For Midget Fans: Why John Mara cheated

[SnyderShrugged]

And how do you think you guys look? Intelligent? How do you think your little insults look?

You keep repeating the same things, no matter what I say. To continue the conversation and expect anything to change would be insane.

Now, you guys can continue to lob little insults towards me in an attempt to get me to reengage in this ridiculous attempt at a conversation, or you can move on...

In the mean-time,

How were you insulted? Because you posted a smiley instead of coming with facts?

Sounds like someone needs some thicker skin.

[SkinsHokieFan]

You really dont' think he's put up anything of substance? Wow. This board really is shortsighted. I'd argue that he put up the MOST substance to his argument of anybody on the board, whether you agree with it or not.

waah? what substance?

[tshile]

How were you insulted? Because you posted a smiley instead of coming with facts?

Sounds like someone needs some thicker skin.

There have been quite a few posts throughout the thread; it's hardly worth going back through though. I just find it funny that you, GHH, and others have dismissed anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% as being dumb.

I don't need thicker skin; you just need some lessons in objectivity and civil conversation and maybe a course in debate.

[SnyderShrugged]

There have been quite a few posts throughout the thread; it's hardly worth going back through though. I just find it funny that you, GHH, and others have dismissed anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% as being dumb.

I don't need thicker skin; you just need some lessons in objectivity and civil conversation and maybe a course in debate.

No one called you dumb. Just incorrect. Sounds like you are the one who needs debate lessons along with a thicker skin if thats your stance.

What do expect, us to agree with a 100% incorrect point from someone just for propriety sake?

when you are wrong, you are wrong, and you sir on this....are wrong completely. (unless you can show the rule that was broken of course but for some strange reason you skip over that question every single time, why is that exactly, hmmmm?)

[dolver]

Agree with some of the posts that, if I take off my Skins glasses, the part I am most surprised about is how badly the NFLPA got taken. Basically, what these fines are saying is that in 2010, the owners agreed to a loose, de facto CBA without input from the players at all. Why even bring the players to the table - their input is a joke. At least, that is the way it appears to me - is that fair to say?

Also, pulling it away from the back and forth here for a second. Have we discussed yet if there are any courses of actions left to the Skins and Cowboys? Once it was put to bed this offseason, do people think that that is it? Or will the issue be brought up again by ownership this coming offseason?

* edit "why even bring the players to the table" - admitted hyperbole

[SnyderShrugged]

If you're with us, you're smart.

If you you say anything whatsoever to counter our very simplistic, shortsighted view, you're stupid.

edit: too angry at something dumb, not worth it

[BiGdiCeBuDdHa]

If you're with us, you're smart.

If you you say anything whatsoever to counter our very simplistic, shortsighted view, you're stupid.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

There have been quite a few posts throughout the thread; it's hardly worth going back through though. I just find it funny that you, GHH, and others have dismissed anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% as being dumb.

I don't need thicker skin; you just need some lessons in objectivity and civil conversation and maybe a course in debate.

Even in replying to that you can't stick to facts without adding your own deluded thoughts.

And yes, I called you deluded as your now saying your being called dumb when that's your opinion of people disagreeing with you. Not what anyone has called you.

Or is that another excuse for to say your being insulted by the un-civil masses instead of putting up anything of any substance outside of your own opinion to support your stance?

Maybe if we all stopped enabling your delusions you won't feel as offended?

Hail.

[PCS]

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

You really dont' think he's put up anything of substance? Wow. This board really is shortsighted. I'd argue that he put up the MOST substance to his argument of anybody on the board, whether you agree with it or not.

Please, enlighten us on this 'substance' we're all missing outside of his own thoughts?

Hail.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Agree with some of the posts that, if I take off my Skins glasses, the part I am most surprised about is how badly the NFLPA got taken. Basically, what these fines are saying is that in 2010, the owners agreed to a loose, de facto CBA without input from the players at all. Why even bring the players to the table - their input is a joke. At least, that is the way it appears to me - is that fair to say?

