only lip service was given to an opposing viewpoint with absolutely no depth.  It's almost as if Scot had a major role as a source of information for this article.

 

 

[Taylor 36]

20 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

To be fair, I don't have time to read the novel you've written analyzing the "poor writing" and your own rebuttals.

 

With that said, I'm convinced its going to require multiple depositions and sworn statements from everyone involved before you will be willing to believe that all is not well in Washington.

 

 

If you're not going to read his post, you shouldn't respond to it.  Honestly, you should go and read it.  I'm sure you made time to read the article it was about, you can make time to read his "novel," which is actually better written and uses more facts and deeper thought than the article.  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

14 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

Why does it matter about the length of the meeting?  And couldn't Cole be mistaken or wrong when he says "from his understanding" it was Scot and Dan one on one?  Allen very well could've been there too and Cole didn't know that.  I really don't understand why you are hung up on this point.  Virtually every other media member involved has said the Cousins/Griffin decision was split between Gruden/SM and Snyder/Allen.  

 

See my previous post as to why the length of the meeting matters.

 

And Cole's "understanding" of who was in the meeting matched perfectly with what Schefter and Russini reported a year earlier in ESPN. I would think suddenly having Allen added into that meeting now--at this very time and in this very atmosphere--should be sending red flags up instead of dismissing it as irrelevant.

 

Because if he was added into the meeting to strengthen the viewpoint that Scot and Allen's friction is due in part to Scot wanting Cousins and Allen wanting Griffin--which has already been reported/speculated--putting him in that meeting serves to bolster that story.

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Virtually everyone sees it differently.   What does that tell you?  You are right and everyone else is wrong is usually a  failed strategy.

 

Not virtually everyone sees it differently. Trying to isolate @Sekhmet187 as alone does not make your argument any better. If you can't make the argument on it's own basis, then you don't have one. Just saying "well everyone disagrees" means nothing. It would not be the first time in history the majority were wrong.

 

Ultimately people will believe what they want to believe. Many people hate Dan S and hate Bruce Allen - much of it very well deserved. But it also allows for believing everything negative written even if there are no facts to support that.

 

There are very few facts here - but a lot of speculation. The only facts in terms of the separation are:

1. Scot left Redskins Park several weeks before the combine then subsequently decided not to participate. He was not sent home as speculated.

2. When his agent was contacted as to why Scot was not there, he said it was to address personal matters (He may have actually said family matters, can't remember.).

3. When contacted the Redskins stated Scot was home taking care of some personal matters (again it may have been family matters, but I remember it being personal matters.) Either way it was the same response given by Scot's agent. They also said they hoped to get him back to work but in the meantime he was working from his home getting ready for the draft.

4. After a ground swell of speculation when Scot was missing from the combine, the Redskins released Scot from his position. The statement was:

"The Washington Redskins have released Scot McCloughan from the organization effective immediately. We wish him success in his future endeavors. The team will have no further comment on his departure. The organization remains confident in our personnel department as we execute our free agency plans as well as prepare for the upcoming NFL Draft." Everything else is speculation and guesswork, which has run rampant.

 

That's it. People are saying the team is doing this and the team is doing that. In fact, the team has done nothing officially. It's all hearsay and innuendo. Is some of it true? Sure. But so far the only thing many want to believe is that absolute worst about the team.

 

For example, people said the team should have gotten him help. It was reported that they did. But people refuse to believe it. It was reported that there were players and team officials who saw Scot in the locker room drunk. That was not in the article yet the people who said they never saw him drunk were quoted. It's very possible both are true. It can be hard sometimes to tell if a functional alcoholic is drunk.

 

Also not reported along with the other speculation is that he was being fired for cause meaning they do not intend to pay his full contract. I have had to defend firing people in employment hearings - in DC and MD - never in VA but I doubt the burden of proof is much different. I never lost BTW. You have to have a mountain of data to fire someone for cause or they had to do something illegal and been caught - like stealing or assault. Why was that not in the article?

