PDA

View Full Version : MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS



RoanokeFan
03-25-2012, 07:19 PM
MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS (http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/giants/post/_/id/13415/mara-talks-tebow-cowboys-and-redskins)

"Tim Tebow has dominated the news in New York lately and even
John Mara couldn't stop himself from making a little crack
about the Jets' big move.

While meeting with reporters at the NFL
meetings in Palm Beach, Mara was asked by reporters if New York is big enough
for the Giants and Tebowmania.

"I don't know, but the David
Carr press conference will be tomorrow, too," Mara joked to reporters
according to tweet by ESPN's Rachel Nichols.

The Giants
signed their backup quarterback Carr shortly after Tebow was traded to the Jets.
Of course, unlike Tebow, who will be welcomed with a press conference by the
Jets on Monday, Carr's signing was announced on a story by the Giants' team
website.

Nichols then relayed that comment to Jets owner Woody
Johnson.

"Well, that's pretty interesting," Johnson told
Nichols.

Nichols later tweeted, "(He) did not look pleased."

In
non-Tebow news, Mara also discussed the salary cap penalties imposed on the
Redskins and Cowboys.

Mara, who is the chairman of the NFL Management
Committee, said "the penalties were proper."

"Quite frankly, I think
they're lucky they didn't lose draft picks," Mara said according to ESPN NFC
East blogger Dan Graziano. "

TroyArcher
03-25-2012, 07:45 PM
Woody Johnson is a putz. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth, never worked a day in his life and knows nothing about football.

bLuereverie
03-25-2012, 07:51 PM
PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to New York Giants (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/nyg/new-york-giants)
owner John Mara for stopping Sunday afternoon in the Breakers lobby to
talk to a few of us about the salary cap penalties against the Washington Redskins (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) and the Dallas Cowboys (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys). He didn't hold back (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37413/john-mara-redskins-cowboys-got-off-lucky), and as you can see if you scroll through this blog's timeline, we got plenty of good material out of it.



But in the grand scheme of things, when we sit down to talk about
the right and the wrong of this whole situation, there's very little
right and a whole big pile of wrong, and the defiant stance Mara took
Sunday afternoon made that pile much bigger.



The aggrieved parties in this instance are the Redskins and the Cowboys, and they're keeping quiet on the whole thing. Sure, they filed a grievance (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7734658/washington-redskins-dallas-cowboys-file-cap-grievance-report-says)
against the NFL and the NFLPA on Sunday, seeking to get some relief
from the combined $46 million in salary cap room they've been docked
over the next two offseasons. But they declined several opportunities
Sunday to add to the rhetoric



<div class="mod-inline image image-right"><div style="margin-left:10px; width:200px;"><a class="enlarge" href="http://espn.go.com/espn/gallery/enlargePhoto?id=7735818" data-ewidth="440" data-eheight="750">[+] Enlarge
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0325/nfl_u_jmara_dj_200.jpg</a><cite>Ed Mulholland/US Presswire</cite>Giants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

</div></div>Stephen
Jones, the Cowboys' director of player personnel: "Within the confines
of our collective bargaining agreement, we are trying to have a voice
and a hearing in terms of our cap situation."



Bruce Allen, the Redskins' general manager: "I have nothing to say on that. We'll let the league speak to it."



Mike Shanahan, the Redskins' head coach: "I'll let the commissioner speak about that."



We tried egging these guys on. I read Jones the quote from Mara in
which he said the Redskins and Cowboys were lucky they didn't lose draft
picks for this, and all Jones said was, "That's John's opinion. Not my
opinion."



But Mara came out guns-a-blazin'. And if there are people out there
who believe (as I do) that the NFL has acted with irresponsible, petty
arrogance in this case and imposed unjustified penalties against teams
that broke no actual rules, Mara's stance isn't likely to change their
minds.



There was no salary cap in 2010. This is a fact. Mara repeatedly
brushed that aside during questioning Sunday, irritated at the fact's
mere existence. "We've had a cap for 29 of the last 30 years," he said
more than once, and he explained rather clearly that teams were told,
more than once, to watch the way they spent money and structured
contracts during the uncapped 2010 season. He basically admitted to
what, in any other business, would be collusion and grounds for an
antitrust lawsuit. But he bristled at the mention of that word, too,
saying, "This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams
attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the
system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there
would be consequences."



What we know about this case is that the NFL basically engaged in a
sanctioned form of collusion in 2010, telling its teams that yeah, there
was no cap, but that they needed to act as though there were one
because they were sure the cap would come back and it was wrong to use
this "loophole" as a means of gaining an advantage against the cap in
future years. Mara admitted all of that Sunday, and he did so in a way
that strongly indicates he believes himself to be on the correct side of
the argument.



But he is not, of course. And in more ways than one, he is very much in the wrong.



Mara is wrong because the only thing of which the Redskins and
Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement
between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more
than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did,
effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the
other party (i.e., the players) in their collective bargaining
agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along
with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it
were right, is the height of arrogance.



Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's
giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want.
The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part
of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included
the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions
they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well
qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges.
And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint,
it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to
pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league
backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the
penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a
reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from
which to attack on this.



Mara is wrong because he's the chairman of the NFL Management
Council, which is the group that imposed these penalties, and he's the
owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and
competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara
did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of
the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even
the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that
could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of
interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he
should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole
thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent
reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.