Also, pulling it away from the back and forth here for a second. Have we discussed yet if there are any courses of actions left to the Skins and Cowboys? Once it was put to bed this offseason, do people think that that is it? Or will the issue be brought up again by ownership this coming offseason?

The 36 million in cap space is gone gone gone

The NFLPA may make some hay with its lawsuit and Mara will look real dumb for opening his fat mouth, but other then that the Redskins won't see that money again

[tshile]

If you're with us, you're smart.

If you you say anything whatsoever to counter our very simplistic, shortsighted view, you're stupid.

Seems to be the theme.

You can add to it that the only facts that count are the ones I say count.

Agree with some of the posts that, if I take off my Skins glasses, the part I am most surprised about is how badly the NFLPA got taken. Basically, what these fines are saying is that in 2010, the owners agreed to a loose, de facto CBA without input from the players at all. Why even bring the players to the table - their input is a joke. At least, that is the way it appears to me - is that fair to say?

Also, pulling it away from the back and forth here for a second. Have we discussed yet if there are any courses of actions left to the Skins and Cowboys? Once it was put to bed this offseason, do people think that that is it? Or will the issue be brought up again by ownership this coming offseason?

The NFLPA did get taken badly in the entire situation. Part of the NFL's defense for it was that the NFLPA signed off on everything; which they pretty much did at gun point

I can't speak to what the additional options are, but a few people (that are smarter than me on the subject) have pointed out that there may be something coming down the line; that they're waiting for the next off season and/or working behind the scenes with the NFL PA to fight it through them.

If you feel like digging through the garbage this thread has become, i think there were a few posts like that in the first 6 pages or so.

[Jumbo]

Getting a little teste :pfft: in here, eh?

I can add some spirited material. :evilg:

Uhh, so I scoured your posts and links for any new information that we havent known since March, and I couldnt really find it. I also couldnt find any direct answer to the question of "Why John Mara cheated,", other than the same speculation that crossed everybody's mind the second this story broke. What am I missing here? Why is this post-worthy, nevermind thread-worthy? Where's the new information, or unique viewpoint?

I’ve been reading since the thread began, but decided to answer this very early post as part of my comments, now.

I'll start with the poster's questions.

1. As I am accustomed to seeing in so many of your posts, you were missing a lot. If you have read the conversation that's developed since you've posted this, maybe you see some of it.

2. Given (IMV) that you make quite a number of pointless or laughable posts yourself, your asking why such an obviously solid post (regardless of agreement/disagreement on actual positions taken) is "worthy" is as notably ironic as it is notably clueless. Again, perhaps the quite intelligent and spirited conversation that has taken place over 10 pages of posts gives you a clue now that it was indeed a well-developed OP on a topic of interest.

And any pretension that because certain matters occurred in the past, and been previously discussed (even at length), they are somehow inherently "done with" sort of flies in the face of "all things message board", doesn't it?

I, too, had noticed the increased appearance of giants fans in here, and their showing a real lack of awareness in the matter, as well as the same in more than a few of our own fans, lately. And that's what prompted the OP just as he stated (with an excellent summary and set-up, as shown by what has followed).

3. Moving to your is it “thread-worthy “query, you obviously can have an opinion on this, but since you're not a moderator, and since you regularly seem incompetent often enough in making sound judgments posting-wise, I have a suggestion for you that can also be taken in general application to anyone: when you think a thread is pointless, just hang back and see if it remains open and don't post in it just to discuss how pointless it is (always an odd deal to me). Especially since, like now, you may risk appearing to have your head firmly inserted somewhere dark and odorous. That way, if it's soon closed, you can pat yourself on the back, and if not, you can try to figure out where your judgment went awry, if so motivated.

4. While "new info" per se isn't mandatory with every new thread that's focused on a recurring topic (knowing the rules and knowing the forum competently are very helpful, as was the case here) there is also the matter that there is obviously info here that is "new" to many. The previous multi-merged thread on the main subject is so long and convoluted, that this was a very good choice given the prompt for it was a number of current posts in the forum touching upon it in an interesting way (the "unknowing" element) just as the OP stated (and of course with the Giants game upcoming).

