Commander PK Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 so basically, they just plundered the Redskins and Cowboys with no justification whatsoever in an effort to get the cap back up. The "spirit of the salary cap" bull **** was just to try to spin the whole thing into something it wasn't. They needed money, the Cowboys and Redskins had plenty. The rest is history. Nice When I hear terms like "gentleman's club" and "fraternity" with regards to the NFL owners I always think of this scene from Titanic. "off they go into a cloud of smoke to congratulate each other on being masters of the universe" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 edit: forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Excellent, excellent posts, tshile. Whether I agree with you or not, you laid out your argument rationally and seemingly without bias. It was refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Excellent, excellent posts, tshile.Whether I agree with you or not, you laid out your argument rationally and seemingly without bias. It was refreshing. Hah! Thanks, happy someone enjoyed them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornToHail Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Hah! Thanks, happy someone enjoyed them I enjoyed seeing two sides with cogent points to make. I happen to disagree with you, but agree with the above poster in how fair it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 My only question is why haven't the Redskins continued to pursue this via more mediation or courts?I had my pitchfork and torch in hand ready to March to New York, but after thinking about it, the 'skins and 'boys silence on the matter has raised my suspicion towards the two clubs. Honestly, I'm surprised anyone has this sentiment. This kind of stuff happens in business everyday. Sometimes you get wronged and you just have to bite your tongue in order to keep mutual relations on a level that makes it possible to continue doing business in the future. But even putting business aside, you've never been slighted by your peers or family members and just had to shut up about it for the sake of not alienating yourself from everyone? And, if not, you don't think that there's a huge possibility our organization doesn't want to burn too many bridges in this process which would lead to more hardships when trying to make deals? Why would the first thing be, "after thinking about it", that we some how did wrong here? To me, it's painfully obvious we figured we would actually abide by the previous CBA and use it to our advantage considering it would be next to impossible for the league to do anything about it without showing collusion. To our shock and dismay, the league thinks it's so bullet proof they did it anyway by strong-arming the NFLPA. Now they have to deal with being sued over it, so we'll see if they were right. But it goes to show that the only mistake we made as an organization was following the rules and thinking the league wouldn't openly break them, even with their so called "warnings". What makes it even worse is that other teams essentially did the same thing but in a slightly different way and got away with it. We always have to have differing opinions on here, but in this case I just can't see how Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Hah! Thanks, happy someone enjoyed them No problem. It was a refreshing take from the "eff Mara, we got screwed crowd.". John Mara was nothing more than a mouthpiece for the other 27 or 28 owners that signed off on this. Nothing more. He himself didn't levy the penalty. The thinking on this board that he did is borderline absurd and not based in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 No problem. It was a refreshing take from the "eff Mara, we got screwed crowd.". John Mara was nothing more than a mouthpiece for the other 27 or 28 owners that signed off on this. Nothing more. He himself didn't levy the penalty. The thinking on this board that he did is borderline absurd and not based in reality. Wrong. Mara was head of the NFL Management Council, which laid out the recommendation for the penalties to the commissioner (including loss of draft picks) WITHOUT consulting with one key member of the management council: Jerry Jones Tshile has proven over and over in this thread to be incorrect and has failed to grasp the facts as they occured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Wrong.Mara was head of the NFL Management Council, which laid out the recommendation for the penalties to the commissioner (including loss of draft picks) WITHOUT consulting with one key member of the management council: Jerry Jones Tshile has proven over and over in this thread to be incorrect and has failed to grasp the facts as they occured. Well, I think you're wrong. That doesn't make either of us right. You know what opinions are like.... ---------- Post added October-17th-2012 at 04:02 PM ---------- Let me ask all of you this.... Let's say the owners warned everybody beforehand that if they dumped dead money there would be consequences. Let's say, hypothetically, that the Redskins dumped the money anyways. Now, let's say the league didn't do anything about it. Hypothetically of course, okay? So... The CBA is agreed upon and the owners can't punish the Redskins. Do you think the Redskins gained an advantage over all of the other teams in the league that honored the agreement. If yes, do you think they gained it fairly? And finally, if you were one of the 31 other teams' fans, would you be annoyed that they gained that advantage, especially if it freed them up the space to sign a player you wanted that they outbid you for? Just answer those questions honestly. That's what I did. I definately see both sides, like tshile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Well, I think you're wrong. That doesn't make either of us right. You know what opinions are like....