What's interesting here is that, when these penalties came down, a
lot of people assumed it was the teams at the other end of the spending
spectrum who were upset with what the Cowboys and Redskins had done --
traditionally low-spending teams like the Buccaneers and the Jaguars and
the Chiefs and the Bills. But what seems clear now is that Mara, the
owner of the Giants, was one of the driving forces behind holding the
Redskins' and Cowboys' feet to the fire over an issue the league office
likely wouldn't have pursued if not for pressure from owners. It makes
Mara look petty and small and vindictive, and those aren't words usually
associated with him. It makes no sense to me that he's gone to such
great lengths to allow people to apply them to him now.

titwio
03-25-2012, 08:29 PM
Awesome...So now I get to watch the Tebow AND Carr press conference tomorrow ;)

Ntegrase96
03-25-2012, 08:39 PM
PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to New York Giants (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/nyg/new-york-giants)
owner John Mara for stopping Sunday afternoon in the Breakers lobby to
talk to a few of us about the salary cap penalties against the Washington Redskins (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) and the Dallas Cowboys (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys). He didn't hold back (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37413/john-mara-redskins-cowboys-got-off-lucky), and as you can see if you scroll through this blog's timeline, we got plenty of good material out of it.



But in the grand scheme of things, when we sit down to talk about
the right and the wrong of this whole situation, there's very little
right and a whole big pile of wrong, and the defiant stance Mara took
Sunday afternoon made that pile much bigger.



The aggrieved parties in this instance are the Redskins and the Cowboys, and they're keeping quiet on the whole thing. Sure, they filed a grievance (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7734658/washington-redskins-dallas-cowboys-file-cap-grievance-report-says)
against the NFL and the NFLPA on Sunday, seeking to get some relief
from the combined $46 million in salary cap room they've been docked
over the next two offseasons. But they declined several opportunities
Sunday to add to the rhetoric



<div class="mod-inline image image-right"><div style="margin-left:10px; width:200px;"><a class="enlarge" href="http://espn.go.com/espn/gallery/enlargePhoto?id=7735818" data-ewidth="440" data-eheight="750">[+] Enlarge
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0325/nfl_u_jmara_dj_200.jpg</a><cite>Ed Mulholland/US Presswire</cite>Giants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

</div></div>Stephen
Jones, the Cowboys' director of player personnel: "Within the confines
of our collective bargaining agreement, we are trying to have a voice
and a hearing in terms of our cap situation."



Bruce Allen, the Redskins' general manager: "I have nothing to say on that. We'll let the league speak to it."



Mike Shanahan, the Redskins' head coach: "I'll let the commissioner speak about that."



We tried egging these guys on. I read Jones the quote from Mara in
which he said the Redskins and Cowboys were lucky they didn't lose draft
picks for this, and all Jones said was, "That's John's opinion. Not my
opinion."



But Mara came out guns-a-blazin'. And if there are people out there
who believe (as I do) that the NFL has acted with irresponsible, petty
arrogance in this case and imposed unjustified penalties against teams
that broke no actual rules, Mara's stance isn't likely to change their
minds.



There was no salary cap in 2010. This is a fact. Mara repeatedly
brushed that aside during questioning Sunday, irritated at the fact's
mere existence. "We've had a cap for 29 of the last 30 years," he said
more than once, and he explained rather clearly that teams were told,
more than once, to watch the way they spent money and structured
contracts during the uncapped 2010 season. He basically admitted to
what, in any other business, would be collusion and grounds for an
antitrust lawsuit. But he bristled at the mention of that word, too,
saying, "This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams
attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the
system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there
would be consequences."



What we know about this case is that the NFL basically engaged in a
sanctioned form of collusion in 2010, telling its teams that yeah, there
was no cap, but that they needed to act as though there were one
because they were sure the cap would come back and it was wrong to use
this "loophole" as a means of gaining an advantage against the cap in
future years. Mara admitted all of that Sunday, and he did so in a way
that strongly indicates he believes himself to be on the correct side of
the argument.



But he is not, of course. And in more ways than one, he is very much in the wrong.



Mara is wrong because the only thing of which the Redskins and
Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement
between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more
than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did,
effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the
other party (i.e., the players) in their collective bargaining
agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along
with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it
were right, is the height of arrogance.



Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's
giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want.
The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part
of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included
the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions
they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well
qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges.
And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint,
it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to
pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league
backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the
penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a
reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from
which to attack on this.



Mara is wrong because he's the chairman of the NFL Management
Council, which is the group that imposed these penalties, and he's the
owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and
competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara
did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of
the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even
the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that
could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of
interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he
should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole
thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent
reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.



What's interesting here is that, when these penalties came down, a
lot of people assumed it was the teams at the other end of the spending
spectrum who were upset with what the Cowboys and Redskins had done --
traditionally low-spending teams like the Buccaneers and the Jaguars and
the Chiefs and the Bills. But what seems clear now is that Mara, the
owner of the Giants, was one of the driving forces behind holding the
Redskins' and Cowboys' feet to the fire over an issue the league office
likely wouldn't have pursued if not for pressure from owners. It makes
Mara look petty and small and vindictive, and those aren't words usually
associated with him. It makes no sense to me that he's gone to such
great lengths to allow people to apply them to him now.

I feel like most of the people on this forum felt like this was an 'icing on the cake' issue a few weeks ago when the Cowboys and Redskins were docked cap space. Makes sense. I can understand that and I'd be the same way in your position.

Not sure how much this will affect you, but it involved your team's ownership quite a bit. I respect the Mara family, but I really hope this issue comes back to bite John square in the ***.

