For Midget Fans: Why John Mara cheated

[Destructis]

I wish I could use the "it's in the past, get over it" line everytime I did something wrong. How easy life would be.

You must be walking around with a ton of guilt then.

The Skins and their fans know we got screwed. We tried to get it corrected and were shot down. Now it is just what it is. I have no problem with the players using it as motivation, but as a fan there is nothing I can do that will change it. Why stress over something you have no control over.

What is that saying? Lord, give me the strength to change the things I can and the wisdom to accept the things I can't. (general idea of it)

[tshile]

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.

Yes, that's right. Life is Black and White. So are 32 multi-billion dollar teams working together under one enterprise, combating its labor force.

Yes, Black and White. Simple as can be, that is life.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:16 PM ----------

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.

The one link I posted after 5 seconds of googling support its. The fact that you can't see how it supports it is not my problem.

If you want to think the Redskins did nothing wrong - so be it.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

tshile man, you'd make one heck of a Politician.

What's the phrase ..... 'economical with the actualité.'

Hail.

[Rufus T Firefly]

The one link I posted after 5 seconds of googling support its. The fact that you can't see how it supports it is not my problem.

If you want to think the Redskins did nothing wrong - so be it.

No it didn't. Not in any way, shape or form.

The suggestion of your argument combined with your link is that the Redskins broke the rules but the league approved the contracts anyway because they weren't sure what the cap would look like in the future. That is nothing more than nonsense dressed up with doubletalk.

[HOF44]

Yes, that's right. Life is Black and White. So are 32 multi-billion dollar teams working together under one enterprise, combating its labor force.

Yes, Black and White. Simple as can be, that is life.

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 04:16 PM ----------

The one link I posted after 5 seconds of googling support its. The fact that you can't see how it supports it is not my problem.

If you want to think the Redskins did nothing wrong - so be it.

I read the link you posted and its just the league line once they decided they couldn't keep saying that we "violated an unwritten gentlamans agreement" (collusion). So they switched to the vague "to secure future competitive advantage". Hogwash either way.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

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.

I think you are missing a big fact in your context. The year that was uncapped was not a year that the owners had not agreed to an uncapped year. Its not like that uncapped year there was no CBA. All the owners, including the Giants, agreed to have an uncapped year. When that uncapped year came around, they apparently decided to ignore it. At least, 30 or so owners decided to ignore the agreement they signed with the other owners.

Who's going back on their word here is my question? The Redskins and Cowboys for using the uncapped year in a rational way or the Giants and the other teams who decided to re-neg on their agreement with the players association AND all the other teams?

Why were the Cowboys and Redskins obligated to agree to this new cap that they had never agreed to before?

[tshile]

I read the link you posted and its just the league line once they decided they couldn't keep saying that we "violated an unwritten gentlamans agreement" (collusion). So they switched to the vague "to secure future competitive advantage". Hogwash either way.

Oh I agree with you.

I do think there is something to a couple of teams playing by rules the other teams aren't - even if they're unwritten rules. It does screw up any sort of competitive balance. I do see that side of it, weak as it may be.

[tshile]

tshile man, you'd make one heck of a Politician.

What's the phrase ..... 'economical with the actualité.'

Hail.

Oh, so now you've resorted to just calling me a liar?

Nice...

[CTskins]

Unless I'm mistaken the Raiders did the exact same thing as the Redskins and Cowboys, although not to the same degree, and they were not punished...

I believe they were one of two other teams, in addition to the Skins and Boys, ineligible for the extra $2 mil of salary cap room. They were Carlo'ed (Your out of the family business, Carlo, that's your punishment. Only don't tell me you're innocent), while the Skins and Cowboys were Tesio'ed.

[KCClybun]

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.

"That's not fair?"