---------- Post added October-17th-2012 at 04:02 PM ---------- Let me ask all of you this.... Let's say the owners warned everybody beforehand that if they dumped dead money there would be consequences. Let's say, hypothetically, that the Redskins dumped the money anyways. Now, let's say the league didn't do anything about it. Hypothetically of course, okay? So... The CBA is agreed upon and the owners can't punish the Redskins. Do you think the Redskins gained an advantage over all of the other teams in the league that honored the agreement. If yes, do you think they gained it fairly? And finally, if you were one of the 31 other teams' fans, would you be annoyed that they gained that advantage, especially if it freed them up the space to sign a player you wanted that they outbid you for? Just answer those questions honestly. That's what I did. I definately see both sides, like tshile. Read the first post in this thread. I am the correct one here who has facts on his side. There indeed are 2 sides to this debate. The Redskins and Cowboys side (which is correct) and the incorrect side of John Mara is a cheater There are rules and "feelings and fairness" The Redskins and Cowboys played by the rules. Its that simple Tshile is trying to use "context" There is all the context you need It’s a strong presentation of facts and law. But, as the league seems to do from time to time, it brief goes one step too far, at page 13: “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.”That assertion is backed by a sworn affidavit from Peter Ruocco, senior V.P. of labor relations for the NFL Management Council, who says at paragraph 12 that “[n]o rules or agreements were broken” by the Redskins or Cowboys, even though total salary cap penalties of $46 million were imposed against the two teams. At paragraph 3 of the affidavit, Ruocco denies that he told NFLPA general counsel Tom DePaso in March 2012 “that the League believed that the Redskins and Cowboys had secured an unfair advantage over Clubs that committed lesser amounts to players in 2010 than did those Clubs.” Ruocco may not have said it privately to DePaso in March 2012, but Giants co-owner John Mara said it publicly that same month. “I thought the penalties imposed were proper,” Mara said. “What they did was in violation of the spirit of the salary cap. They attempted to take advantage of a one-year loophole, and quite frankly, I think they’re lucky they didn’t lose draft picks. . . . They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there would be consequences.” http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/02/leagues-latest-collusion-brief-is-a-two-edged-sword/ If you can link me to something that shows my opinion is contrary to fact, I'll be happy to read it But you and Tshile can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I didn't ask what the rule said, I ask what you would think if you were a fan of another team. I'm just not trying to view it as shortsighted as most here. I'm trying to view it from all of the other teams perspective. You are entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 I'm just not trying to view it as shortsided as most here. I'm trying to view it from all of the other teams perspective. You are entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. You aren't entitled to your facts though. The NFL, and the NFL Management Council were wrong on this. They colluded (which is illegal) and cheated As far as I am concerned, I put Mara in the same category as guys like Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds. However, unlike those 2, he had a direct impact on the ability of 2 of his division rivals to field competitive teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I didn't ask what the rule said, I ask what you would think if you were a fan of another team.I'm just not trying to view it as shortsighted as most here. I'm trying to view it from all of the other teams perspective. You are entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. You're forgetting that all the other teams AGREED to the uncapped year to. Its not like the Cowboys and Redskins sprung it on the other 30 teams. They all agreed to it, in writing. Then when that year came, a couple of the teams said, hey we don't like what we agreed to anymore and you have to do this. Well, the Cowboys and Redskins (and other teams not in the same division as the Giants) said, "no, we are going to go by the uncapped year that you agreed to with us." Its that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 You aren't entitled to your facts though.The NFL, and the NFL Management Council were wrong on this. They colluded (which is illegal) and cheated As far as I am concerned, I put Mara in the same category as guys like Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds. However, unlike those 2, he had a direct impact on the ability of 2 of his division rivals to field competitive teams. Haha, okay, thanks for letting me know what I am and am not entitled