 

I also had a hard time getting past the article stating the Redskins getting 2 new coordinators as part of the dysfunction. One was promoted to HC of another team. Which by contract there is nothing they can do to stop. For any other organization that would considered a positive. Somehow for the redskins it's a negative! The DC was fired (much to the delight of many.) for a defense that was not performing well. I would think keeping that person would be dysfunctional. I literally read in here and other places "If this were a good organization they would fire him!". They did and somehow they are dysfunctional for doing so?

 

And then there is the whole Kirk demanded to be traded. When this was categorically denied by Kirk himself, many decided not to believe him.

 

I have no trouble believing that the FO shares some responsibility. They are not the victim. But neither is Scot M. They took a chance on a great talent. It did not work out. Time to move on. They do need to hire another GM.

 

My true wish is that just the facts would be reported and leave the slant out of it. But that's clearly asking too much.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

Some will no doubt claim it doesn't matter if Allen was there or not...but I would strongly disagree. If he wasn't there in the meeting, why is Allen being inserted into it after the fact? The answer to that is what's important.

 

To many people including some beat reporters Bruce and Danny are interchangeable.  Bruce does Danny's bidding, etc.  Is that so?  You got me.  But if there is something to it, the two are often in the mix with each other.    But yeah count me among those who don't care about the past.   But I do care about it as it relates to the future.  If Bruce is all in on Kirk (versus other stories out there) we will see.  The movie is running every day as speak on that front.  If Bruce isn't a control freak (versus other stories out there) -- we will see based on the next GM hire. 

[Dissident2]

8 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

It matters if Allen was included because it either directly or indirectly points to Allen NOT being on board for starting Cousins. There hasn't been a single report about that meeting that claimed Allen didn't support Cousins. Now, though, we get one.

 

Saying that report equates to "Allen didn't support Cousins" is exactly the kind of speculation you seem to be critical of in other posts. Saying Allen needed "to be convinced" to make such a big change is not the same as saying he "didn't support" Kirk. Clearly he agreed with the opinions of SM and Jay in the end. Saying he needed to be convinced isn't necessarily a nasty swipe at Allen. It just goes to further show why the FO needed better football IQs in the building. 

 

Here's what Allen said in the preseason of 2015:

Quote

It’s finding those types of guys, who fit the mold, that have the right character and attitude that want to play for the Washington Redskins that we have to identify, and that’s why we brought in Scot [McCloughan]. 

 

Translation: "I am not as well-equipped as Scot to identify those character traits and attitudes." I would whole-heartedly agree. 

 

Here's what Allen said in June of 2015 about RG3:

 

Quote

Washington Redskins vice president Bruce Allen says the reason why the organization made the decision to pick up the 5th year option on quarterback Robert Griffin III was because they see him as their starting quarterback.

 

What that statement CLEARLY shows is that, in June, just a few months before the season began, Allen was on board with Griffin being the starter. So, it stands to reason (and LOGIC) that he needed some convincing if he was going to make a radical departure from that route just a few months later. I actually applaud him for ceding to the conclusions of smarter football minds, as it really called into question his own talent at foresight. 

 

20 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

by doing so it could screw with any positive "culture".

 

Well, there was no positive culture in 2013, 2014. I personally believe that Scot, along with Jay, helped begin to establish a much more positive culture precisely by doing the kinds of things Allen apparently was critical of. 

 

 

[shmohawk]

This may have already been discussed, but I decided to go looking for it, and Chick Hernandez deleted his tweet claiming that "Kirk would NOT negotiate a LTD with Bruce" after Kirk's Schefter interview came out.  That tells us a lot about some of these "sources."

[Califan007 The Constipated]

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

To many people including some beat reporters Bruce and Danny are interchangeable.  Bruce does Danny's bidding, etc.  Is that so?  You got me.  But if there is something to it, the two are often in the mix with each other.    But yeah count me among those who don't care about the past.   But I do care about it as it relates to the future.  If Bruce is all in on Kirk (versus other stories out there) we will see.  The movie is running every day as speak on that front.  If Bruce isn't a control freak (versus other stories out there) -- we will see based on the next GM hire. 

