skinsfan66 Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 Why do I feel like after reading the interview, that Allen is the reason he is not here. Not a drinking Problem, but a power struggle and who was going to make the big decisions. I think it is safe to say Allen and Danny are the reason Kirk is not signed. They wanted Robert to succeed and Jay and Scot knew it would not be a good move and wanted to sign Kirk . I have to agree with Scot, it is to late to sign Kirk to a long contract unless his agent brings down his asking price, Allen blew it. I believe he let Allen off the hook with this and maybe he did get paid for it. I don't hate Allen put if we lose Kirk its on him and he is the reason we have no GM right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBeast Posted May 9, 2017 Share Posted May 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, skinsfan66 said: Why do I feel like after reading the interview, that Allen is the reason he is not here. Not a drinking Problem, but a power struggle and who was going to make the big decisions. I think it is safe to say Allen and Danny are the reason Kirk is not signed. They wanted Robert to succeed and Jay and Scot knew it would not be a good move and wanted to sign Kirk . I have to agree with Scot, it is to late to sign Kirk to a long contract unless his agent brings down his asking price, Allen blew it. I believe he let Allen off the hook with this and maybe he did get paid for it. I don't hate Allen put if we lose Kirk its on him and he is the reason we have no GM right now. Ding ding ding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 2 hours ago, skinsfan66 said: Why do I feel like after reading the interview, that Allen is the reason he is not here. Not a drinking Problem, but a power struggle and who was going to make the big decisions. More than a few of us felt like that way before this interview, but welcome to the club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srtman04 Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 I am really beginning to hate ****ing Bruce Allen. I rarely hate anything but I absolutely cannot stand this self absorbed moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPG Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 I just watched All or Nothing the behind the scenes look at the 2015 Cardinals. What a great look into a fully functioning front office. Then I come on here to read more about a hissy fit power struggle between our FO. What a difference. I'd love to have a closer look at our team and organization and I don't care how much drama it would bring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carex Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 11 hours ago, skinsfan66 said: Why do I feel like after reading the interview, that Allen is the reason he is not here. Not a drinking Problem, but a power struggle and who was going to make the big decisions. I think it is safe to say Allen and Danny are the reason Kirk is not signed. They wanted Robert to succeed and Jay and Scot knew it would not be a good move and wanted to sign Kirk . I have to agree with Scot, it is to late to sign Kirk to a long contract unless his agent brings down his asking price, Allen blew it. I believe he let Allen off the hook with this and maybe he did get paid for it. I don't hate Allen put if we lose Kirk its on him and he is the reason we have no GM right now. that sounds like it's Kirk's agents fault to me, plus of course Robert was gone last year which was the first year that Kirk was actually a FA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share Posted May 10, 2017 11 hours ago, skinsfan66 said: Why do I feel like after reading the interview, that Allen is the reason he is not here. Because....that was one of the purposes of the interview? It's not as if Scot was gonna say "Well, ok, I did drink on the job on occasion...made a fool of myself a few time too, ha ha...and sure, Bruce told me not to have private convos with players and I did it anyway...I mean, what's the big deal, right? And yeah, some of those "sourced leaks" came from me...guilty as charged. I knew Bruce absolutely hated that and I did it anyway...again, what's the big deal, right? Won't even acknowledge the Russini claim my wife put out there...I'll let you guys figure out if it's true or not. You guys understand. And I did "go dark" as they say...didn't answer a lot of agent calls and my voicemail overflowed with messages from agents as well. But, hey, in my defense I pretty much knew things were over for me and it didn't matter what I did or if I drank at that point, so..." Or maybe we expected "I did absolutely nothing wrong the entire time I was there. Everyone loved me, got numerous calls after I was fired from damn near everyone in the organization telling me how sorry they were to see me go. Had gift baskets and muffins sent to me afterwards, Snyder even came over and apologized for how things turned out...you know what, I'm fine with it, although it's pretty obvious to everyone paying even the slightest attention who was to blame for it not working out. Jealousy, pride...terrible traits to have, if you get my drift. But hey, water under the bridge and all that...let's just say it was "mutual" and no hard feelings." If you believe Chris Russell, there was no power struggle because Bruce never had any power taken away from him to begin with. He didn't need to fire anyone to