RoanokeFan
03-25-2012, 09:07 PM
PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to New York Giants (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/nyg/new-york-giants)
owner John Mara for stopping Sunday afternoon in the Breakers lobby to
talk to a few of us about the salary cap penalties against the Washington Redskins (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) and the Dallas Cowboys (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys). He didn't hold back (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37413/john-mara-redskins-cowboys-got-off-lucky), and as you can see if you scroll through this blog's timeline, we got plenty of good material out of it.



But in the grand scheme of things, when we sit down to talk about
the right and the wrong of this whole situation, there's very little
right and a whole big pile of wrong, and the defiant stance Mara took
Sunday afternoon made that pile much bigger.



The aggrieved parties in this instance are the Redskins and the Cowboys, and they're keeping quiet on the whole thing. Sure, they filed a grievance (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7734658/washington-redskins-dallas-cowboys-file-cap-grievance-report-says)
against the NFL and the NFLPA on Sunday, seeking to get some relief
from the combined $46 million in salary cap room they've been docked
over the next two offseasons. But they declined several opportunities
Sunday to add to the rhetoric



<div class="mod-inline image image-right"><div style="margin-left:10px; width:200px;"><a class="enlarge" href="http://espn.go.com/espn/gallery/enlargePhoto?id=7735818" data-ewidth="440" data-eheight="750">[+] Enlarge
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0325/nfl_u_jmara_dj_200.jpg</a><cite>Ed Mulholland/US Presswire</cite>Giants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

</div></div>Stephen
Jones, the Cowboys' director of player personnel: "Within the confines
of our collective bargaining agreement, we are trying to have a voice
and a hearing in terms of our cap situation."



Bruce Allen, the Redskins' general manager: "I have nothing to say on that. We'll let the league speak to it."



Mike Shanahan, the Redskins' head coach: "I'll let the commissioner speak about that."



We tried egging these guys on. I read Jones the quote from Mara in
which he said the Redskins and Cowboys were lucky they didn't lose draft
picks for this, and all Jones said was, "That's John's opinion. Not my
opinion."



But Mara came out guns-a-blazin'. And if there are people out there
who believe (as I do) that the NFL has acted with irresponsible, petty
arrogance in this case and imposed unjustified penalties against teams
that broke no actual rules, Mara's stance isn't likely to change their
minds.



There was no salary cap in 2010. This is a fact. Mara repeatedly
brushed that aside during questioning Sunday, irritated at the fact's
mere existence. "We've had a cap for 29 of the last 30 years," he said
more than once, and he explained rather clearly that teams were told,
more than once, to watch the way they spent money and structured
contracts during the uncapped 2010 season. He basically admitted to
what, in any other business, would be collusion and grounds for an
antitrust lawsuit. But he bristled at the mention of that word, too,
saying, "This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams
attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the
system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there
would be consequences."



What we know about this case is that the NFL basically engaged in a
sanctioned form of collusion in 2010, telling its teams that yeah, there
was no cap, but that they needed to act as though there were one
because they were sure the cap would come back and it was wrong to use
this "loophole" as a means of gaining an advantage against the cap in
future years. Mara admitted all of that Sunday, and he did so in a way
that strongly indicates he believes himself to be on the correct side of
the argument.



But he is not, of course. And in more ways than one, he is very much in the wrong.



Mara is wrong because the only thing of which the Redskins and
Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement
between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more
than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did,
effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the
other party (i.e., the players) in their collective bargaining
agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along
with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it
were right, is the height of arrogance.



Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's
giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want.
The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part
of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included
the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions
they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well
qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges.
And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint,
it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to
pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league
backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the
penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a
reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from
which to attack on this.



Mara is wrong because he's the chairman of the NFL Management
Council, which is the group that imposed these penalties, and he's the
owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and
competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara
did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of
the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even
the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that
could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of
interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he
should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole
thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent
reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.



What's interesting here is that, when these penalties came down, a
lot of people assumed it was the teams at the other end of the spending
spectrum who were upset with what the Cowboys and Redskins had done --
traditionally low-spending teams like the Buccaneers and the Jaguars and
the Chiefs and the Bills. But what seems clear now is that Mara, the
owner of the Giants, was one of the driving forces behind holding the
Redskins' and Cowboys' feet to the fire over an issue the league office
likely wouldn't have pursued if not for pressure from owners. It makes
Mara look petty and small and vindictive, and those aren't words usually
associated with him. It makes no sense to me that he's gone to such
great lengths to allow people to apply them to him now.

I feel like most of the people on this forum felt like this was an 'icing on the cake' issue a few weeks ago when the Cowboys and Redskins were docked cap space. Makes sense. I can understand that and I'd be the same way in your position.

Not sure how much this will affect you, but it involved your team's ownership quite a bit. I respect the Mara family, but I really hope this issue comes back to bite John square in the ***.


I'm guessing we don't know all there is to know about the whole situation.

bLuereverie
03-25-2012, 09:45 PM
I read Chargers' GM and Exec VP was the first to approach Mara regarding the deal given to Miles Austin since it directly influenced their franchising of Vincent Jackson. Not to mention that Robert Kraft has his influence on the situation as well.

I actually felt for the Skins and Dallas, but alas, I don't know the details of went on prior to and after CBA meetings.

gmen46
03-25-2012, 10:31 PM
PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to New York Giants (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/nyg/new-york-giants)
owner John Mara for stopping Sunday afternoon in the Breakers lobby to
talk to a few of us about the salary cap penalties against the Washington Redskins (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) and the Dallas Cowboys (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys). He didn't hold back (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37413/john-mara-redskins-cowboys-got-off-lucky), and as you can see if you scroll through this blog's timeline, we got plenty of good material out of it.