And per "unique", I don't know that I have ever seen a "unique" (in either a positive or negative sense) viewpoint from you, and I think it would be hard for most folks to post one on almost any topic. So why would you set that as a standard?

I took the time to do this because of how you came into the thread right away with a totally useless/clueless post yourself, consisting of seriously off-target yet critical content, that’s seems solely intended to indict the OP (a particularly fine poster for many years, not that this has anything to with it other than add to the irony of your post).

We have a saying around here that I strongly recommend to you and any other to whom it may apply: "read more, post less."

Per the conversation at large, I don't really hold the 'skins "blameless" in terms of history/karma (under the general “Snyder v. others” umbrella ) and a bit of "reaping what you sow" factor is likely in play, but even that's a two way street in almost every example of it I know. And I'm also being hard on "myself" if you will (meaning as a devout skins fan willing to look at all sides carefully and thinking as a surrogate for the team) and understanding that sometimes when you flip-off “the system”, as the system is likely to perceive it, it might bite you back either legitimately or illegitimately. That's part of risk-reward of such choices in business life.

But those angles are the lesser part of my take on the matter, and they’re not even all that iron-clad. Collusion is the main culprit here, IMV, and the NFL is flat-out guilty of it. I think the NFLPA is obvious about knowing it, but caved under pressure of potential negative consequences for fighting it.

Far and away the most egregious pile of **** here is the massively unfair degree of crippling penalty so deliberately and devastatingly timed, and that it was led by someone with huge self-interest in play in the form of ****wad Mara, assisted by a few very sympathetic owners, and Goodall, and then the rest following along.

I am also more on the "**** the idea people need to get over it” side, though I really don't let it or anything similar eat at me for very long. And it did elevate the intensity of my dislike for the giants significantly, and my more active wishing for all things terrible (not injury wise) to befall them and their organization (at this point).

I know on paper the odds are long, but I hope somehow, by some act of good fortune, we just stomp their ass into the turf. I close with a very heartfelt "**** you Mara.”.

[BiGdiCeBuDdHa]

Let me try approaching this situation from a much more simplistic standpoint.

Let's say you are in a 12 team fantasy football league at work, okay? All of the owners except you and one other owner work in the same department.

The waiver wire is open to all teams at 6pm on Tuesday, okay? Well, a couple of weeks into it, there turns out to be a dept. meeting after work hours for the other ten owners, so they won't be able to get to a computer until 8pm.

Those owners ask you and the other owner, "hey, we can't get to computers until 8pm on Tuesday, will you guys agree to push the waiver wire back to 8pm instead of 6pm, just this one time?"

You say, "sure.". Then, 6pm comes on Tuesday comes, and you and the other owner pick up all the available quality free agents anyways.

The other owners come back at 8pm, and are like "WTF?"

You and the other owner say, "tough luck, the rule on our fantasy league homepage says 6pm on Tuesday".

Fair?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Let me try approaching this situation from a much more simplistic standpoint.

Let's say you are in a 12 team fantasy football league at work, okay? All of the owners except you and one other owner work in the same department.

The waiver wire is open to all teams at 6pm on Tuesday, okay? Well, a couple of weeks into it, there turns out to be a dept. meeting after work hours for the other ten owners, so they won't be able to get to a computer until 8pm.

Those owners ask you and the other owner, "hey, we can't get to computers until 8pm on Tuesday, will you guys agree to push the waiver wire back to 8pm instead of 6pm, just this one time?"

You say, "sure.". Then, 6pm comes on Tuesday comes, and you and the other owner pick up all the available quality free agents anyways.

The other owners come back at 8pm, and are like "WTF?"

You and the other owner say, "tough luck, the rule on our fantasy league homepage says 6pm on Tuesday".

Fair?

AND, the other 10 owners approved the move for you to pick up the guy on the waiver wire and said "hey, thats cool"

2 years later, 1 of the 10 convinced the other 9 owners to take away your 8th round keeper stud you drafted, Arian Foster for example, because of what they approved 2 years earlier

Fair?

[cphil006]

Exactly.

Spirit of the cap = collusion.

If people see it any other way, I simply cannot understand their logic.

