For Midget Fans: Why John Mara cheated

[slaga]

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm providing the excuse the NFL used. They couldn't reject the contracts...

They could not reject the contracts because they conformed to the rules of the NFL and the CBA. The CBA in place in 2010 allowed teams to do exactly what the Redskins and Dallas did. The "loophole" was intentionally written into the former CBA to get the owners to the negotiating table before the last year of the previous CBA. It was by no means an accidental loophole. It was not shady or underhanded in any way.

[tshile]

How is it a naive position to take tshile when you acknowledge no rules were broken and the league approved what we did?

You can't then say it was underhand because it doesn't sit well with other teams that didn't take the opportunity before the new CBA was agreed.

Hail.

Because context matters, and you're conveniently ignoring all other context of the situation because it doesn't suit your needs in the argument.

Ignoring context is naive. Context is important in real life.

If it was as cut and dry as you claim it to be, then they would have won in arbitration. They didn't. Because no one that is actually interested in understanding the entire situation ignores the context.

[HOF44]

That's a correct conclusion if you're a redskins fan that's only interested in hating on the NFL and Mara.

The NFL had it's hands tied with the contracts and couldn't reject them. They had to approve them. Using that excuse doesn't fly; which is why it didn't work in arbitration.

The Redskins were warned multiple times not to do it, they did it anyway. They fought through arbitration and lost. They entertained the idea of court but the NFL called their bluff (so far) and it stopped at arbitration.

None of that is to suggest that what the NFL did was right (it wasn't) or to defend the NFL. But the Redskins are not the innocent party in the situation that majority of this board seems to think they are.

No excuses were ever given in arbitration. The arbitor ruled he could not hear the case. So we have never had a chance to give anyone any logical reasons we should not have been penalized.

I still go back to what written rule did we violate???

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I did a bit more following up on this the Redskins are not innocent of any wrong doing in this one...geez. You guys act like they did nothing wrong. Not true. However, I do think the punishment was excessive and it did not seem to be spread to all teams that played the same game.

Not agreeing to ignore the previous agreement is the Redskins "wrong" in this story. The people who really did something wrong are all the owners who decided to make a new agreement out from under the Redskins feet.

Its not like the Giants' ownership failed to approve the uncapped year in the first place. They just changed their mind when the year came around.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 03:41 PM ----------

How is it a naive position to take tshile when you acknowledge no rules were broken and the league approved what we did?

You can't then say it was underhand because it doesn't sit well with other teams that didn't take the opportunity before the new CBA was agreed.

Hail.

I agree, underhanded implies we slipped something through while no one was looking. These deals were approved, and in total compliance with the CBA.

There's a reason thirty teams are getting sued by the NFLPA and the Skins and Cowboys are the ones not: because the other thirty teams were the underhanded ones.

[Rufus T Firefly]

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm providing the excuse the NFL used. They couldn't reject the contracts; they were limited from doing that at the time. I can't remember the specifics of why, because I haven't really gone over this situation in a few months. But it was laid out very clearly by someone on ESPN 980 one day...

They approved the contracts and they worked within the framework they had at the time that was actually established in the rules. If you're going to stop there and not consider any other context of the situation, or put any thought into the entirety of the situation, then that excuse works fine. It's a naive position to take though. It doesn't fit with your personality (as it's portrayed here to me at least.)

The "reason" or "technicality" you're looking for as to why the league had to approve those contracts is what many of us would refer to simply as a "rule". The NFL had to approve them because those contracts were within the rules and the league didn't want to admit at the time that they were illegally colluding against the players. They waited a couple of years until they thought they had immunity from a collusion lawsuit to administer any punishment.

[tshile]

No excuses were ever given in arbitration. The arbitor ruled he could not hear the case. So we have never had a chance to give anyone any logical reasons we should not have been penalized.

I still go back to what written rule did we violate???

Ah, i obviously misunderstood that then. I thought they tried that and it didn't work, but I guess it was never heard.

As for what written rule did we violate - none. As far as I'm aware.

[KCClybun]

Here's the thing; if the Redskins had done anything wrong whatsoever, the league wouldn't have approved the contracts.

Period.

That's it.

Enough of this "what the Redskins did was underhanded" bull****. Every team in the league founds its own way to pay more money in the uncapped year. Most teams paid huge bonuses or offset players salaries into the uncapped year. Some, like the Bucs and Jaguars, equally "broke the spirit of the salary cap" by underspending. Every team in the league "broke the spirit of the salary cap", but John Mara, in concert with the kind of small market cheapskates whose teams basically own exist through revenue sharing and because of teams like the Redskins and Cowboys, sought to teach Dan Snyder a lesson by breaking the ****ing law, and then basically gamed the system to ensure they'd see no reprecussions whatsoever.