When you go back and you look at all the so-called "class" organization that dumped money in the 2010 uncapped year, you can't say it's unfair. Matt Schaub's contract was directly written to pay him a huge bonus in the uncapped year. Julius Pepper's contract gave him a huge upfront sum in the uncapped year. Everyone tried to game the system. Actually, there was no gaming of the system, because it was clearly within the rules.

As has been pointed out before, the NFL has to approve all contracts. If this was about fairness, why did the league office approve the contracts in the first place?

If this is all about fairness, then the NFL could've informed us at the end of the 2011 season, or a month before, or two months before. Instead they waited literally waited until the last friggin' minute to not only inform us this cap penalty was going to happen, but they waited even later than that to inform us whether or not we could shift the brunt of the penalty into 2013? Where's the fairness?

Or is it a case of "well the Redskins and Cowboys didn't play fairly so we shouldn't have to either!"

Here's what really happened; the Redskins restructured DeAngelo Hall and Albert Haynesworth's contracts to dump money into the uncapped year, which was completely legal and was something every other team had done. But what happened when they dumped money into the uncapped year was that they inflated the cost of the franchise tag, which meant small market teams couldn't force guys to play for them another year. For example, because the Redskins bumped up the overall cost of the franchise tag on corners, the Bengals couldn't be cheapskates and tag Johnathan Joseph instead of paying him. That's also part of the reason that the Chargers couldn't get Vincent Jackson on the tag (again) because of the way Miles Austin's contract was structured.

So you have a bunch of small market teams steaming because the Redskins and Cowboys inflated the tag on D-tackles, corners and wide receivers...never mind that it could've just as easily happened just by the nature of signing someone in free agency, or that pretty much all these teams (the Jaguars, the Bengals, the Bucs) have skinflint owners who hate spending money as is and the franchise tag is essentially their only means of keeping their A-listers around.

And you have John Mara, who was staring down the best free agency class in recent history, and the Washington Redskins with an even bigger wallet than usual and likely one of the two best quarterback prospects to ever come out, who just so happens to be on the committee with a lot of the same pissed off, skinflint owners.

Hell of an opportunity to do some damaage.

Nothing about the cap hit was done in the interest of fairness. It was all long standing grudges with Snyder and Jones for the way they spend in free agency, and one man with a helluva lot of power and the commisioner's ear seeking to directly harm two in division opponents.

If something like this happened to the Patroits, or hell, the Giants, it'd be cause for outrage. But because it's Dan and Jerry people shrug their shoulders and say 'well they must have deserved it'.

But they didn't.

Their were plenty of times to enforce fairness. They didn't enforce fairness because these two teams did nothing that was unfair.

[skins2victory]

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.

Naw...... It will take a long time for me to get over this. I love my redskins as family. When someone #@#@ over your family you don't "just get over it". The redskins did nothing wrong and got wrongfully punished, and every time this subject comes up it make my blood boil.

-I still don't understand why this issue didn't come to light, having someone take a stand and say..... wait, the redskins didn't break any rules, why are they being punished, this needs to be fixed. It still makes no since how this can happen. When all of this came to be coach said he would talk about it when the time was right. He still hasn't made his statement on this debacle has he??

-I want this game so bad. I hope our players play the games of there life's and murder the midgets this week!!!! Come on skins we gotta get it done this week. Oh yeah, and #@# Mara!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HTTR

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Oh, so now you've resorted to just calling me a liar?

Nice...

More stretching actual fact to suit another argument.

Hail.

[tshile]

I think you are missing a big fact in your context. The year that was uncapped was not a year that the owners had not agreed to an uncapped year. Its not like that uncapped year there was no CBA. All the owners, including the Giants, agreed to have an uncapped year. When that uncapped year came around, they apparently decided to ignore it. At least, 30 or so owners decided to ignore the agreement they signed with the other owners.

I don't think that really has any impact on what I said, and I think that was implied, but you are correct that I didn't specifically lay that out.

And I think there were more than 2 teams that did what we did. Quite a few more.