get power back that he apparently never lost. If you believe Brewer, there were no victims in this whole mess and blame enough to spread around on both sides. If you believe Allen then it just didn't work out for reasons he won't speak of publicly...yet. If you believe Scot it just didn't work out for reasons he won't speak of publicly...yet. If you trust your common sense, you realize there was friction between Scot and Bruce that stemmed from certain events that we don't know about for sure...yet lol. That's why I like how Scot basically suggests talking about what they're doing now instead of what they were possibly, maybe doing 9 months ago or a year and a half ago. He's talking about what he's doing now, sounds positive and looking forward to working with different teams again though his scouting service. He's talking about what the Skins have in terms of roster now, and how optimistic he is about the franchise moving forward with or without him. He seemed appreciative of his time here and humble about what he contributed...both good looks for him. Allen tried that look on as well but he doesn't have that natural genuineness in his interviews. I'm thankful that Allen didn't attempt to talk about the players or coaches or anyone who talked to him afterwards and said they understood the decision. Whether or not anyone did is kinda irrelevant because he could have easily lied (Hall spoke out on his behalf I guess, don't remember if anyone else did). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probos Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 15 hours ago, Califan007 said: Yeah, it's most definitely that, but I also got the sense that it's Scot's way of saying "Let's all move on from this already, ok?"...and for both the Redskins AND him, I can't help but think it would benefit both greatly if we did. Agreed, but after listening to the interview makes me wish it had worked out with Scot even more. He strikes me as a "heart on his sleeve" type, loves football and obviously has mega talent at what he does. I'm sure there's enough blame to spread around but, sorry, I don't trust the top two in the FO. My personal theory is in the eyes of the FO Scot was never the GM in the sense of a traditional GM. They felt threatened, want the overarching power and all the credit. Egos rule and the Skins lost a really good football guy because of it. Oh well,.....moving on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share Posted May 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, Probos said: Agreed, but after listening to the interview makes me wish it had worked out with Scot even more. It's hard not to feel that way, even before his interview...I think we all wished it has worked out. This team with this owner NEEDS a true GM. Maybe it'll all work out incredibly well, gotta at least hope that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dissident2 Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 15 minutes ago, Probos said: Agreed, but after listening to the interview makes me wish it had worked out with Scot even more. He strikes me as a "heart on his sleeve" type, loves football and obviously has mega talent at what he does. I'm sure there's enough blame to spread around but, sorry, I don't trust the top two in the FO. The "heart on his sleeve" thing is what I really loved about Scot. I think that's one of those intangible traits that makes so much of a difference in the way organizations are run, and that's one of the reasons he was such a breath of fresh air in this organization. When you build that culture of loyalty and mutual respect among players and front office, that's when things start to really gel in the locker room and then on the field, which is exactly what happened here. He had exactly the mentality I'd been hoping we'd adopt as a team for years now: take care of your own, build a team of Redskins rather than a collection of mercenaries, create a culture where people know others have their backs, from the locker room to the front office ... too much of what came before was pretty much the opposite of all that. What the team does in the near future regarding the now vacant GM position will say a lot about what they've learned. If anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightningBuggs Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 13 hours ago, skinsfan66 said: Why do I feel like after reading the interview, that Allen is the reason he is not here. Not a drinking Problem, but a power struggle and who was going to make the big decisions. I think it is safe to say Allen and Danny are the reason Kirk is not signed. They wanted Robert to succeed and Jay and Scot knew it would not be a good move and wanted to sign Kirk . I have to agree with Scot, it is to late to sign Kirk to a long contract unless his agent brings down his asking price, Allen blew it. I believe he let Allen off the hook with this and maybe he did get paid for it. I don't hate Allen put if we lose Kirk its on him and he is the reason we have no GM right now. Yep, that was pretty obvious early on. Allen is a big problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Agreed about the issues he obviously has with Allen. But I cant help but keep coming back to the "fired WITH cause" issue. If it was simply a power struggle they would have fired Scott and paid his salary. That the team fired with cause tells us that Scott has plenty of blame on his own