Skinsinparadise Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Taylor 36 said: Why hasn't Scot, his agent, and/or his lawyer gone after the team. They fired him with "cause." That isn't something than can be done lightly, and opens up a huge legal can of worms and potentially millions of dollars of damages against the Redskins if they don't have actual "cause" that can be proven in a court of law for dismissing Scot. I just listened to all the Michael Robinson interview segments, he gave off a vibe that something legal could be brewing. He was asked about whether a law suit is coming, he hemmed and hawed, said he can't really discuss that. Chad Dukes who played that interview after hearing that specific part -- Dukes goes yeah Robinson basically said yes Scot will sue. I am not an attorney so if there is one here feel free to correct me. I just know what I know from one case. I had to sue a client once to collect money they owed me -- it took me some time to gather my ducks in a row for it (information, email exchanges, written materials among other things) before lodging a lawsuit. And in my case it was a real simple one -- a client just wouldn't pay and there was really nothing interesting to it context wise. But before you get to a law suit, at least in my case my lawyer talked to their lawyer and tried to settle something first and we negotiated back and forth for months. As for players speaking out. Yeah at the moment its been anonymous stuff -- players not liking how its been handled with Scot (according to a Chick Hernandez tweet), multiple players saying they didn't see Scot's drinking as an issue (Mike Jones). Sudfeld and Breeland talked about Scot being their guy implying they like the dude. As for players being bold enough to stick their neck out for the person who was just canned against the people signing their paycheck -- I guess we got one case in Ricky Jean Francois where he talked about dysfunction is now back. He's gone now. Just tuned into Craig Hoffman, he said he text'd a player and asked them what they thought about Scot in relation to this story, his response was "I got nothing but love for that man." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffmark1 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 My reaction to the thread title: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maskedsuperstar Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 10 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said: I just listened to all the Michael Robinson interview segments, he gave off a vibe that something legal could be brewing. He was asked about whether a law suit is coming, he hemmed and hawed, said he can't really discuss that. Chad Dukes who played that interview after hearing that specific part -- Dukes goes yeah Robinson basically said yes Scot will sue. I am not an attorney so if there is one here feel free to correct me. I just know what I know from one case. I had to sue a client once to collect money they owed me -- it took me some time to gather my ducks in a row for it (information, email exchanges, written materials among other things) before lodging a lawsuit. And in my case it was a real simple one -- a client just wouldn't pay and there was really nothing interesting to it context wise. But before you get to a law suit, at least in my case my lawyer talked to their lawyer and tried to settle something first and we negotiated back and forth for months. As for players speaking out. Yeah at the moment its been anonymous stuff -- players not liking how its been handled with Scot (according to a Chick Hernandez tweet), multiple players saying they didn't see Scot's drinking as an issue (Mike Jones). Sudfeld and Breeland talked about Scot being their guy implying they like the dude. As for players being bold enough to stick their neck out for the person who was just canned against the people signing their paycheck -- I guess we got one case in Ricky Jean Francois where he talked about dysfunction is now back. He's gone now. Just tuned into Craig Hoffman, he said he text'd a player and asked them what they thought about Scot in relation to this story, his response was "I got nothing but love for that man." Ricky Jeans play didn't help his cause ? I'm sure many loved Scot. Redskins fired Scot for cause. They haven't said anymore about it. But this is where Scot better be careful. Keep running your mouth and the evidence will come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Green Fan Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I hope he sues and I hope he wins. Big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 2 hours ago, maskedsuperstar said: Ricky Jeans play didn't help his cause ? I'm sure many loved Scot. Redskins fired Scot for cause. They haven't said anymore about it. But this is where Scot better be careful. Keep running your mouth and the evidence will come out. Cooley would disagree with you on that one as to his RJF's play. Listening to everyone who has talked about the Scot-Bruce situation especially Chris Russell who broke the story and claims he has multiple sources on it -- sounds it would hurt BOTH Scot and the Redskins if all the back and forth that went down got out publicly. That's perhaps why as Mike Florio who is a lawyer and talked about this yesterday said if there is something brewing legally he doubts it would hit the courts at this point in a public lawsuit -- neither side would likely want it all coming out, it would likely get settled out of court. But will see. I remain firm that I don't really have a side on this as to who was the bad guy. And actually I don't really care who was the bad guy and how mean or not mean Bruce was or how drunk or not drunk or insubordinate Scot was or not. My issues with all of this is the power structure. And I've yet to hear any version of this story (pro Bruce side or pro Scot side) about the power structure that I like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 RGF played okay on a bad line on a bad offense . The interesting thing came when RGF put out a tweet when Manusky was named as DC that seemed as though he was less than pleased . The love that RGF and Baker have gotten on here because they have been seen as being on