Who's going back on their word here is my question? The Redskins and Cowboys for using the uncapped year in a rational way or the Giants and the other teams who decided to re-neg on their agreement with the players association AND all the other teams?

Why were the Cowboys and Redskins obligated to agree to this new cap that they had never agreed to before?

Well, that depends on who you believe. The NFL claims they warned the redskins about and claims this was a known 'unwritten rule' or whatever they're calling it now.

I think Bruce Allen knew damn well what he was doing, he just thought he could get away with it

[Bang]

I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion of "getting over it" ... we got screwed, real bad. $36 mil in cap space could be the difference between having and not having a SB contender. i'm not gettin over it any time soon.

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that "Inigo Montoya" would be holding a grudge?

My name is Inigo Montoya.

You cheated my team.

Prepare to die.

I'm with you.

F John Mara.

I'll never get over it. i hope we grind them intp pulp.

~Bang

[HOF44]

Oh I agree with you.

I do think there is something to a couple of teams playing by rules the other teams aren't - even if they're unwritten rules. It does screw up any sort of competitive balance. I do see that side of it, weak as it may be.

The thing is from a legal point of view we were playing by the rules. That's why if this EVER see's a court room the NFL is in deep doo doo.

[Kindred]

Tshile, can you tell me WHAT the penalty is supposed to be for the NFL if they didnt renegotiate a contract with the player's union in time? What exactly is that stick? can you tell me? Why is that stick supposed to be there and what are the repercussions if the NFL collaborates to remove that stick? What if your employer said to you, go ahead and quit your job, there's a tacit agreement among all companies in this industry not to hire people in your field for more than $X, so I dont give a **** if you want/deserve a raise.

[slaga]

The context is this:

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

The very first sentence in your context is flawed. The dispute with the players association had absolutely nothing to do with "doing away with the salary cap". The owners and NFLPA agreed in the previus CBA that the last year of that CBA (2010) would be uncapped. It was agreed upon some 10 or 12 years ago. It was a ploy to get the owners to the bargaining table before the last year of the CBA.

Your idea 1 (each team does as they please) as long as they follow the rules as set forth by the CBA and NFL is the way it was supposed to work.

Your idea 2 (each team sticks to a relatively similar strategy they were doing under the old CBA.) is collusion. Plain and simple.

[Destino]

The Giants leap frogged the Cowboys as my most hated team entirely because of Mara. That cheating rat **** deserves all the bad things that come his and his teams way.

[Zazzaro703]

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 could you even say it doesn't effect the players??? We are missing depth and/or starters because of this crap. It most certainly effects the players.

[tshile]

Tshile, can you tell me WHAT the penalty is supposed to be for the NFL if they didnt renegotiate a contract with the player's union in time? What exactly is that stick? can you tell me? Why is that stick supposed to be there and what are the repercussions if the NFL collaborates to remove that stick? What if your employer said to you, go ahead and quit your job, there's a tacit agreement among all companies in this industry not to hire people in your field for more than $X, so I dont give a **** if you want/deserve a raise.

To address your post in reverse:

We're dealing with the NFL which has anti-trust exception and works with a union, so it doesn't really apply to your analogy. I understand what you're saying, and I agree that would suck. But you'd have to compare it to labor unions, and when you do you find that's kind of how it works...

If you're going to argue that the non-capped year is a punishment for not negotiating better that's absolutely fine, and I can completely agree with that; I'm open to alternatives, but I see nothing wrong with that logic.

I was never really arguing that though, or at least I didn't mean too... All I was saying is that when you have a group of people who play by one set of rules, and another group that doesn't, the group that doesn't gets an advantage. I don't think the way the NFL pursued the Redskins, Cowboys, and (I think?) Saints was fair; but that doesn't mean that I don't understand what they were trying to do (or what excuse they were using to do what they did.) I don't think the Redskins were some innocent organization that was the result of a witch hunt and conspiracy to go after Snyder...