shoulders as well. Or else he would go after the 3 Mill the team owes him. And he still may. Overall. I thought the interview was very classy by Scott. Wishing the team well and saying all of the right things to try to get another job in the league. But I personally would be shocked if another team took a chance on Scott after being fired THREE TIMES for what appears to be the same issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Cue a classless leak by Tony Wyllie in ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share Posted May 10, 2017 17 minutes ago, clskinsfan said: Agreed about the issues he obviously has with Allen. But I cant help but keep coming back to the "fired WITH cause" issue. If it was simply a power struggle they would have fired Scott and paid his salary. That the team fired with cause tells us that Scott has plenty of blame on his own shoulders as well. Or else he would go after the 3 Mill the team owes him. And he still may. I still highly doubt it was a power struggle, ego, jealousy, pride or anything along those lines. You mentioned one reason why. Many in the media pulled way back from the "Allen's ego and jealousy" template and started acknowledging that there could have been issues on Scot's end that helped lead to his termination, and Brewer's "there are no victims here" article more or less sealed the deal in my mind for the moment since his earlier article painted Scot as a complete and total victim of Allen's ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 4 hours ago, Califan007 said: This team with this owner NEEDS a true GM. Maybe it'll all work out incredibly well, gotta at least hope that's the case. This I can agree on! But I'm holding out hope for the next Mega Millions too. Probably have about the same chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 3 hours ago, clskinsfan said: Agreed about the issues he obviously has with Allen. But I cant help but keep coming back to the "fired WITH cause" issue. If it was simply a power struggle they would have fired Scott and paid his salary. That the team fired with cause tells us that Scott has plenty of blame on his own shoulders as well. Or else he would go after the 3 Mill the team owes him. And he still may. Overall. I thought the interview was very classy by Scott. Wishing the team well and saying all of the right things to try to get another job in the league. But I personally would be shocked if another team took a chance on Scott after being fired THREE TIMES for what appears to be the same issues. It does seem Scot is a bit too cool for school on this. I get taking the high road, but they said you got fired for cause and don't wanna pay you. Something doesn't smell right about him just rolling over on that. I would think setting the record straight would be kinda important to getting another job in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 Newsflash: People get 'fired with cause' all the time. If your employer wants to get rid of you bad enough, they can dig and find reasons to fire you for cause. We have absolutely no idea what the cause was or even what Scot's contract looked like in regards to the types of cause he could be fired for. We know absolutely nothing about what's transpired since he was let go in regards to any type of settlement, clauses, etc. A lot of things could have taken place since he was let go that could make it easier for him 'roll over'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPG Posted May 10, 2017 Share Posted May 10, 2017 I know most jobs they can make up any reason and fire you but is it the same for Gm's in the NFL? Scott pretty much said in the interview it was both sides that had their faults. I wish it could of worked out better. I posted this in some other thread but watching the All or nothing Documentary on Amazon Prime had me so jealous of how the Cardinals organization is being ran. It was a great look at how a Gm and FO work together and how a team is properly built. The money we could raise to be able see that view of our season last year would be in the millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wit33 Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 The interview was just another reminder of how the Skins lost the most important member of the organization (including players). Just a good dude, who gets it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 11, 2017 Author Share Posted May 11, 2017 13 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said: Newsflash: People get 'fired with cause' all the time. If your employer wants to get rid of you bad enough, they can dig and find reasons to fire you for cause. Don't mean to sound insulting here, but this sounds like something someone would say who has never had to fire someone for "cause" under an employment contract. Especially someone who's still under contract to make $3 mil... While none of the people were making anything close to $1.5 mil a year (lol), I've had to fire several people for "cause" and they all took it to arbitration. While I had kept records of all the transgressions and cross-referenced them with things outlined in their contracts, it was an incredible pain in the ass to gather everything together in a way that would hold up in arbitration. Even how I responded at the time of the infraction was brought up and could have been used against me...if others were doing the same thing but kept their jobs...if there were