I am sorry. I am usually one of the first people to say "time to move on" after a game or a bad personnel move. But I am not "moving on" from this, and neither should you. They screwed us. They screwed us, coincidentally, after we beat them twice, particularly the second time, when we flat out embarrassed them. I am not "getting over it", I'm not accepting that they screwed us because that's just what happens to us; we get screwed.

I am not getting over it because this front office did something every other damn front office in the NFL did.

I hope we crush the Giants. I hope we embarrass them even after they tried to screw us over. I hope John Mara's at their concrete husk of a stadium watching as our team annihilates his team despite his hard work to **** over a direct competitor.

I hope Dan Snyder sees him in the hallway and flips him the bird.

I will not get over it and no other Redskins fan should either. This didn't happen within the context of a game. They tried to screw us over, and nothing would satisfy me more than seeing the Giants walk their smug asses back down their tunnel with boos raining down on them for being such abject failures, and I want Osi to walk up to our franchise quarterback and say "Mr. Robert Griffin III, I'm sorry I ever made fun of you, you kicked our ass."

I will not get over it until they pay for what they've done, Jean Luc-Picard in Star Trek: First Contact style.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Because context matters, and you're conveniently ignoring all other context of the situation because it doesn't suit your needs in the argument.

Ignoring context is naive. Context is important in real life.

If it was as cut and dry as you claim it to be, then they would have won in arbitration. They didn't. Because no one that is actually interested in understanding the entire situation ignores the context.

I don't get how you think anything's being taken out of context. We broke no rules, and got punished after the fact for apparently not taking on board a suggestion from the league, even though we acted within the rules they both laid down and credited us working within when they approved the contracts.

As far as I can see, your doing nothing more than condoning the NFL going back on it's own rules at the time, and two of it's members working within those rules.

It's simple black and white. Or at least it should be.

Hail.

[Koala]

The Redskins were warned multiple times not to do it, they did it anyway. They fought through arbitration and lost. They entertained the idea of court but the NFL called their bluff (so far) and it stopped at

Like I said in an earler post, Mara won this battle. He had his flanks covered, he knew that Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones would not go nuclear by taking this to court, because that would be the definition of cutting your hand to spite your face. The cap penalties suck, but they dont actually take any money out of Snyder's/Jones's pockets. Exposing the NFL as the collusive entity that it is (as would happen if they went to court) would only result in the entire league getting the pants sued off of them, and that would mean money directly out of Snyder's bank account. Thats why they call it the nuclear option, because its not a good option and only assures everybody's destruction.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Because context matters, and you're conveniently ignoring all other context of the situation because it doesn't suit your needs in the argument.

Ignoring context is naive. Context is important in real life.

If it was as cut and dry as you claim it to be, then they would have won in arbitration. They didn't. Because no one that is actually interested in understanding the entire situation ignores the context.

What is the context that you want to put this into? Not being sarcastic.... what is the contextual relevancy that I am missing?

[tshile]

The "reason" or "technicality" you're looking for as to why the league had to approve those contracts is what many of us would refer to simply as a "rule". The NFL had to approve them because those contracts were within the rules and the league didn't want to admit at the time that they were illegally colluding against the players. They waited a couple of years until they thought they had immunity from a collusion lawsuit to administer any punishment.

There's way more to it than that.

I can't find anything in writing from anyone at 980 (which is where I heard the break down.. wish my memory wasn't failing me right now) but I did find this from SI:

The teams are expected to base their claim -- likely to Special Master Stephen Burbank -- on two things: one, the Management Council approved the contracts; and two, how could they be at fault when there was nothing in writing that prohibited them from structuring contracts as they did?

There is the perception among some that the league was making up rules as it went along. However, one person familiar with the situation said the NFL had no way of knowing what impact the contracts would have down the road because the league and union still were negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the Management Council felt it would be wrong to disapprove the deals.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/03/25/cowboys.redskins.complaint/index.html

My point is there's a lot more to it than what you're suggesting.

[Rufus T Firefly]

There's way more to it than that.

I can't find anything in writing from anyone at 980 (which is where I heard the break down.. wish my memory wasn't failing me right now) but I did find this from SI:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/03/25/cowboys.redskins.complaint/index.html

My point is there's a lot more to it than what you're suggesting.

No, there's nothing more to it than what I said, and nothing you just posted indicates there is.