 

Our last GM hire didn't prove anything to anyone lol...although until the last 2 months almost everyone was saying it did. Remember, Allen was said to be off running the Harvest Festival and arranging alumni meet-and-greets and such things. Now, Allen is Montgomery Burns lol...the evil  puppetmaster.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

12 minutes ago, Taylor 36 said:

If you're not going to read his post, you shouldn't respond to it.  Honestly, you should go and read it.  I'm sure you made time to read the article it was about, you can make time to read his "novel," which is actually better written and uses more facts and deeper thought than the article.  

I don't need to read it.  I'm well versed enough around here to know the route the 'novel' is going. I don't expect any article to be written painting Bruce and the gang in a negative light to be taken seriously, because ultimately every article is going to contain hearsay, anonymous sources, etc.  The coveted facts will never be available to any of us without litigation, depositions, lie detector tests, etc. that are 99% likely to never occur.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

The only thing that is certain is that the story doesn't hold together, and either they were lying then or now.  And most likely unless we can hook Dan up to a lie detector and publish the results, we'll never know which.  (FWIW, I don't believe that Dan could beat a lie detector. )

 

The also extends to the Redskins PR arm on TV, Redskins Nation.  The other day they show Scot's drafts and say to the viewer what do you think -- implying that his drafts were bad and on the same program they hype that Scot wasn't that big of a loss because he was just one part of the group think approach the front office used on both free agency and the draft.  So what it is Scot made bad decisions or don't lament the loss of Scot because he wasn't the guy making the decisions single handily anyway?   Then there was a heavy plug about how great Bruce Allen is. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

14 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

Saying that report equates to "Allen didn't support Cousins" is exactly the kind of speculation you seem to be critical of in other posts. Saying Allen needed "to be convinced" to make such a big change is not the same as saying he "didn't support" Kirk. Clearly he agreed with the opinions of SM and Jay in the end. Saying he needed to be convinced isn't necessarily a nasty swipe at Allen. It just goes to further show why the FO needed better football IQs in the building. 

 

 

Not sure how else to put this:

 

- Allen didn't support Cousins being named starter over Griffin...not simply that he didn't support Cousins in any way. Breer makes this beyond doubt by saying Allen also needed the 5 hour meeting to be convinced to let Cousins start. Why would Allen need ANY convincing if he already supported Cousins starting beforehand? The original report indicated he did. The follow-up report a year later still only said Snyder was the only one in the "Convincing" meeting. Again, no other "report" has Allen in that meeting...until now. Floors me how anyone can say it doesn't matter.

 

 

14 minutes ago, shmohawk said:

This may have already been discussed, but I decided to go looking for it, and Chick Hernandez deleted his tweet claiming that "Kirk would NOT negotiate a LTD with Bruce" after Kirk's Schefter interview came out.  That tells us a lot about some of these "sources."

 

Really? lol...Cousins shot that down. Probably a lot could be shot down (or bolstered) if everyone went on record.

[shmohawk]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Really? lol...Cousins shot that down. Probably a lot could be shot down (or bolstered) if everyone went on record.

 

Also, here is the link to the CSN webpage which used to contain the corresponding story.  #accessdenied

 

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/source-kirk-cousins-will-not-negotiate-long-term-deal-while-bruce-allen-redskins

[Califan007 The Constipated]

5 minutes ago, shmohawk said:

 

Also, here is the link to the CSN webpage which used to contain the corresponding story.  #accessdenied

 

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/source-kirk-cousins-will-not-negotiate-long-term-deal-while-bruce-allen-redskins

 

 

I actually said this to Keim on twitter earlier today: best to just wait before getting pissed off/depressed/whatever and let more fact come in. Keim, thankfully, chose to go that route in his reporting early on. Kudos to the man. As fans we would be wise to do the same.

[Voice_of_Reason]

58 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

So you think the Skins would put out a story that Scot M was the only one among him, Allen and Snyder who was right about Cousins starting, and further solidify the belief that Snyder and Allen were/are too tied up to Griffin to see things clearly...in order to show that the Redskins won't miss a beat with him now gone?

