For Midget Fans: Why John Mara cheated

[FanboyOf91]

Does it matter? Can John Mara force the other owners to approve his agenda if they don't agree with it?

You'd better read the whole thread. I don't think you understand a thing about this matter, and I don't want to repeat what's already been posted.

[tshile]

You hear we are cap strapped but then sign some ridiculous over priced free agent. Year after year.

To be fair, I think this is one thing the Redskins have done extraordinarily well under Snyder. We had a guy that could always make the cap work by restructuring deals and shifting numbers. His name was very well known for a while because he did such a great job. Embarrassingly, I cannot remember his name... I'm sure someone will post it.

[skinsfan35yrs.]

I'd be willing to bet most players don't care/aren't even aware of what happened...this is a big deal to the fans and maybe the FO.

It doesn't affect the players. Hell, if it wasn't for the whole thing, some wouldn't even be on the team.

We should want to win because it's a 1st place game...

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 02:33 PM ----------

Idk...I'm over it. No use whining about **** that won't change...let's just win Sunday

We Should Want to Win Because its the Vagiants Im mean what guy doesn't like f****** p***y

[Going Commando]

It sucks, I was and still am angry about it, but here is the thing.. It seems as though we did it KNOWING there would be consequences. I can only get so angry when they obviously were warned, did it anyway, then act like they did nothing wrong when they get punished.

Say what you want, no broken rules, etc.. We were WARNED and did it anyway. Enough crying and wishing people dead on here, it's really going over the top in here lately.

I honestly believe the punishments took us by surprise.

The punishments were arbitrary (there are no guidelines for what kind of punishment should have been enacted... there were no rules broken... they legislated the issue by the seat of their pants), waaaay after the fact, and selectively meted out.

I bet they saw a ton of other teams doing shady **** that effected competitive balance and figured if you punish one, you have to punish them all.

But John Mara, the head of the comp committee only shares a division with Dallas and Washington among the "offenders." So that's why they were the only ones punished. He's a scumbag cheater. No more. Ironic because the justification of the punishments was supposed to be protecting competitive balance. It was actually just league-backed cheating by one dirtbag owner ****ing over his division rivals.

---------- Post added October-17th-2012 at 10:14 PM ----------

Also, can you believe the NFL owners pocketed the cap money they stole from us?

There wasn't a single facet of this debacle that wasn't entirely ****ed up.

[Boss_Hogg]

Wellington Mara would be rolling in his grave if he knew had bad his son has cheated. I respected Wellington as an owner and a man, it's a shame his son is dragging the Mara name through the mud.

[Commander PK]

legally did no wrong...

it's like you're almost coming around to understanding what it is we're actually saying, but you're not quite there

I've read everyone of the posts in this thread, and I get what you are saying. You admit that the Redskins and Cowboys broke no legal/written rules. You are talking about "context."

Which to me means you are talking about things like "karma" and "what goes around comes around." and you think looked at objectively, the Redskins and Cowboys did exactly what they are accused of by dumping money, effectively giving them a ton of cap space (that they didn't actually deserve) which created for them an "unfair" competitive advantage.

The problem is, those of us on the side of "**** Mara" are talking about things that actually count versus things that DO NOT count. The Redskins and Cowboys took advantage of a one year loop hole, yes they did, something they had every legal right to do. That is why they call it a "loop hole." It's a way around the rules that would normally be in place, but the rules were NOT in place. The owners themselves had seen to that. 2010 was an UNCAPPED year. Which means the Redskins and Cowboys could damn well spend what they wanted, and structure contracts however they wanted. The leagues so called "warnings" shouldn't have been worth the paper they were written on, because the superseding document was the old CBA. The other owners "feelings" and the attitude of the old guard that "wait a minute here, that ain't how we do business in our little fraternity" be damned. There was no binding written code that the two teams violated. The NFL has admitted this.

The NFL is NOT except from anti-trust laws. Somebody else already mentioned that with case law evidence. The bottom line is that if the owners wanted a deal done, they should have finished one earlier. The Redskins and Cowboys (and others) took advantage of the situation, and the other owners had no legal or ethical ground to punish them for it...but they did anyway, just for spite for past transgressions, (and apparently because they needed the money) and in doing so have telegraphed (see dumbass Mara's comments) an anti-labor violation that should have drawn an inquiry at the Federal level.

We are talking about rules and laws. You are talking about, "yes they broke no rules, but they pissed the owners off by not playing the "game" the way some of them wanted it played, which makes the Skins and Boys somewhat "guilty" as well."

The Redskins and Cowboys played the system, and they should have won. There was a loophole and they exploited it. Happens everyday. Like I said earlier, you can't punish somebody excessively for a crime now, because they got away with one you felt they shouldn't have last year.

[TheItalianStallion]

1. The Redskins dumping years worth of crappy contracts using a loophole, despite other teams not taking advantage yet knowing of the loophole.