either side of this debate is really not comesurate with what they actually provided . We needed to get younger on the line - which we did . Did we get better who knows but I kind of understand the move from a football standpoint . I really don't expect there to be legal repucusions from all this at least not publicly . If there were I think it would be far more damaging for Scot than the team because pretty much public opinion of the team is on the floor now . It cannot get any lower . If Scot chose to drag this through the courts I thinks his reputation would be irrevocably destroyed . If anything legal were to occur I suspect it would come from the redskins to Scot - but that is highly unlikely ... in in a few months this will be buried ... one thing that does interest me though is how the local and national media have been talking long and hard about this - but rules on misreporting injuries, rules specifically brought in to tackle sports betting corruption of the game and could represent very dark proceedings relating to the integrity of the sport have been flagerently been broken - and yet nothing is being talked about, no pending discipline , nothing drunk guy gets fired from dysfunctional team hits the headlines - breaking anti corruption rules a couple of tweets if that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said: My issues with all of this is the power structure. And I've yet to hear any version of this story (pro Bruce side or pro Scot side) about the power structure that I like. This is what cannot be disputed. Who did what to who is just that at this point and we'll probably never know the truth. What we do know for a fact is that Bruce overstepped the boundaries he told us were there 2 years ago. That's enough for me to not be optimistic about the long term future of the Redskins. If he signs Kirk to a LTD, I'll at least be able to stomach the next few seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 The more I look at it, this is the state of the NFL. Before the CAP, the GM and HC made all decisions in terms of personnel - period. Money was not the issue unless it was a cash strapped team - or an owner that did not want to spend much. Once the CAP was put in place though that dynamic has changed. The days of a GM having 100% control over the personnel are gone in the sense most of us know it. The new dynamic is that the CAP person has more responsibility and in turn power as they must make the hard dollar driven decisions. Let's look at everyone's poster child for managing to stay more than relevant in the CAP era - NE. They have let top players go in recent years as salary cap casualties. So someone is making some personnel decisions based much more on economics than playing ability. Do you really think Belichick wanted to lose 3 of his best defensive players last year? He had to bring new guys in, coach them up and make a team. But he a great system for doing just that. And it's not just drafting. If you look at their drafts they are not exactly world beaters. However, they are good at placing a value on a position/player and sticking to that model - regardless. The biggest place that I agree that the Redskins are not quite getting yet is that you do need to pay some players. @Skinsinparadise I believe was one of the first to bring this up but I know others have echoed those thoughts. I don't have a problem letting Baker go. We got to younger guys for about the same CAP hit this year. If Tampa wants him next year they will have to pay him the same or more I would think. Maybe not. But we should have paid Logan. He would have instantly upgraded the DLine. Zach Brown (not doing it twice @CTskin!) would be an instant upgrade to the ILB corps who were probably one of the worst in the NFL, and have been. It's worth $2M/yr more to get him - at least to me. But IMO expecting there to be a GM - HC only decision tree where they tell the CAP guy make it work no matter the cost is just not going to happen. But Bruce needs top open Dan's wallet just a little more. As others have said, we need to find a happy medium between out of control spending vinnie, and penny pincher bruce. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 We will all find out if they did the right thing, or did it for reasons they lied about, simply by the new GM hire. Either they hire one, and give the GM appropriate authority showing they did the right thing, or they dont hire one, or hire one they dont give authority to, so Bruce can retain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 What to you is appropite power ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Green Fan Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 On 3/31/2017 at 8:02 AM, bedlamVR said: RGF played okay on a bad line on a bad offense . The interesting thing came when RGF put out a tweet when Manusky was named as DC that seemed as though he was less than pleased . The love that RGF and Baker have gotten on here because they have been seen as being on either side of this debate is really not comesurate with what they actually provided . We understand Baker and RJF weren't any more than serviceable. But when compared to the rest of the group they appeared to be the best of a bad bunch. I think the frustration is we got rid of the only 2 that semi-produced and replaced them with more very real question marks. Other than age there isn't much of an argument that these guys will improve a terrible unit. But back to the topic of this thread the timing of the release of RJF, late in the game and only after critical comments came out, is what is rubbing a lot of us the wrong way. I will never believe it was not related to his comments, how could I given the timing and the history of this petty organization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 I think RJF always was on the bubble once Manusky was named DC . The two of them have history and it is not great . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbunny Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 On 31/03/2017 at 1:25 PM, Skinsinparadise said: I remain firm that I don't really have a side on this as to who was the bad guy. We all know who the bad guy is SIP: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.