Bruce Allen, Scot McCloughlan, Jay Gruden, and all that stuff like that there

[elkabong82]

12 hours ago, maskedsuperstar said:

Okay! Why did the Skins hire Scot again? Right! Bruce, whether you like him or not, didn't fire Scot just for the fun of it. Scot from the start lied! "They never sent me home February 20th". Yeah, and you came back to Redskins Park and apologized. Bruce told you to go home. And then Scot says "I'm taking care of my family. Thats it"!

And now you are whining about not being liked at Redskins Park. ???

Funny how many fans are kissing Scots hind parts, now. The same fans that were trashing Scot for not fixing the DL. SMH!

 

Any other GM would be trashed by fans for going dark right at the start of free agency and not taking other teams calls. But somehow Scot gets a pass for it. 

[ExoDus84]

34 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Any other GM would be trashed by fans for going dark right at the start of free agency and not taking other teams calls. But somehow Scot gets a pass for it. 

Did he go dark or did Allen tell him to stay the hell away and that he was about to ****can him? It can work both ways.

 

I really want to know what actually happened. I could see it being an issue with Scot's drinking flaring up again, or that Allen and Scot didn't see eye to eye so Bruce fired him because he could. Whatever the case, it won't change my opinion that Scot is a great talent evaluator and Bruce Allen is a sycophantic ass kisser. I also have no hope that Allen/Snyder will ever bring in a viable GM candidate and truly let them do their job without interference.

 

If we ever win another championship, it'll be in spite of Allen/Snyder, and not because of them.

[JSSkinz]

1 hour ago, Peregrine said:

I think you are missing the point, I questioned that why is it we cant trust Scot because he lied, but we can trust Bruce who said the exact same lies?  Which means either its the truth, or both lied.  So why then should his side JUST be believed as the person i was responding to said? 

 

And news for you, while I dont believe thats the only thing or maybe main thing behind it, believing that adults dont fire people simply because they are jealous shows you havent spent much time in the business world.  Many people dont grow up, they just get taller.

 

What business world do you work in, if you fire someone you better be able to back it up with proper documentation or you're looking at a lawsuit, jealousy is not an appropriate reason to fire someone.  I work in a field riddled by jealousy and greed and the only thing that gets people fired is fraud or the inability to perform and that seems to be the case in most industries.

 

In my career what I have seen is that when someone gets fired it's usually because management and the individual failed.  Management gave up on the employee because they couldn't train, motivate, or develop the talent they hired and the individual gave up because they couldn't keep pace or things didn't click.

 

Firing someone is expensive and sets any company back, you don't do it unless you have a damn good reason.

[markmills67]

When Gruden signed his new deal, did he not ask for assurances as to whether cousins would be signed to a LTD?. 

 

HTTR

[desertbeagle85]

30 minutes ago, markmills67 said:

When Gruden signed his new deal, did he not ask for assurances as to whether cousins would be signed to a LTD?. 

 

HTTR

 

Probably not

 

Probably just saw the money.

[skinfan2k]

1 hour ago, markmills67 said:

When Gruden signed his new deal, did he not ask for assurances as to whether cousins would be signed to a LTD?. 

 

HTTR

why would a coach ever tie himself to a player?  He is a damn good coach without him.  You guys act like Cousins is Tom Brady or Tim Duncan

[gooseneck]

5 minutes ago, skinfan2k said:

why would a coach ever tie himself to a player?  He is a damn good coach without him.  You guys act like Cousins is Tom Brady or Tim Duncan

I was hoping the    wizards would sign him

[Spearfeather]

7 hours ago, markmills67 said:

When Gruden signed his new deal, did he not ask for assurances as to whether cousins would be signed to a LTD?. 

 

HTTR

 

They probably couldn't give him assurances on that, but I would think Gruden would have a good idea of their intentions.

[skinsmania123]

6 hours ago, HOF44 said:

People? How about the Redskins themselves.  They sell blocks of unsold tickets to the highest bidder online.  So the team is just as much to blame as any fan for opposing team fans at the game. 

What you wrote is a much better point.  It is completely true.

[Rocky52Mc]

2 hours ago, jschuck12001 said:

What business world do you work in, if you fire someone you better be able to back it up with proper documentation or you're looking at a lawsuit, jealousy is not an appropriate reason to fire someone.  I work in a field riddled by jealousy and greed and the only thing that gets people fired is fraud or the inability to perform and that seems to be the case in most industries.

 

In my career what I have seen is that when someone gets fired it's usually because management and the individual failed.  Management gave up on the employee because they couldn't train, motivate, or develop the talent they hired and the individual gave up because they couldn't keep pace or things didn't click.

 

Firing someone is expensive and sets any company back, you don't do it unless you have a damn good reason.