How is this a wrong? (morally, legally, or in any other sense)

But I do think they disrupted the competitive balance, because they were playing by a set of rules other teams weren't

Football is a competitive sport. The NFL is a business. In both sports and business, the goal is to be better than the other guys. There's nothing wrong with being better than others. Did the Colts disrupt the competitive balance by drafting Peyton Manning?

This issue is far more complex than a few have led onto in this thread. If you want to bury your head in the sand and scream "NO RULES THERE WERE NO RULES" and end any discussion there then that's fine; but there is more to the story if you're willing to try and see it. Note: that doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

What do you think should have happened?

[s0crates]

Does it matter? Can John Mara force the other owners to approve his agenda if they don't agree with it?

First of all, Mara is the chairman, so he heads the MCEC. Presumably that carries a lot of power, like the ability to set the agenda and so on.

Regarding whether or not he could force his agenda on others, I think the fact that Jerry Jones was on the counsel and knew nothing about the penalties is very telling.

Furthermore, it was Mara who made himself, in Florio's words, "the aggressive face of the penalties." He is the one who ranted and raved about how the 'skins are lucky not to have lost draft picks.

Nobody said Mara acted alone, we just said Mara was behind it. Obviously, the other owners voted on this, so they share some of the blame. Keep in mind they were also voting to increase their own salary cap, so they had an incentive outside of penalizing the Redskins and Cowboys.

Regardless, the fact that Mara played a central role in this fiasco despite his obvious conflict of interest is undeniable. If you really don't think Mara played a pivotal role in this, then you are mistaken.

[Commander PK]

Regardless, the fact that Mara played a central role in this fiasco despite his obvious conflict of interest is undeniable.

and one fact that gets lost as well was it took TWO votes by the owners to uphold the salary cap penalties against the Redskins and Cowboys. We don't know what the results of the first vote were and never will, or what was said (and by whom) to influence the "unanimous" vote the second time around.

I suspect we all know who it was though.

[Henry]

Goodell and Mara have abused their power, plain and simple. There is no other way to look at this.

If Snyder and Jones (and others who mysteriously weren't punished) exploited the system to their advantage it's the fault of the system, period. If the rules as they were written allowed some to take advantage of the situation the rules are wrong. And it's the fault of those who wrote them. Cops can't say "I know the speed limit is 55 but since we've asked everyone to go 40 you're getting a ticket." Nowhere on earth is that considered a reasonable system of justice.

Goodell and Mara have abused their power in order to single out and cripple Mara's divisional rivals. It's despicable and unforgivable, and we won't forget it. I hope this thread pops up every single time we play that sorry excuse for an organization.

[tshile]

Football is a competitive sport. The NFL is a business. In both sports and business, the goal is to be better than the other guys. There's nothing wrong with being better than others. Did the Colts disrupt the competitive balance by drafting Peyton Manning?

Drafting someone, like all the other 31 teams, is not the same as dumping contracts in an uncapped year when the teams were told not to.

The goal is to get better, but there is a desire for competitive balance, parity, in the league. If you don't have or recognize that desire that's fine, but it's what the league has/wants.

What do you think should have happened?

For the umpteenth time (I mean really, do you people read the threads?) they should have penalized everyone or no one. I'd be fine with either case.

...

My argument is about way more than karma. If you don't understand that by now you're not going to, so we'll just have to drop it.

Edit: Actually, Painkiller, having reread your post i think I originally misunderstood what you were saying. I think you understand my argument, I just think you don't care about (or give as much importance to) competitive balance and/or you don't think what the skins did messed up competitive balance.

[KDawg]

For the umpteenth time (I mean really, do you people read the threads?) they should have penalized everyone or no one. I'd be fine with either case.

Which is one of the main reasons everyone is so upset.

It just so happens that the two teams punished most harshly are the Redskins and Cowboys... Who play in the NFC East... With Mara's Giants?

[Burgold]

tshille,

What about the opposite? What about all the teams who submerged their payroll way below the "spirit of the cap floor" so that when the contract was renewed they could go on a spending spree? Are you saying that wasn't a competitive advantage?

The selectivity of the punishment, the timing of the punishment, and the amount of the punishment for not acting illegally and executing league approved contracts is bull. It's wrong on every moral and ethical level and to be honest, though the Redskins will not benefit from it... the league is going to be hugely punished once the Union wins this suit on these very issues.

[tshile]

tshille,

What about the opposite? What about all the teams who submerged their payroll way below the "spirit of the cap floor" so that when the contract was renewed they could go on a spending spree? Are you saying that wasn't a competitive advantage?

The selectivity of the punishment, the timing of the punishment, and the amount of the punishment for not acting illegally and executing league approved contracts is bull. It's wrong on every moral and ethical level and to be honest, though the Redskins will not benefit from it... the league is going to be hugely punished once the Union wins this suit on these very issues.