to. Completely rational. Yeoman's work, tshile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Haha, okay, thanks for letting me know what I am and am not entitled to. Completely rational.Yeoman's work, tshile. You have presented no facts which counter any of mine. When you do, come join us again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 You're forgetting that all the other teams AGREED to the uncapped year to. Its not like the Cowboys and Redskins sprung it on the other 30 teams. They all agreed to it, in writing. Then when that year came, a couple of the teams said, hey we don't like what we agreed to anymore and you have to do this. Well, the Cowboys and Redskins (and other teams not in the same division as the Giants) said, "no, we are going to go by the uncapped year that you agreed to with us." Its that simple. They also AGREED that there would be consequences for anybody that violated the spirit of the cap by dumping dead money in the uncapped year. Danny and Jerry challenged this, and looks like they lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 They also AGREED that there would be consequences for anybody that violated the spirit of the cap by dumping dead money in the uncapped year. Danny and Jerry challenged this, and looks like they lost. Can you cite a link and where this was put in writing? Did all teams agree to this? It's just not worth it. You're not going to find people who are even capable of entertaining someone else's ideas on this subject. You're either out for Mara's blood or your a traitor to the redskins.Remember, it's simple and black and white... In this case it 100 percent is. The NFL tried to collude illegaly. The Redskins and Cowboys refused to go along with the collusion and were punished for violating no rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 It's just not worth it. You're not going to find people who are even capable of entertaining someone else's ideas on this subject. You're either out for Mara's blood or your a traitor to the redskins. Remember, it's simple and black and white... ---------- Post added October-17th-2012 at 02:23 PM ---------- Read the first post in this thread. I am the correct one here who has facts on his side. There indeed are 2 sides to this debate. The Redskins and Cowboys side (which is correct) and the incorrect side of John Mara is a cheater The fact those are the only two sides you see says a lot about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Was this thread just a propoganda thread or was it supposed to be a discussion? If I'm not drinking the rah rah kool aid I'm not allowed to participate I guess? It was designed to educate. Facts were presented from various sources in the first link. Think of it was a wiki entry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp03 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 You have presented no facts which counter any of mine. When you do, come join us again So lets do a poll...how many months are you guys gonna dwell on this rather than enjoy the fact you have an up and coming force in the NFC East? Oy...came expecting some fun banter with my NFC rivals and all I see in every thread practically is ........this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiGdiCeBuDdHa Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Was this thread just a propoganda thread or was it supposed to be a discussion? If I'm not drinking the rah rah kool aid I'm not allowed to participate I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 No problem. It was a refreshing take from the "eff Mara, we got screwed crowd.". John Mara was nothing more than a mouthpiece for the other 27 or 28 owners that signed off on this. Nothing more. He himself didn't levy the penalty. The thinking on this board that he did is borderline absurd and not based in reality. lol, this post is borderline absurd and not based in reality. Sure, the other owners signed off, but to target the Redskins and Cowboys exclusively because they did the same thing MANY other clubs did essentially but in a slightly different way SCREAMS of personal agenda. You do remember the Bucs being the only one who didn't vote for the penalty when the owners reconvened on the matter, right? Why do you think that was? Because they knew damn well they would be the biggest hypocrites considering they took just as much advantage of the situation as anyone else. Why we were the only two teams punished is painfully clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 17, 2012 Author Share Posted October 17, 2012 Was this thread just a propoganda thread or was it supposed to be a discussion? If I'm not drinking the rah rah kool aid I'm not allowed to participate I guess? It was designed to educate. Facts were presented from various sources in the first link. Think of it was a wiki entry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 They also AGREED that there would be consequences for anybody that violated the spirit of the cap by dumping dead money in the uncapped year. Danny and Jerry challenged this, and looks like they lost. We didn't agree to anything. The league suggested such, but it wasn't a mandate logged in their own rules. That would get laughed out of any court if it gets that far. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Pretty biased 'education' you're giving there. But I'm happy you think you're contributing something positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.