But in the grand scheme of things, when we sit down to talk about
the right and the wrong of this whole situation, there's very little
right and a whole big pile of wrong, and the defiant stance Mara took
Sunday afternoon made that pile much bigger.



The aggrieved parties in this instance are the Redskins and the Cowboys, and they're keeping quiet on the whole thing. Sure, they filed a grievance (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7734658/washington-redskins-dallas-cowboys-file-cap-grievance-report-says)
against the NFL and the NFLPA on Sunday, seeking to get some relief
from the combined $46 million in salary cap room they've been docked
over the next two offseasons. But they declined several opportunities
Sunday to add to the rhetoric



<div class="mod-inline image image-right"><div style="margin-left:10px; width:200px;"><a class="enlarge" href="http://espn.go.com/espn/gallery/enlargePhoto?id=7735818" data-ewidth="440" data-eheight="750">[+] Enlarge
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0325/nfl_u_jmara_dj_200.jpg</a><cite>Ed Mulholland/US Presswire</cite>Giants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

</div></div>Stephen
Jones, the Cowboys' director of player personnel: "Within the confines
of our collective bargaining agreement, we are trying to have a voice
and a hearing in terms of our cap situation."



Bruce Allen, the Redskins' general manager: "I have nothing to say on that. We'll let the league speak to it."



Mike Shanahan, the Redskins' head coach: "I'll let the commissioner speak about that."



We tried egging these guys on. I read Jones the quote from Mara in
which he said the Redskins and Cowboys were lucky they didn't lose draft
picks for this, and all Jones said was, "That's John's opinion. Not my
opinion."



But Mara came out guns-a-blazin'. And if there are people out there
who believe (as I do) that the NFL has acted with irresponsible, petty
arrogance in this case and imposed unjustified penalties against teams
that broke no actual rules, Mara's stance isn't likely to change their
minds.



There was no salary cap in 2010. This is a fact. Mara repeatedly
brushed that aside during questioning Sunday, irritated at the fact's
mere existence. "We've had a cap for 29 of the last 30 years," he said
more than once, and he explained rather clearly that teams were told,
more than once, to watch the way they spent money and structured
contracts during the uncapped 2010 season. He basically admitted to
what, in any other business, would be collusion and grounds for an
antitrust lawsuit. But he bristled at the mention of that word, too,
saying, "This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams
attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the
system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there
would be consequences."



What we know about this case is that the NFL basically engaged in a
sanctioned form of collusion in 2010, telling its teams that yeah, there
was no cap, but that they needed to act as though there were one
because they were sure the cap would come back and it was wrong to use
this "loophole" as a means of gaining an advantage against the cap in
future years. Mara admitted all of that Sunday, and he did so in a way
that strongly indicates he believes himself to be on the correct side of
the argument.



But he is not, of course. And in more ways than one, he is very much in the wrong.



Mara is wrong because the only thing of which the Redskins and
Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement
between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more
than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did,
effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the
other party (i.e., the players) in their collective bargaining
agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along
with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it
were right, is the height of arrogance.



Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's
giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want.
The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part
of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included
the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions
they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well
qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges.
And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint,
it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to
pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league
backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the
penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a
reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from
which to attack on this.



Mara is wrong because he's the chairman of the NFL Management
Council, which is the group that imposed these penalties, and he's the
owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and
competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara
did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of
the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even
the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that
could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of
interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he
should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole
thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent
reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.



What's interesting here is that, when these penalties came down, a
lot of people assumed it was the teams at the other end of the spending
spectrum who were upset with what the Cowboys and Redskins had done --
traditionally low-spending teams like the Buccaneers and the Jaguars and
the Chiefs and the Bills. But what seems clear now is that Mara, the
owner of the Giants, was one of the driving forces behind holding the
Redskins' and Cowboys' feet to the fire over an issue the league office
likely wouldn't have pursued if not for pressure from owners. It makes
Mara look petty and small and vindictive, and those aren't words usually
associated with him. It makes no sense to me that he's gone to such
great lengths to allow people to apply them to him now.

I feel like most of the people on this forum felt like this was an 'icing on the cake' issue a few weeks ago when the Cowboys and Redskins were docked cap space. Makes sense. I can understand that and I'd be the same way in your position.

Not sure how much this will affect you, but it involved your team's ownership quite a bit. I respect the Mara family, but I really hope this issue comes back to bite John square in the ***.


I'm guessing we don't know all there is to know about the whole situation.


Exactly right.

People are, to a large degree, the sum of all their acts.

When the picture this journalist paints here depicts Jones and Snyder acting completely innocently and honorably, and has John Mara as completely dishonorable and making reckless comments regarding the case that could so easily--according to the journalist and some Dallas fans--provoke a second anti trust case against the NFL, something HUGE is missing in terms of actual facts.

John Mara, who as a matter of daily routine does not say ANYTHING reckless (or revealing) when it comes to his team, the NFL, and all things relating to them, and who was one of the 4 principles on the side of the owners in the 4 month CBA negotiations last spring/summer--THIS John Mara now all of a sudden "admits" to "collusion"? He has no lawyers advising him? He would actually NOT understand what the owners can legally do and not do?

Is this "journalist" serious? He admits that Mara is not "usually associated" with petty and vindictive, but he is so ready to believe that in THIS ONE INSTANCE Mara is being petty, vindictive, AND reckless, and that Jones and Snyder are completely in the right.

It seems more clear that this guy has drawn conclusions and worse, published his conclusions, with absolutely no knowledge of all the facts.

Lord knows, John Mara sure as hell doesn't need me to defend him, but it always pisses me off when a so-called journalist writes something that obviously has no basis in any fats at his disposal.