 

Firing Scot wasn't expensive at all, it most likely saved them money initially assuming he doesn't file against them. A dirty move by the FO if he wasn't on the juice, because he most likely won't file if he wants another formal position with any other team. The FO might have been extremely dirty and kept his draft information.

 

Furthermore, I'm not so sure money has anything to do with this. This is the NFL, not any line of business. ****, Allen kept his job through the RG3 crisis. Backing it up has different meaning around here.

[Taylor 36]

2 hours ago, jschuck12001 said:

What business world do you work in, if you fire someone you better be able to back it up with proper documentation or you're looking at a lawsuit, jealousy is not an appropriate reason to fire someone.  I work in a field riddled by jealousy and greed and the only thing that gets people fired is fraud or the inability to perform and that seems to be the case in most industries.

 

In my career what I have seen is that when someone gets fired it's usually because management and the individual failed.  Management gave up on the employee because they couldn't train, motivate, or develop the talent they hired and the individual gave up because they couldn't keep pace or things didn't click.

 

Firing someone is expensive and sets any company back, you don't do it unless you have a damn good reason.

Thank you!  I was about to reply to him with pretty much the same thing.  You saved me the trouble.

[Taylor 36]

19 minutes ago, Rocky52Mc said:

 

Firing Scot wasn't expensive at all, it most likely saved them money initially assuming he doesn't file against them. A dirty move by the FO if he wasn't on the juice, because he most likely won't file if he wants another formal position with any other team. The FO might have been extremely dirty and kept his draft information.

 

Furthermore, I'm not so sure money has anything to do with this. This is the NFL, not any line of business. ****, Allen kept his job through the RG3 crisis. Backing it up has different meaning around here.

The bolded part of your post is completely wrong.  Scot has now been fired by three organizations, the last of which, the Redskins, was the only one in the league that seemed willing to give him another chance when they hired him.  If Scot was wrongfully let go or the FO played him "dirty," he would HAVE to sue the Redskins to have any chance to clear his name, or i guarantee you he will never get another chance in the league again.  No one is going to hire him to be part of their FO after his third screw up unless he can prove that he wasn't at fault and didn't screw up.

 

And, it wasn't expensive in this case to fire Scot because they fired him with cause.  Otherwise, they would have to most likely pay a severance of some kind.  The fact that it was with cause is actually more damaging against Scot and would indicate that they have strong evidence that Scot failed in his part of the agreement, not the team.  Again, if it isn't true, there is no evidence, and if Scot wants to ever work in the league again, he has every right and should sue the team.

[Taylor 36]

4 hours ago, Peregrine said:

I think you are missing the point, I questioned that why is it we cant trust Scot because he lied, but we can trust Bruce who said the exact same lies?  Which means either its the truth, or both lied.  So why then should his side JUST be believed as the person i was responding to said? 

 

And news for you, while I dont believe thats the only thing or maybe main thing behind it, believing that adults dont fire people simply because they are jealous shows you havent spent much time in the business world.  Many people dont grow up, they just get taller.

Bruce only repeated what Scot said, which is the smartest thing to do outside of saying no comment (which God knows what **** storm that would have caused with the media and fans if he would have said that).  The best and most legally safe thing for the team was to keep quiet and not hang Scot out to dry by going public with his personal demons and failures.  If Scot wanted to go down that road, than legally, the team could not be held in breach of confidentiality by repeating what he said.  News for you, that is how it works in the business world.

[Rocky52Mc]

19 minutes ago, Taylor 36 said:

The bolded part of your post is completely wrong.  Scot has now been fired by three organizations, the last of which, the Redskins, was the only one in the league that seemed willing to give him another chance when they hired him.  If Scot was wrongfully let go or the FO played him "dirty," he would HAVE to sue the Redskins to have any chance to clear his name, or i guarantee you he will never get another chance in the league again.  No one is going to hire him to be part of their FO after his third screw up unless he can prove that he wasn't at fault and didn't screw up.

 

I hear what you're saying. You're talking about a man who also ran a side scouting department for employment, people will be willing to pay him money to do work formally or informally. But you see, everyone knew Scot was drinking when he joined the Redskins, he just wasn't drinking. So for the Redskins, this was the easiest way out of this, use his previously shaky reputation to sneak out of his contract. That's the thing with the NFL, there's arguably a very gray area in terms of loss of employment. If he is still getting paid, he'll have a really hard time suing because the Redskins honored his work. If Scot was fired from Home Depot after they caught him juiced up, he'd have a really great argument. Truth is, the wound is still fresh.