Does colluding apply if there is no labor contract? I'm honestly unsure and would think that colluding does, in fact, apply because the league is essentially setting income limits... However, I can see the league's POV in that the league itself is a business and can pay however they deem fit as long as it is above the minimum pay. I think the bigger question is whether the league is one entity with different departments (franchises) or 32 separate companies. If it's one entity or company with 32 different divisions, then it opens a whole new legal mess. It can choose it's sponsors and control what sponsors each individual team can be associated with, etc.

I digress outside the scope of the thread, so I apologize. I'm arguing back and forth with myself trying to see each side... I do think Mara has it out for us and that is BS...

[HOF44]

AND, the other 10 owners approved the move for you to pick up the guy on the waiver wire and said "hey, thats cool"

2 years later, 1 of the 10 convinced the other 9 owners to take away your 8th round keeper stud you drafted, Arian Foster for example, because of what they approved 2 years earlier

Fair?

Not to mention an analogy fail as there is no stand in for the players being harmed by ignoring the original parameters of the deal.

[SkinsHokieFan]

What came first? The chicken or the egg? Do two wrongs make a right?

The Redskins and Cowboys were never wrong. That is the point.

We aren't dealing with a fantasy football league here for 1,000 dollars, we are dealing with a 9 billion dollar business which has to obey anti trust laws.

[cphil006]

Does colluding apply if there is no labor contract? I'm honestly unsure and would think that colluding does, in fact, apply because the league is essentially setting income limits... However, I can see the league's POV in that the league itself is a business and can pay however they deem fit as long as it is above the minimum pay. I think the bigger question is whether the league is one entity with different departments (franchises) or 32 separate companies. If it's one entity or company with 32 different divisions, then it opens a whole new legal mess. It can choose it's sponsors and control what sponsors each individual team can be associated with, etc.

I digress outside the scope of the thread, so I apologize. I'm arguing back and forth with myself trying to see each side... I do think Mara has it out for us and that is BS...

I just duplicated. It's more a question of what rights does the league have? What exactly is colluding and how much does that definition encompass?

[BiGdiCeBuDdHa]

What came first? The chicken or the egg? Do two wrongs make a right?

[tshile]

AND, the other 10 owners approved the move for you to pick up the guy on the waiver wire and said "hey, thats cool"

2 years later, 1 of the 10 convinced the other 9 owners to take away your 8th round keeper stud you drafted, Arian Foster for example, because of what they approved 2 years earlier

Fair?

I think you're confusing, yet again, the idea of explaining why some of us understand why the NFL didn't approve of what the redskins did with actually supporting the NFL for the way they handled the situation.

I've yet to see anyone claim what the NFL did was fair or just; your counter-analogy is needless, everyone agree's with you that the way the NFL handled it is bull****.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Not to mention an analogy fail as there is no stand in for the players being harmed by ignoring the original parameters of the deal.

Agree. There really is no analogy for this situation, but to simplify things for our friend, I put up the true analogy.

[BiGdiCeBuDdHa]

What threat did the Redskins propose to Mara in order for him to want to take it out on the Redskins?

The Giants were coming off of their second Superbowl in five years. What exactly was he scared of?

[HOF44]

Does colluding apply if there is no labor contract? I'm honestly unsure and would think that colluding does, in fact, apply because the league is essentially setting income limits... However, I can see the league's POV in that the league itself is a business and can pay however they deem fit as long as it is above the minimum pay. I think the bigger question is whether the league is one entity with different departments (franchises) or 32 seperate companies. If it's one entity or company with 32 different divisions, then it opens a whole new legal mess. It can choose it's sponsors and control what sponsors each individual team can be associated with, etc.

I digress outside the scope of the thread, so I apologize. I'm arguing back and forth with myself trying to see each side... I do think Mara has it out for us and that is BS...

The thing is there was a labor contract in effect. It was the last year and it called for that year to be uncapped. To circumvent that is undoubtedly collusion.

[Going Commando]

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.

Screw that. Mara's cheating and awfulness should be mentioned every time the Giants are brought up. Our fan base should never forget what he did. It was a stain on league history.