As i've said before, they should be included in the 'punish everyone or no one' argument.

I don't approve of the way the NFL handed out the punishment either, for what its worth.

Which is one of the main reasons everyone is so upset.

It just so happens that the two teams punished most harshly are the Redskins and Cowboys... Who play in the NFC East... With Mara's Giants?

I understand that.

[Commander PK]

"I know the speed limit is 55 but since we've asked everyone to go 40 you're getting a ticket."

or in this case. "The speed limit used to be 55 on (say) Route 66. In order to get everyone back to the table to decide if we need to continue to have the speed limit at 55 or change it there is no speed limit after X date if we don't get a new/updated law in place. Nobody wants there to be no speed limit at all (for obvious reasons) so this is put into law to force us all to agree on what the speed limit should be.

However, we don't do that. We don't sit down, we don't agree, and the speed limit expires. The signs are taken down. However the state starts sending out letters to people telling them, we know there is no current speed limit on Route 66, we know all of you know this, but we expect everyone to drive like there is one. If not, there could be "consequences" without specifying what. Cops continue issuing tickets on Route 66 for anything over 55 miles an hour. We all know there is no speed limit on Route 66, so the tickets aren't worth the paper they are written on. (kinda like the "warnings" issued by the league)

These "tickets" should obviously be tossed in traffic court. However, the Judge upholds all the tickets issued because people were "warned" repeatedly to drive as though there was still a speed limit.

Would anyone think that is fair, or not an abuse of power?

[G1]

Drafting someone, like all the other 31 teams, is not the same as dumping contracts in an uncapped year when the teams were told not to.

The context of telling teams not to dump contracts, as you're a fan of context, is telling teams to take part in a collusion. The Redskins (and others) had every right to refuse to take part. In fact, they were legally and morally obligated not to take part in that collusion.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

The context of telling teams not to dump contracts, as you're a fan of context, is telling teams to take part in a collusion. The Redskins (and others) had every right to refuse to take part. In fact, they were legally and morally obligated not to take part in that collusion.

I honestly don't know how anyone, much less a fan of a team that's been punished for in effect doing no wrong, can view this any other way.

And I'd be standing up for Dallas if they were the only ones being so unjustly singled out and punished in this manner too.

Hail.

[jp03]

Reading posts today on our forum, and on various forums of our opponents this week (I will not refer to them by name) it is clear there is a massive amount of ignorance in that collective fanbase as to why John Mara is a cheater, should be tarred and feathered, and should be banned from the NFL for something so blatant (hell if users of 'roids face bans, so should this jerk)

In essence, the Redskins moved bonus dollars from the Haynesworth and Hall contracts into the uncapped 2010 year when the last CBA expired. Note the key word: uncapped year. In addition, these contract moves were approved by the NFL office.

Mr. Mara was so angry about this, as head of the management council he pushed for significant penalties, including draft picks to be stripped.

Some reading material from Mike Florio (who is a Steelers fan, grew up in WVA, and is NOT a Redskins fan like you numskulls thought last spring), who did a fantastic job covering the story.

“There were no rules or agreements broken by the Redskins, the Cowboys, or any other Club with respect to Player Contracts executed in the 2010 League Year.”

Mara says Redskins, Cowboys are lucky they didn’t lose draft picks

Seriously. **** that guy

As Florio correctly states

League requires Cowboys, Redskins to take half their cap reductions in 2012

So instead of being able to push off the entire penalty to 2013 and fight for a year (As was originally an option) the Redskins and Cowboys were forced to eat half up front

Its very clear that a) there was uncapped year collusion took place in that uncapped year c) the NFL originally approved these contracts d) there were no rules broken and e) John Mara was so butthurt that his division rivals could make moves and he couldn't that he pushed the Management Council to impose penalties on his division rivals (as opposed to teams like the Bucs who UNDERSPENT in the uncapped year)

And of course, he talked so much **** about it, the NFLPA decided to sue the NFL for collusion

I'm not sure John Mara should be talking

Judge Considers Lawsuit

Of course, now the NFL disagrees with Mr. Mara

From the NFL

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/02/leagues-latest-collusion-brief-is-a-two-edged-sword/

Yea, **** that guy.

Catching up on this so i can get a full understanding. So a question. If no penalty had been imposed on Washington wouldn't they have had a decided advantage in coming years then? It seems they would have had more cap money in 2012 and on than anyone else. However the penalty seems quite excessive, not to mention it does not seem Washington was breaking any rules at the time. A common middleground penalty should have been accessed in my opinion. I have to admit if this was on my team I'd be ticked. Not sure if I'd be mad at the Skins though as much as the league.