The picture he presents of the 3 primaries in this story is so completely opposite to their respective public personas and history that it is stunning.

Mod_C
03-25-2012, 10:38 PM
PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to New York Giants (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/nyg/new-york-giants)
owner John Mara for stopping Sunday afternoon in the Breakers lobby to
talk to a few of us about the salary cap penalties against the Washington Redskins (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) and the Dallas Cowboys (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys). He didn't hold back (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37413/john-mara-redskins-cowboys-got-off-lucky), and as you can see if you scroll through this blog's timeline, we got plenty of good material out of it.



But in the grand scheme of things, when we sit down to talk about
the right and the wrong of this whole situation, there's very little
right and a whole big pile of wrong, and the defiant stance Mara took
Sunday afternoon made that pile much bigger.



The aggrieved parties in this instance are the Redskins and the Cowboys, and they're keeping quiet on the whole thing. Sure, they filed a grievance (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7734658/washington-redskins-dallas-cowboys-file-cap-grievance-report-says)
against the NFL and the NFLPA on Sunday, seeking to get some relief
from the combined $46 million in salary cap room they've been docked
over the next two offseasons. But they declined several opportunities
Sunday to add to the rhetoric



<div class="mod-inline image image-right"><div style="margin-left:10px; width:200px;"><a class="enlarge" href="http://espn.go.com/espn/gallery/enlargePhoto?id=7735818" data-ewidth="440" data-eheight="750">[+] Enlarge
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0325/nfl_u_jmara_dj_200.jpg</a><cite>Ed Mulholland/US Presswire</cite>Giants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

</div></div>Stephen
Jones, the Cowboys' director of player personnel: "Within the confines
of our collective bargaining agreement, we are trying to have a voice
and a hearing in terms of our cap situation."



Bruce Allen, the Redskins' general manager: "I have nothing to say on that. We'll let the league speak to it."



Mike Shanahan, the Redskins' head coach: "I'll let the commissioner speak about that."



We tried egging these guys on. I read Jones the quote from Mara in
which he said the Redskins and Cowboys were lucky they didn't lose draft
picks for this, and all Jones said was, "That's John's opinion. Not my
opinion."



But Mara came out guns-a-blazin'. And if there are people out there
who believe (as I do) that the NFL has acted with irresponsible, petty
arrogance in this case and imposed unjustified penalties against teams
that broke no actual rules, Mara's stance isn't likely to change their
minds.



There was no salary cap in 2010. This is a fact. Mara repeatedly
brushed that aside during questioning Sunday, irritated at the fact's
mere existence. "We've had a cap for 29 of the last 30 years," he said
more than once, and he explained rather clearly that teams were told,
more than once, to watch the way they spent money and structured
contracts during the uncapped 2010 season. He basically admitted to
what, in any other business, would be collusion and grounds for an
antitrust lawsuit. But he bristled at the mention of that word, too,
saying, "This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams
attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the
system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there
would be consequences."



What we know about this case is that the NFL basically engaged in a
sanctioned form of collusion in 2010, telling its teams that yeah, there
was no cap, but that they needed to act as though there were one
because they were sure the cap would come back and it was wrong to use
this "loophole" as a means of gaining an advantage against the cap in
future years. Mara admitted all of that Sunday, and he did so in a way
that strongly indicates he believes himself to be on the correct side of
the argument.



But he is not, of course. And in more ways than one, he is very much in the wrong.



Mara is wrong because the only thing of which the Redskins and
Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement
between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more
than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did,
effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the
other party (i.e., the players) in their collective bargaining
agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along
with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it
were right, is the height of arrogance.



Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's
giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want.
The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part
of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included
the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions
they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well
qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges.
And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint,
it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to
pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league
backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the
penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a
reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from
which to attack on this.



Mara is wrong because he's the chairman of the NFL Management
Council, which is the group that imposed these penalties, and he's the
owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and
competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara
did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of
the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even
the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that
could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of
interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he
should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole
thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent
reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.



What's interesting here is that, when these penalties came down, a
lot of people assumed it was the teams at the other end of the spending
spectrum who were upset with what the Cowboys and Redskins had done --
traditionally low-spending teams like the Buccaneers and the Jaguars and
the Chiefs and the Bills. But what seems clear now is that Mara, the
owner of the Giants, was one of the driving forces behind holding the
Redskins' and Cowboys' feet to the fire over an issue the league office
likely wouldn't have pursued if not for pressure from owners. It makes
Mara look petty and small and vindictive, and those aren't words usually
associated with him. It makes no sense to me that he's gone to such
great lengths to allow people to apply them to him now.

I feel like most of the people on this forum felt like this was an 'icing on the cake' issue a few weeks ago when the Cowboys and Redskins were docked cap space. Makes sense. I can understand that and I'd be the same way in your position.

Not sure how much this will affect you, but it involved your team's ownership quite a bit. I respect the Mara family, but I really hope this issue comes back to bite John square in the ***.


I'm guessing we don't know all there is to know about the whole situation.


Exactly right.

People are, to a large degree, the sum of all their acts.

When the picture this journalist paints here depicts Jones and Snyder acting completely innocently and honorably, and has John Mara as completely dishonorable and making reckless comments regarding the case that could so easily--according to the journalist and some Dallas fans--provoke a second anti trust case against the NFL, something HUGE is missing in terms of actual facts.

John Mara, who as a matter of daily routine does not say ANYTHING reckless (or revealing) when it comes to his team, the NFL, and all things relating to them, and who was one of the 4 principles on the side of the owners in the 4 month CBA negotiations last spring/summer--THIS John Mara now all of a sudden "admits" to "collusion"? He has no lawyers advising him? He would actually NOT understand what the owners can legally do and not do?