[HOF44]

Like I said in an earler post, Mara won this battle. He had his flanks covered, he knew that Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones would not go nuclear by taking this to court, because that would be the definition of cutting your hand to spite your face. The cap penalties suck, but they dont actually take any money out of Snyder's/Jones's pockets. Exposing the NFL as the collusive entity that it is (as would happen if they went to court) would only result in the entire league getting the pants sued off of them, and that would mean money directly out of Snyder's bank account. Thats why they call it the nuclear option, because its not a good option and only assures everybody's destruction.

Lots of truth to this. I also think Snyder and Jones have thought it through and it's much better politically to let the Union go after the NFL. If this ends up costing the NFL a huge sum of money Mara will be finished as far as influence goes. Would not even be surprised if we end up out of the lawsuit and pointing the union in the right direction to find what they need to win. The whole thing comes down to if a court will hear it. If they do it will be a slam dunk. If they don't a procedural win for the NFL.

[DaSkinzBaby]

That's a correct conclusion if you're a redskins fan that's only interested in hating on the NFL and Mara.

The NFL had it's hands tied with the contracts and couldn't reject them. They had to approve them. Using that excuse doesn't fly; which is why it didn't work in arbitration.

The Redskins were warned multiple times not to do it, they did it anyway. They fought through arbitration and lost. They entertained the idea of court but the NFL called their bluff (so far) and it stopped at arbitration.

None of that is to suggest that what the NFL did was right (it wasn't) or to defend the NFL. But the Redskins are not the innocent party in the situation that majority of this board seems to think they are.

How can you warn a team not to do something that is legal to do? Not hating on anything I simply don't think it's right that the NFL Owners as GREEDY as they are lied and then turned around and screwed the Redskins or the Cowboys. If you have an uncapped year brought by GREED as was this case then why should a team act like there is a salary cap when there isn't? That's the problem with Goodell and the NFL now, GREED and being able to have the cake, cut it and set all rules......WOW!!!

[gbear]

I still haven't come to understand why the players ever went along with taking money from 2 owners who spend every bit of cap space to spread amongst the other owners in a year with no floor. There is nothing which says teams have to spend the extra cap space they have been given this year as the floor from the CBA doesn't come into play until next year. Yes, Mara is a cheat, but the Union was unwise in the extreme.

[tshile]

As far as I can see, your doing nothing more than condoning the NFL going back on it's own rules at the time, and two of it's members working within those rules.

Hail.

If thats what you think then you're terrible at reading and being incredibly disingenuous/blind to the argument.

I've said multiple times that what the NFL did was wrong. I've listed what they did that I thought was wrong.

I'm not defending the NFL or condoning what they did. Try reading what I've posted again, and see if you can figure out what I'm saying.

What is the context that you want to put this into? Not being sarcastic.... what is the contextual relevancy that I am missing?

The context is this:

The league was in a dispute with the players association. Part of that did away with the salary cap.

There are two roads to take with that:

- each team does as they please

- each team sticks to a relatively similar strategy they were doing under the old CBA.

If the the owners choose the first option, then you'll have some teams that go way below the floor and way above the cap. Any sort of balance get's thrown out of whack. Not having a new CBA meant not knowing the long term effects of doing that - is it going to cause player salaries to increase more across the board? Is it going to put teams in situations where they can't possibly get under the cap because of what they did during this year? Is it going to let some owner decide that they don't need a football team worth a crap, and get their contracts down the absolute minimum?

There were lots of possibilities. I think the biggest concern was some teams would go way over the cap and then not be able to get under it causing big problems for the team/league - but that is entirely speculation on my part.

The other road allows for teams to maybe do a little more/less here/there and not really change the dynamic of the league.

What happened was the owners apparently (emphasis on apparently) decided to go with the second option. Well, except for the redskins, cowboys, saints, bears, and a few others that went over. Oh, and the handful of teams that took it as a chance to go under and save their money...

But what happened in doing that was that the redskins were allowed to dump contracts that were flat out bad contracts. Contracts that were adding to what was really hurting us a team.

The real context here is that if every team was going to do this, they could have made deals like this a few years before knowing they'd dump them. Or they could dump whatever deals they needed to without the cap once it came (with no real planning years in advance). Either way, it allows teams to essentially wipe the slate clean despite past bad judgement.

So basically teams that made bad deals could get out from under them real quick/free of charge, while others who played smartly (and by the rules) got nothing.

It's kind of like the banking crisis... the ones that didn't play by the rules got bailed out by the government and the ones that did got an 'atta boy'... i bet those ones that didn't get bailed out don't think it's fair that the people who abused the rules, made bad decisions, etc were able to wipe all that away... (that's a gross over-simplification of the banking crisis, but i think it explains what i'm trying to say... i think...)