[tshile]

Your idea 1 (each team does as they please) as long as they follow the rules as set forth by the CBA and NFL is the way it was supposed to work.

according to the redskins, cowboys, a few other teams, their fans, and the people who side with them.

not according to the other side. according to the other side they weren't supposed to violate the 'spirit' of the cap; which as bull**** as it sounds, you know exactly what it means.

don't mistake that as me supporting the NFL as others have. pointing out what the other side is arguing doesn't mean you're in agreement with them...

Your idea 2 (each team sticks to a relatively similar strategy they were doing under the old CBA.) is collusion. Plain and simple.

And I pointed out as much. As have many many other people over the last few months.

[slaga]

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.

The Head of the NFLPA was up for a contract renewal. The league came to him and said the salary cap was going to drop. There was no way he was going to get re-elected if the salary cap dropped. The NFL offered to use some of the money they were getting in the new TV deals in 2013 and 2014 (I think those were the years) and push it forward to the current year to keep the cap increasing steadily, instead of dropping. Mind you the players weren't getting any extra money, just future money a little earlier. The head of the NFLPA signed off on the cap penalties for the Redskins et. al. in exchange for not allowing the salary cap to drop.

[HOF44]

To address your post in reverse:

We're dealing with the NFL which has anti-trust exception and works with a union, so it doesn't really apply to your analogy. I understand what you're saying, and I agree that would suck. But you'd have to compare it to labor unions, and when you do you find that's kind of how it works...

If you're going to argue that the non-capped year is a punishment for not negotiating better that's absolutely fine, and I can completely agree with that; I'm open to alternatives, but I see nothing wrong with that logic.

I was never really arguing that though, or at least I didn't mean too... All I was saying is that when you have a group of people who play by one set of rules, and another group that doesn't, the group that doesn't gets an advantage. I don't think the way the NFL pursued the Redskins, Cowboys, and (I think?) Saints was fair; but that doesn't mean that I don't understand what they were trying to do (or what excuse they were using to do what they did.) I don't think the Redskins were some innocent organization that was the result of a witch hunt and conspiracy to go after Snyder...

The NFL's anti-trust exemption is much different than baseballs. The NFL's only addresses the ability to bargain as a group for TV rights. The NFL has NO exemption in regards to labor matters. So they are completely open to collusion charges.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Often overlooked in this is how badly the league screwed the Redskins by approving the contracts and then punishing them for it. Secondly, there was an extra screw job in the way they punished them.

1. If you remember, there was a lot of trade discussion surrounding Haynesworth that offseason. By approving the contract restructure, the league basically told the Skins that there was no cap risk in holding on to him and seeing if they could salvage his Washington career. I think it's a safe bet that if the Redskins knew that keeping Haynesworth for another year would have meant a massive cap butt-stomping, they would have taken what they could have gotten for him then and there instead.

2. The NFL didn't just take away the cap space the Redskins gained by the restructures, they took the full amount of those bonuses. If Hall and Haynesworth's contracts hadn't been redone, 7.2 mil of that 36 mil would have fallen in 2010. The cap "advantage" the Skins gained was thus 28.8 mil. By taking the full 36 mil, the league didn't just seek to undo a supposed competitve advantage, they created a competitve disadvantage for them. They compounded it by distributing the 1.8 mil to 28 other teams. So, the Redskins effectively ended up with 9 mil (7.2 + 1.8) less in cap space than 28 other teams got, 7.2 less than 2 others.

Number 2 to me puts the lie to the whole "competitve advantage" nonsense. They weren't trying to undo an advantage, they were trying to actively hurt the Skins chances. And the timing of the announcement of the punishment was another effort to do just that.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

..... don't mistake that as me supporting the NFL as others have. pointing out what the other side is arguing doesn't mean you're in agreement with them.....

It's more your steadfast 'the Redskins ultimately did wrong' that leads to it sounding akin to you condoning the NFL. Not putting forth what one sides position is.

Hail.