Is this "journalist" serious? He admits that Mara is not "usually associated" with petty and vindictive, but he is so ready to believe that in THIS ONE INSTANCE Mara is being petty, vindictive, AND reckless, and that Jones and Snyder are completely in the right.

It seems more clear that this guy has drawn conclusions and worse, published his conclusions, with absolutely no knowledge of all the facts.

Lord knows, John Mara sure as hell doesn't need me to defend him, but it always pisses me off when a so-called journalist writes something that obviously has no basis in any fats at his disposal.

The picture he presents of the 3 primaries in this story is so completely opposite to their respective public personas and history that it is stunning.

He's in charge of this particular committee that, I believe, made the decision/recommendation to The Commissioner.

Ntegrase96
03-25-2012, 10:48 PM
I read Chargers' GM and Exec VP was the first to approach Mara regarding the deal given to Miles Austin since it directly influenced their franchising of Vincent Jackson. Not to mention that Robert Kraft has his influence on the situation as well.

I actually felt for the Skins and Dallas, but alas, I don't know the details of went on prior to and after CBA meetings.

Maybe. But I wouldn't doubt that other teams had grievances as well.

First off, the Miles Austin's deal wasn't an unfair one-- it was just front loaded like crazy. Although we all know that there weren't rules in place in 2010 and if the Chargers wanted to resign Vincent Jackson, they had the opportunity that all 32 teams had in 2010 during the uncapped year to load him with tons of dollars.

Prior to the new CBA, as stated by Glazier above, there was an informal 'gentleman's agreement' amongst a lot of teams in the nfl to keep spending to a minimum. Which means that the gentleman's agreement meant absolutely nothing to people who didn't agree to it.

Just because those who agreed to the informal gentleman's agreement want to punish those who didn't, doesn't mean they deserve the right to do so. Especially after...

A.) The deals were done within bounds of the rules that year (because there were no rules)
B.) The league, themselves, had to approve the deals that are in question.

Furthermore, there was not a full vote amongst teams to impose sanctions against either the Cowboys or Redskins.

And it was all spearheaded by Mara, who is in direct competition of the teams punished most heavily.

I find that a little too coincidental seeing how there are several teams that resturctured contracts in the same manner as the Cowboys and Redskins that very same year to circumvent future salary caps-- which, I will again point out was legal and pretty much the point of the capless year in the first place.

JJC7301
03-25-2012, 10:55 PM
I, for one, don't mind Mara taking a little backhanded swipe at Johnson. We've all had to listen to Woody and his minions talk about taking over the city for the past few years.

JJC7301
03-25-2012, 10:58 PM
PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to New York Giants (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/nyg/new-york-giants)
owner John Mara for stopping Sunday afternoon in the Breakers lobby to
talk to a few of us about the salary cap penalties against the Washington Redskins (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) and the Dallas Cowboys (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys). He didn't hold back (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37413/john-mara-redskins-cowboys-got-off-lucky), and as you can see if you scroll through this blog's timeline, we got plenty of good material out of it.



But in the grand scheme of things, when we sit down to talk about
the right and the wrong of this whole situation, there's very little
right and a whole big pile of wrong, and the defiant stance Mara took
Sunday afternoon made that pile much bigger.



The aggrieved parties in this instance are the Redskins and the Cowboys, and they're keeping quiet on the whole thing. Sure, they filed a grievance (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7734658/washington-redskins-dallas-cowboys-file-cap-grievance-report-says)
against the NFL and the NFLPA on Sunday, seeking to get some relief
from the combined $46 million in salary cap room they've been docked
over the next two offseasons. But they declined several opportunities
Sunday to add to the rhetoric



<div class="mod-inline image image-right"><div style="margin-left:10px; width:200px;"><a class="enlarge" href="http://espn.go.com/espn/gallery/enlargePhoto?id=7735818" data-ewidth="440" data-eheight="750">[+] Enlarge
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0325/nfl_u_jmara_dj_200.jpg</a><cite>Ed Mulholland/US Presswire</cite>Giants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

</div></div>Stephen
Jones, the Cowboys' director of player personnel: "Within the confines
of our collective bargaining agreement, we are trying to have a voice
and a hearing in terms of our cap situation."



Bruce Allen, the Redskins' general manager: "I have nothing to say on that. We'll let the league speak to it."



Mike Shanahan, the Redskins' head coach: "I'll let the commissioner speak about that."



We tried egging these guys on. I read Jones the quote from Mara in
which he said the Redskins and Cowboys were lucky they didn't lose draft
picks for this, and all Jones said was, "That's John's opinion. Not my
opinion."



But Mara came out guns-a-blazin'. And if there are people out there
who believe (as I do) that the NFL has acted with irresponsible, petty
arrogance in this case and imposed unjustified penalties against teams
that broke no actual rules, Mara's stance isn't likely to change their
minds.



There was no salary cap in 2010. This is a fact. Mara repeatedly
brushed that aside during questioning Sunday, irritated at the fact's
mere existence. "We've had a cap for 29 of the last 30 years," he said
more than once, and he explained rather clearly that teams were told,
more than once, to watch the way they spent money and structured
contracts during the uncapped 2010 season. He basically admitted to
what, in any other business, would be collusion and grounds for an
antitrust lawsuit. But he bristled at the mention of that word, too,
saying, "This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams
attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the
system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there
would be consequences."