Now, again, for the umpteenth time, it appears there was collusion - which is wrong. It also appears the NFL selectively went after teams - for some reason none of the teams that went under the floor got hit (gee... wonder why? maybe because that hurt the players, not the teams...) - which is also wrong. (at least in my opinion both of those are wrong)

But, none of what the NFL did wrong makes what the redskins did right. They tried to dump bad contracts to get out from under them, and the teams that try really hard not to make bad contracts said "No, that's not fair." And I, personally, agree with them. I just think they should have either penalized everyone or no one.

[HOF44]

I still haven't come to understand why the players ever went along with taking money from 2 owners who spend every bit of cap space to spread amongst the other owners in a year with no floor. There is nothing which says teams have to spend the extra cap space they have been given this year as the floor from the CBA doesn't come into play until next year. Yes, Mara is a cheat, but the Union was unwise in the extreme.

Had to do with Smith saving face to get re-elected. His short term personal gain over the NFLPA's long term interest.

[tshile]

No, there's nothing more to it than what I said, and nothing you just posted indicates there is.

Yes... it does.

It's more than 'the rules said it's ok'.

[SkinsHokieFan]

But, none of what the NFL did wrong makes what the redskins did right. They tried to dump bad contracts to get out from under them, and the teams that try really hard not to make bad contracts said "No, that's not fair." And I, personally, agree with them. I just think they should have either penalized everyone or no one.

Your argument is flawed.

The Redskins broke no rules. Contracts were approved, period.

Had the NFL in 2010 rejected the contracts, this is a non issue. Instead the NFL came back, 2 years later, and stripped the Redskins of 18 M on the eve of free agency.

[PortisBetts]

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

How doesnt this affect our players? We lost 18 million in cap space. It affects them in 2 ways-

A) Players lose out on salaries by a team that is willing to spend it. 2 million being sent to teams like the Bucaneers and Bengals wont help becuase they wont spend it

It hurts our team directly becuase we were not able to offer contracts to players in the secondary and line (RT specifically), which makes it harder for us to win. And our players want to win. So it did directly effect them.

[SkinsHokieFan]

But you know what? **** Jerry Jones for not being vocal enough. When it came time to talk, he eventually shut his mouth after saying bull****. He's a *****, and **** the NFL for allowing someone like Mara to have a position with that much power.

And he was on the Management Council but was NOT informed of the decision prior to it coming down.

Instead of worrying about his team on the field, he wanted to keep this in his back pocket so he could get another Superbowl (noteably Superbowl 50) in Jerryworld

[Rocky52Mc]

But you know what? **** Jerry Jones for not being vocal enough. When it came time to talk, he eventually shut his mouth after saying bull****. He's a *****, and **** the NFL for allowing someone like Mara to have a position with that much power.

It was collusion it's obvious, not like we can push forward anyways, the Redskins would end up financially getting exposed if the courts got deeply involved. There's no way out of this one sadly, just pray and hope RG3 buries their asses.

[SkinsHokieFan]

But you know what? **** Jerry Jones for not being vocal enough. When it came time to talk, he eventually shut his mouth after saying bull****. He's a *****, and **** the NFL for allowing someone like Mara to have a position with that much power.

And he was on the Management Council but was NOT informed of the decision prior to it coming down.

Instead of worrying about his team on the field, he wanted to keep this in his back pocket so he could get another Superbowl (noteably Superbowl 50) in Jerryworld

[Rufus T Firefly]

Yes... it does.

It's more than 'the rules said it's ok'.

You can say that all you want, but you have nothing to back up that statement apart from that you think you heard something on the radio.

The leue approved the contracts because they were within the rules and they didn't want to admit to collusion. That's well-established.

It's as basic as can get. If the contracts vilated any rules the league could have declined them. Period.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

If thats what you think then you're terrible at reading and being incredibly disingenuous/blind to the argument.

I've said multiple times that what the NFL did was wrong. I've listed what they did that I thought was wrong.

I'm not defending the NFL or condoning what they did. Try reading what I've posted again, and see if you can figure out what I'm saying.

.....

I've read and taken on board everything you've posted in this thread, and to me your doing nothing more than condoning the NFL and Mara changing tact and cheating us out of what we legally did.

You can't say what they did was wrong ...... BUT in context ..... the context is NO rules were broken. Period. Contracts sent in within those rules were approved. Period. And then the NFL completely changed direction after the fact and sanctioned two teams in a move that was nothing shy of tantamount to cheating on their behalf.

You can dress it up anyway you want man, but every time you add the 'but' in the form of 'context' or whatever; your doing nothing more than condoning the underhand actions of the league.

It's black and white. Or at least it should be.

Hail.