other issues at play that could be brought up as playing a role in the termination...just a ****load to make sure my ass was covered on. Not to mention, the people you fire may have been documenting stuff on their end as well, you never know. I'm thankful that the people I fired didn't put in the same effort on their end as the arbitrator kept asking them questions concerning what i had documented and the reasons the termination should not be seen as justified. Actually they were each rather terrible with supporting their sides. I felt sorry for one guy I fired during arbitration, guy in his 60s...he really didn't know what to expect going in. I can't even fathom what it would entail if I'm going up against someone with high priced lawyers giving him legal advice before arbitration and millions on the line. That's not something you tend to approach as lightly as digging round deep enough to find some generic reason to use for cause. That's something you've already been documenting for months upon months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 4 hours ago, Califan007 said: I've had to fire several people for "cause" and they all took it to arbitration. While I had kept records of all the transgressions and cross-referenced them with things outlined in their contracts, it was an incredible pain in the ass to gather everything together in a way that would hold up in arbitration. For a moment I thought you were French Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Califan007 said: Don't mean to sound insulting here, but this sounds like something someone would say who has never had to fire someone for "cause" under an employment contract. Especially someone who's still under contract to make $3 mil... I'm a manager and at the company I work for, they make it damn near impossible to fire anyone for cause. The only way to fire someone without writing up a novel on their negative performance is if they call off of work too much, as attendance is really the only hard rule for termination that can't be disputed...and even that only accounts for non-exempt employees. It's much harder for exempt salaried employees. With that said, I've also seen witch hunts where managers go back and dig up every tiny infraction that ever took place in an effort to build a case. Things as small as using 'foul language' in the workplace & team meetings - where nobody ever cared at all when it occurred, finding ways to make cases for insubordination over petty things, etc. The part missing from what you quoted me on is that we really have no idea what the cause was and most likely never will. We can sit here and psychoanalyze what this person said, when they said it, why they might have said it, etc. until we are blue in the face. But none of us really know what Scot's contract looked like. Perhaps there were outs for the organization given his prior history that would make it easy for the Redskins to fire him for cause. We are talking about the same Redskins organization that conspires to get coaches to quit in an effort not to pay their full contract. Pardon me if I'm not willing to just accept the 'for cause' on its face as if there is nothing else that could be at play here. Not only do we not know the ins and outs of Scot's contract, we have no idea whats taken place over the last few months since he was fired. I'd be more inclined to believe Scott's firing couldn't have been avoided if the team actually went out and got the next best GM and gave him the final say on the roster. Sticking with the circle jerk we have now speaks more to this being about childs play in the front office than it does Scott being the catastrophe he was described as by anonymous team officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyvern Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 Maybe I'm just being cynical here, but could it be possible that some kind of settlement was already quietly arranged behind the scenes? ...And perhaps one of the terms of that settlement was that all parties would not reveal that it even exists, and to only comment positively about each other (and on their former relationship) going forward? After all, both sides have something to lose (marketing wise, reputation wise, etc.) from any type of protracted public "flame war". That might explain the absence of pending litigation, as well as the carefully worded and usually positive comments being made. Oftentimes, with any termination of contracts, there's a lot of contentious back and forth, even if one of the parties really was at fault. I haven't seen that much, and generally McCloughan has been either quiet about the matter or publicly amicable towards the Redskins and moving on. If so, I then wonder if McCloughan's wife is rocking the boat and testing the bounds of the settlement with all her tweets! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BatteredFanSyndrome Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 15 minutes ago, Wyvern said: but could it be possible that some kind of settlement was already quietly arranged behind the scenes? Definitely possible. That's what I was getting at, its just as likely something like that is in play as is anything else we can conjure up. We have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 We never really know what any contract actually says, since when did that becone a prequisite for commenting on a situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.