[KDawg]

Catching up on this so i can get a full understanding. So a question. If no penalty had been imposed on Washington wouldn't they have had a decided advantage in coming years then? It seems they would have had more cap money in 2012 and on than anyone else. However the penalty seems quite excessive, not to mention it does not seem Washington was breaking any rules at the time. A common middleground penalty should have been accessed in my opinion. I have to admit if this was on my team I'd be ticked. Not sure if I'd be mad at the Skins though as much as the league.

Now let's talk about the fact that many teams went WAY below the floor of spending and circumvented the "rules" just as much as the 'Skins and 'Boys did.

Interestingly enough, only the NFC East teams got punished.

[FanboyOf91]

Catching up on this so i can get a full understanding. So a question. If no penalty had been imposed on Washington wouldn't they have had a decided advantage in coming years then? It seems they would have had more cap money in 2012 and on than anyone else. However the penalty seems quite excessive, not to mention it does not seem Washington was breaking any rules at the time. A common middleground penalty should have been accessed in my opinion. I have to admit if this was on my team I'd be ticked. Not sure if I'd be mad at the Skins though as much as the league.

The only penalty the Redskins deserve to pay is zero dollars over zero years for breaking zero rules.

[newday]

There was collusion. But NFL owners can do what they want among themselves as long as they vote on it. And they did. The CBA was signed where players gave up the right to contest the collusion.

We got screwed. Mara screwed us. We won't forget.

[Bishop Hammer]

Wow I didn't know Mara had something to do with our team losing cap space? Thanks for the info, bruv.

[NavyDave]

Seriously, it's over and done with. Get over it. We aren't getting any of the cap money back. We all agree Mara is a douche.

So I guess that means you will not be sniveling in the offseason if we can not improve our roster via free agency especially along the O line and Secondary, since you have gotten over the 36 million not being there this past offseason and next combined thanks to that Colluding SOB in Jersey. :doh:

---------- Post added October-18th-2012 at 03:44 PM ----------

I just think you don't care about (or give as much importance to) competitive balance and/or you don't think what the skins did messed up competitive balance.

What a bunch of malarkey. The Redskins would still not had been number one or number two in available cap space if they were allowed to keep their money. Dallas made moves that gave them an additional 10 million. The other two pro leagues do not worry about competitive balance. Look at the collusion by the NBA and the Lakers to make sure it will always have multiple stars at the expense of smaller clubs.

The only reason Mara the Colluding Bastige got away with it was because Mara and the other owners strongarmed the players into signing a deal that prevented them from suing over collusion in the future which happened to be a month after the fact. I'm still surprised that liberals in Congress or the ACLU did not intervene to support the union, and call out the owners for colluding to make up for losing the steroid war with that former Redsox and Yankee pitcher.

[s0crates]

Catching up on this so i can get a full understanding. So a question. If no penalty had been imposed on Washington wouldn't they have had a decided advantage in coming years then? It seems they would have had more cap money in 2012 and on than anyone else. However the penalty seems quite excessive, not to mention it does not seem Washington was breaking any rules at the time. A common middleground penalty should have been accessed in my opinion. I have to admit if this was on my team I'd be ticked. Not sure if I'd be mad at the Skins though as much as the league.

First of all let me applaud your effort to understand this. Most Giants' fans seem to be willfully ignorant of the whole matter.

As to the "competitive advantage" business: I do not think we would have had a big advantage in coming years, but we would certainly have had more salary cap space than the Giants, that's for sure. The amount of cap space we would have had would have been similar to the teams (like Tampa Bay for example) that spent way under the minimum salary during the uncapped year. Also, and I think more importantly, it is a bit ironic that the owner of the team that has won two championships this decade is worried about two teams who have not been competitive this decade gaining an advantage. The salary cap is supposed to be in the interest of parody, not keeping the good teams good and the bad teams bad. I have a hard time seeing Mara's move as being in the interest of competition at all.

I'm glad you at least admit that the penalties were excessive and you too would be ticked.

[jp03]

First of all let me applaud your effort to understand this. Most Giants' fans seem to be willfully ignorant of the whole matter.

As to the "competitive advantage" business: I do not think we would have had a big advantage in coming years, but we would certainly have had more salary cap space than the Giants, that's for sure. The amount of cap space we would have had would have been similar to the teams (like Tampa Bay for example) that spent way under the minimum salary during the uncapped year. Also, and I think more importantly, it is a bit ironic that the owner of the team that has won two championships this decade is worried about two teams who have not been competitive this decade gaining an advantage. The salary cap is supposed to be in the interest of parody, not keeping the good teams good and the bad teams bad. I have a hard time seeing Mara's move as being in the interest of competition at all.

I'm glad you at least admit that the penalties were excessive and you too would be ticked.

I just wish the league would have had some hard rules instead of this wishy washy bull****. The league caused its own grief by going into a bunch of grey instead of black and white.