 

In my honest opinion, I believe butting heads and injuries cost him his job. Scot was known to build some astonishing defenses in a small amount of time. Kyshoen Jarrett, Spaight, Steven Daniels, Cravens, Gallette, and Ioannidis is an incredible streak of bad luck with injuries and lack of PT. Some of these guys still have the ability to blossom greatly and we'll see how that pans out. Agree with it or not, there were severe defensive holes that were never filled under SM that led to more embarrassment for Bruce and Danny with the whole Haslett debacle. 

[elkabong82]

3 hours ago, ExoDus84 said:

Did he go dark or did Allen tell him to stay the hell away and that he was about to ****can him? It can work both ways.

 

I really want to know what actually happened. I could see it being an issue with Scot's drinking flaring up again, or that Allen and Scot didn't see eye to eye so Bruce fired him because he could. Whatever the case, it won't change my opinion that Scot is a great talent evaluator and Bruce Allen is a sycophantic ass kisser. I also have no hope that Allen/Snyder will ever bring in a viable GM candidate and truly let them do their job without interference.

 

If we ever win another championship, it'll be in spite of Allen/Snyder, and not because of them.

 

He went dark and it wasn't the first time either. Read Art's posts in the "I hate to admit it.." thread a couple down from this one. Reporters also said Scot's voicemail was full and wouldn't return calls. It seems to be the reason why the firing happened the day free agency started instead of after the draft. Bruce Allen even alluded to it by saying the FO needed clarity at the start of free agency. 

 

As much as people like to rag on Bruce he's actually not awful as a GM in the past. Not amazing or anything, but not awful either. 

 

That last line is ludicrous. Allen is a part of the decision-making team and very much would be a big reason for putting together a championship team. That 2014 draft was pretty good, even without a 1st rounder. 

[Conn]

On 3/31/2017 at 0:07 AM, Dirt said:

This is our favorite team, it's healthier for all of us to accept the hierarchy on this team and hope for the best.  No sense in being miserable about it. 

 

I would sacrifice a small to medium sized creature to be able to rewind to this level of fandom and just enjoy myself again. It's about where I was in the mid-late 2000's. I lost this innocence for good about halfway through the playoff game in 2012, but it had been waning for years before that, especially during the Zorn debacle. 

[onedrop]

6 hours ago, jschuck12001 said:

What business world do you work in, if you fire someone you better be able to back it up with proper documentation or you're looking at a lawsuit, jealousy is not an appropriate reason to fire someone.  I work in a field riddled by jealousy and greed and the only thing that gets people fired is fraud or the inability to perform and that seems to be the case in most industries.

 

In my career what I have seen is that when someone gets fired it's usually because management and the individual failed.  Management gave up on the employee because they couldn't train, motivate, or develop the talent they hired and the individual gave up because they couldn't keep pace or things didn't click.

 

Firing someone is expensive and sets any company back, you don't do it unless you have a damn good reason.

You are 100% absolutely incorrect, at least in a right to work state like VA. You can, I have, fire anyone at anytime for any reason. EOE stuff notwithstanding obviously. The trick is to not give a specific reason that can be disputed. The old "we're going in a different direction" being the preferred verbage. It's more about how it's done not if.  This is fact not theory or opinion, I have seen and done it for years and see it to this very week. There are special circumstances of course but this applies in the vast majority of instances. 

[goskins10]

4 hours ago, onedrop said:

You are 100% absolutely incorrect, at least in a right to work state like VA. You can, I have, fire anyone at anytime for any reason. EOE stuff notwithstanding obviously. The trick is to not give a specific reason that can be disputed. The old "we're going in a different direction" being the preferred verbage. It's more about how it's done not if.  This is fact not theory or opinion, I have seen and done it for years and see it to this very week. There are special circumstances of course but this applies in the vast majority of instances. 

 

You would be right if all they did was fire him and he had no contract or they paid his contact out when they fired him. "At-Will" states (of which most are now) require no burden of proof of any wrong doing to fire someone. Employers can fire people "at-will". Even then most people are given a separation settlement that carries a signed commitment not to sue. But they don't have to. It's to safe frivolous lawsuits.

 

In this case, they fired him for cause and are not paying his contract. That carries a completely different burden of proof. He can sue for the remaining money owed on his contract and if they do not have enough proof of the cause, he will win and get awarded the money owed and damages. Once they refuse to pay the rest of the contract it's a completely different thing.

[JSSkinz]

8 hours ago, onedrop said:

You are 100% absolutely incorrect, at least in a right to work state like VA. You can, I have, fire anyone at anytime for any reason. EOE stuff notwithstanding obviously. The trick is to not give a specific reason that can be disputed. The old "we're going in a different direction" being the preferred verbage. It's more about how it's done not if.  This is fact not theory or opinion, I have seen and done it for years and see it to this very week. There are special circumstances of course but this applies in the vast majority of instances. 