So, the story that Bruce was not there, it was only SM and Snyder, was when it happened.  Now, magically, Allen seems to have been re-inserted.  I'm guessing the reason is that they want it to appear as though SM was actually not the only one who stood on the table for Cousins, and that it was a group decision and discussion.  I don't think the article ever said that SM had to convince Allen, just that he was part of the process. Ergo, since he was part of the process, nothing has really changed.

 

I believe they want us to believe that.  I don't believe it to be true.

[Taylor 36]

6 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I don't need to read it. 

Then you don't need to comment on it.  Period.  Failing to read a well thought out post but deciding to comment on said post is disingenuous and diminishes the quality of this message board. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

keim's response when asked what he thought of Breer's article:

 

John Keim‏Verified account @john_keim

interesting. I've talked to many people. So many stories. would fill a book. and u still might not know who 2 fully believe

also was told about (Cousins) extension last year being suggested early in season, not in August. In camp, do know SM not sold on KC

[Taylor 36]

5 minutes ago, shmohawk said:

 

Also, here is the link to the CSN webpage which used to contain the corresponding story.  #accessdenied

 

http://www.csnmidatlantic.com/washington-redskins/source-kirk-cousins-will-not-negotiate-long-term-deal-while-bruce-allen-redskins

That is pretty telling, isn't it?  Unfortunately, even having to clean up all of the eggs from their faces, they still won't learn and neither will some of our fans.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

7 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

So, the story that Bruce was not there, it was only SM and Snyder, was when it happened.  Now, magically, Allen seems to have been re-inserted.  I'm guessing the reason is that they want it to appear as though SM was actually not the only one who stood on the table for Cousins, and that it was a group decision and discussion.  I don't think the article ever said that SM had to convince Allen, just that he was part of the process. Ergo, since he was part of the process, nothing has really changed.

 

I believe they want us to believe that.  I don't believe it to be true.

 

Allen wasn't re-inserted...he was never reported to have been there to begin with. And what Breer said was that Snyder AND Allen needed 5 hours of convincing by Scot to let Cousins start. That can't really be spun in any other way.

[Voice_of_Reason]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

Allen wasn't re-inserted...he was never reported to have been there to begin with. And what Breer said was that Snyder AND Allen needed 5 hours of convincing by Scot to let Cousins start. That can't really be spun in any other way.

I concede the point.

[Skinsinparadise]

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Our last GM hire didn't prove anything to anyone lol...although until the last 2 months almost everyone was saying it did. Remember, Allen was said to be off running the Harvest Festival and arranging alumni meet-and-greets and such things. Now, Allen is Montgomery Burns lol...the evil  puppetmaster.

 

I don't have Scot's back, I don't have Bruce's back.  I don't care about their dispute from a personality or antics perspective.  Maybe Bruce is the good guy, Maybe Scot is the good guy -- maybe they both were bad guys in their own way.    So as for the discussion about hey maybe Bruce isn't the bad guy in spite of how he's protrayed -- we should give the dude a break, etc.  My thought is it's cool to each their own.  But to me its meaningless.

 

My main difference with some on this is the following: I don't care if some of the interference is hyperbole or they had their reasons for interfering or yeah they interfered but it wasn't that much.   The idea that they are interfering period is a problem to me.  I don't care if Bruce Allen was Mother Teresa and Scot was obnoxious in return when he interfered.  I don't care if he didn't interfere 90% of the time.    We can play violins for Bruce about being one of the greatest men in America.  It means nothing to me.  I got nothing personal against Bruce.  He just seems to me potentially another pawn in the same soap opera that happened before Bruce was here and sadly I think will happen after he leaves. 

 

And my mind is open like I said on this front.  They are about to make two major decisions that IMO is a direct mirror to all of these accusations.   I am not negative or positive looking forward -- that's the GM decision, and the Kirk contract.   I think both decisions will be telling.  My gut is they do what my version is the right decisions on both even if its just for PR reasons.  But I don't care, I just want them to make the right decisions on both.  And if they do so I'll be happy to talk about what a swell guy Bruce is and how he's misunderstood by the media.  I met Bruce once, i liked him.  I got no problem liking Bruce -- I want to like him.