What we know about this case is that the NFL basically engaged in a
sanctioned form of collusion in 2010, telling its teams that yeah, there
was no cap, but that they needed to act as though there were one
because they were sure the cap would come back and it was wrong to use
this "loophole" as a means of gaining an advantage against the cap in
future years. Mara admitted all of that Sunday, and he did so in a way
that strongly indicates he believes himself to be on the correct side of
the argument.



But he is not, of course. And in more ways than one, he is very much in the wrong.



Mara is wrong because the only thing of which the Redskins and
Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement
between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more
than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did,
effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the
other party (i.e., the players) in their collective bargaining
agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along
with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it
were right, is the height of arrogance.



Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's
giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want.
The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part
of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included
the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions
they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well
qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges.
And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint,
it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to
pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league
backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the
penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a
reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from
which to attack on this.



Mara is wrong because he's the chairman of the NFL Management
Council, which is the group that imposed these penalties, and he's the
owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and
competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara
did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of
the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even
the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that
could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of
interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he
should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole
thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent
reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.



What's interesting here is that, when these penalties came down, a
lot of people assumed it was the teams at the other end of the spending
spectrum who were upset with what the Cowboys and Redskins had done --
traditionally low-spending teams like the Buccaneers and the Jaguars and
the Chiefs and the Bills. But what seems clear now is that Mara, the
owner of the Giants, was one of the driving forces behind holding the
Redskins' and Cowboys' feet to the fire over an issue the league office
likely wouldn't have pursued if not for pressure from owners. It makes
Mara look petty and small and vindictive, and those aren't words usually
associated with him. It makes no sense to me that he's gone to such
great lengths to allow people to apply them to him now.

I feel like most of the people on this forum felt like this was an 'icing on the cake' issue a few weeks ago when the Cowboys and Redskins were docked cap space. Makes sense. I can understand that and I'd be the same way in your position.

Not sure how much this will affect you, but it involved your team's ownership quite a bit. I respect the Mara family, but I really hope this issue comes back to bite John square in the ***.


I'm guessing we don't know all there is to know about the whole situation.


Exactly right.

People are, to a large degree, the sum of all their acts.

When the picture this journalist paints here depicts Jones and Snyder acting completely innocently and honorably, and has John Mara as completely dishonorable and making reckless comments regarding the case that could so easily--according to the journalist and some Dallas fans--provoke a second anti trust case against the NFL, something HUGE is missing in terms of actual facts.

John Mara, who as a matter of daily routine does not say ANYTHING reckless (or revealing) when it comes to his team, the NFL, and all things relating to them, and who was one of the 4 principles on the side of the owners in the 4 month CBA negotiations last spring/summer--THIS John Mara now all of a sudden "admits" to "collusion"? He has no lawyers advising him? He would actually NOT understand what the owners can legally do and not do?

Is this "journalist" serious? He admits that Mara is not "usually associated" with petty and vindictive, but he is so ready to believe that in THIS ONE INSTANCE Mara is being petty, vindictive, AND reckless, and that Jones and Snyder are completely in the right.

It seems more clear that this guy has drawn conclusions and worse, published his conclusions, with absolutely no knowledge of all the facts.

Lord knows, John Mara sure as hell doesn't need me to defend him, but it always pisses me off when a so-called journalist writes something that obviously has no basis in any fats at his disposal.

The picture he presents of the 3 primaries in this story is so completely opposite to their respective public personas and history that it is stunning.
I guess that Mara was supposed to do while he and Kraft were doing the heavy lifting of ensuring that '11-'12 season happened, was to look the other way while Snyder and Jones act like a bunch of wiseguys.

G-Men4Supes
03-25-2012, 11:07 PM
For the love of God, people, stop quoting the entire article with every reply.

This one's real simple. Teams were told NOT to egregiously front-load contracts (that would extend into post-2010 years in which the salary cap would have returned) during the one uncapped year. To do so would clearly be to seek an advantage in the post-2010 seasons. Jerry and Snyder didn't listen. They didn't just give players exorbitant one-year contracts for the single season of 2010, since that year was uncapped. They signed players to deals that crossed into seasons after the return of the salary cap, compensating these players far beyond the cap hit reflected in the years after the cap returned.

Zoboomafoo
03-25-2012, 11:35 PM
It's quite clear that Jones and Snyder decided to thumb their noses at the NFL and go ahead with their plans, probably rubbing their hands together over how much they were getting over on everyone else. Both expected some fines, but that didn't bother them. The punishment for their actions had to be felt -- mere fines would have been shrugged off. This punishment had the necessary teeth to bloody their noses and to be a clear warning to other clubs who would think about engaging in the same duplicitous behavior that Jones and Snyder embarked on.

Be very clear -- both of these men knew exactly what they were doing. They just didn't care since they both thought they were smarter than everyone else and beyond authority. I'm glad these two jerks got what they deserved, especially that crybaby blowhard in DC.

bansaw
03-25-2012, 11:54 PM
in this thread we learn there are 30 gentleman owners in the league

and Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder


nothing new here

Zoboomafoo
03-25-2012, 11:59 PM
Basically, there was a "Take a Penny, Leave a Penny" dish next to the register. Jones took a dollar. Snyder emptied the entire contents into his jacket pocket.

G-Men Surg.
03-26-2012, 01:14 AM
in this thread we learn there are 30 gentleman owners in the league

and Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder


nothing new here

LOL ! Well said and that's not news bro ! Skins and 'Boys fans can say whatever they want but they know what kind of owners they have . Sad seeing how they are trying to portray the victims role in this hole ordeal. You hit the nail right in the head about the 30 gentleman owners this league has and how ironically this 30 owners didn't go the Snyder and Jones way last year.