3

 

This conversation about firing started based on jealousy.  I can tell you the dynamics change as the pay grade goes up, I guess the old "were going a different route for someone who is a simple call center rep" might work.  Try telling that to someone who wrote $17,000,000 in new business the previous year and see what happens.

 

I too have watched this in my state of Florida and these people have a lot on the line and they can prove they are good at their job which makes it very difficult to get rid of them in a situation of jealousy which was your original point.

 

Furthermore, its hard to find good talent, once you do you don't let it go because the hiring manager is worried that the employee might be or has become better at the job, good managers will hire employees who will become better than them, if they can't handle that then they aren't good managers and should never be in that position.

[onedrop]

19 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

You would be right if all they did was fire him and he had no contract or they paid his contact out when they fired him. "At-Will" states (of which most are now) require no burden of proof of any wrong doing to fire someone. Employers can fire people "at-will". Even then most people are given a separation settlement that carries a signed commitment not to sue. But they don't have to. It's to safe frivolous lawsuits.

 

In this case, they fired him for cause and are not paying his contract. That carries a completely different burden of proof. He can sue for the remaining money owed on his contract and if they do not have enough proof of the cause, he will win and get awarded the money owed and damages. Once they refuse to pay the rest of the contract it's a completely different thing.

I was addressing what jschuck12001 said only, no specific instances. However , lower pay grades are not necessarily offered any severance when canned...at least not in my experience.

15 hours ago, jschuck12001 said:

 

This conversation about firing started based on jealousy.  I can tell you the dynamics change as the pay grade goes up, I guess the old "were going a different route for someone who is a simple call center rep" might work.  Try telling that to someone who wrote $17,000,000 in new business the previous year and see what happens.

 

I too have watched this in my state of Florida and these people have a lot on the line and they can prove they are good at their job which makes it very difficult to get rid of them in a situation of jealousy which was your original point.

 

Furthermore, its hard to find good talent, once you do you don't let it go because the hiring manager is worried that the employee might be or has become better at the job, good managers will hire employees who will become better than them, if they can't handle that then they aren't good managers and should never be in that position.

I've seen that phrase used on a 10 bucks per hour employee up to 500k per year exec. And nothing happens. No matter the reason. Again this isn't theory, this is what I've seen and done. People want to bring in their own people and the old get the boot. It's expected, it's the norm

[goskins10]

6 hours ago, onedrop said:

I was addressing what jschuck12001 said only, no specific instances. However , lower pay grades are not necessarily offered any severance when canned...at least not in my experience.

Edit

 

 

The point here is that Scot M was reportedly (I say that as I have not seen anything official), released for cause without the remainder of his contract being paid. This has nothing to do with At-Will employment. So thy must have enough of something to at least believe they could win in court.

 

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

On 3/30/2017 at 6:34 PM, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

 

FAKE NEWS!

 

The world is REALLY tired of these two words.   You really need to come up with some new material.

[SkinsPassion4Life]

29 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

The world is REALLY tired of these two words.   You really need to come up with some new material.

 

Not as tiring as constantly blaming Snyder and Bruce for BS

[onedrop]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

The point here is that Scot M was reportedly (I say that as I have not seen anything official), released for cause without the remainder of his contract being paid. This has nothing to do with At-Will employment. So thy must have enough of something to at least believe they could win in court.

 

 

That may be YOUR point. However, the post I responded to originally regarding employment wasn't limited to and didn't mention Scot specifically. Nor was I addressing that exact situation. I thought my last reply made that clear. But in a final attempt at clarity.....

 

"What business world do you work in, if you fire someone you better be able to back it up with proper documentation or you're looking at a lawsuit, jealousy is not an appropriate reason to fire someone.  I work in a field riddled by jealousy and greed and the only thing that gets people fired is fraud or the inability to perform and that seems to be the case in most industries.

 

In my career what I have seen is that when someone gets fired it's usually because management and the individual failed.  Management gave up on the employee because they couldn't train, motivate, or develop the talent they hired and the individual gave up because they couldn't keep pace or things didn't click.

 

Firing someone is expensive and sets any company back, you don't do it unless you have a damn good reason."

 

So in summation, you may very well be correct but that's is not a debate in which I was engaging. Sorry for the sidebar, back to the main topic.....

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Did you guys read Russel's article about why local media doesn't trust Bruce Allen or give him the benefit of the doubt?...It's an interesting read, and also shines some light on how Allen viewed talking/leaking to the press and how McCloughan's contact with media members went against what Allen sought from team employees. It also underscored what Galdi said weeks ago about how the local media guys dislike Bruce Allen and to not overlook the role that plays in everything being reported (speculated)...

 

just another facet to this whole mess...