DemandedAce
03-26-2012, 01:51 AM
I laughed pretty hard when I read this, that's a nice dig to take and an accurate one too. Unfortunately for the Jets, our backup surpasses both their backup AND starter xP

Toadofsteel
03-26-2012, 03:48 AM
in this thread we learn there are 30 gentleman owners in the league

and Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder


nothing new here


That's insulting... Sure these guys are bad, but you lumped the Spawn of Satan (also known as Jeff Lurie) in with the 30 gentlemen owners... Are you saying Jones and Snyder are worse than HIM?

I'd put this in pink font if doing so wouldn't make my argument look gay... so just imagine half-red.

giantyankee1976
03-26-2012, 07:00 AM
MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS (http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/giants/post/_/id/13415/mara-talks-tebow-cowboys-and-redskins)

"Tim Tebow has dominated the news in New York lately and even
John Mara couldn't stop himself from making a little crack
about the Jets' big move.

While meeting with reporters at the NFL
meetings in Palm Beach, Mara was asked by reporters if New York is big enough
for the Giants and Tebowmania.

"I don't know, but the David
Carr press conference will be tomorrow, too," Mara joked to reporters
according to tweet by ESPN's Rachel Nichols.

The Giants
signed their backup quarterback Carr shortly after Tebow was traded to the Jets.
Of course, unlike Tebow, who will be welcomed with a press conference by the
Jets on Monday, Carr's signing was announced on a story by the Giants' team
website.

Nichols then relayed that comment to Jets owner Woody
Johnson.

"Well, that's pretty interesting," Johnson told
Nichols.

Nichols later tweeted, "(He) did not look pleased."

In
non-Tebow news, Mara also discussed the salary cap penalties imposed on the
Redskins and Cowboys.

Mara, who is the chairman of the NFL Management
Committee, said "the penalties were proper."

"Quite frankly, I think
they're lucky they didn't lose draft picks," Mara said according to ESPN NFC
East blogger Dan Graziano. "




good stuff. just read this over at cbs sports dot com.

giantyankee1976
03-26-2012, 07:01 AM
Basically, there was a "Take a Penny, Leave a Penny" dish next to the register. Jones took a dollar. Snyder emptied the entire contents into his jacket pocket.

lol awesome

SweetZombieJesus
03-26-2012, 08:11 AM
Lol we should start a parallel universe Carr campaign of every ounce of hype Tebow gets.

Carring?

GameTime
03-26-2012, 09:41 AM
PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to New York Giants (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/nyg/new-york-giants) owner John Mara for stopping Sunday afternoon in the Breakers lobby to talk to a few of us about the salary cap penalties against the Washington Redskins (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) and the Dallas Cowboys (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys). He didn't hold back (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37413/john-mara-redskins-cowboys-got-off-lucky), and as you can see if you scroll through this blog's timeline, we got plenty of good material out of it.

But in the grand scheme of things, when we sit down to talk about the right and the wrong of this whole situation, there's very little right and a whole big pile of wrong, and the defiant stance Mara took Sunday afternoon made that pile much bigger.

The aggrieved parties in this instance are the Redskins and the Cowboys, and they're keeping quiet on the whole thing. Sure, they filed a grievance (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7734658/washington-redskins-dallas-cowboys-file-cap-grievance-report-says) against the NFL and the NFLPA on Sunday, seeking to get some relief from the combined $46 million in salary cap room they've been docked over the next two offseasons. But they declined several opportunities Sunday to add to the rhetoric


<DIV class="mod-inline image image-right">
<DIV style="WIDTH: 200px; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px"><A class=enlarge href="http://espn.go.com/espn/gallery/enlargePhoto?id=7735818" data-eheight="750" data-ewidth="440">[+] Enlarge
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0325/nfl_u_jmara_dj_200.jpg</A><CITE>Ed Mulholland/US Presswire</CITE>Giants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

</DIV></DIV>


Stephen Jones, the Cowboys' director of player personnel: "Within the confines of our collective bargaining agreement, we are trying to have a voice and a hearing in terms of our cap situation."

Bruce Allen, the Redskins' general manager: "I have nothing to say on that. We'll let the league speak to it."

Mike Shanahan, the Redskins' head coach: "I'll let the commissioner speak about that."

We tried egging these guys on. I read Jones the quote from Mara in which he said the Redskins and Cowboys were lucky they didn't lose draft picks for this, and all Jones said was, "That's John's opinion. Not my opinion."

But Mara came out guns-a-blazin'. And if there are people out there who believe (as I do) that the NFL has acted with irresponsible, petty arrogance in this case and imposed unjustified penalties against teams that broke no actual rules, Mara's stance isn't likely to change their minds.

There was no salary cap in 2010. This is a fact. Mara repeatedly brushed that aside during questioning Sunday, irritated at the fact's mere existence. "We've had a cap for 29 of the last 30 years," he said more than once, and he explained rather clearly that teams were told, more than once, to watch the way they spent money and structured contracts during the uncapped 2010 season. He basically admitted to what, in any other business, would be collusion and grounds for an antitrust lawsuit. But he bristled at the mention of that word, too, saying, "This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there would be consequences."

What we know about this case is that the NFL basically engaged in a sanctioned form of collusion in 2010, telling its teams that yeah, there was no cap, but that they needed to act as though there were one because they were sure the cap would come back and it was wrong to use this "loophole" as a means of gaining an advantage against the cap in future years. Mara admitted all of that Sunday, and he did so in a way that strongly indicates he believes himself to be on the correct side of the argument.

But he is not, of course. And in more ways than one, he is very much in the wrong.

Mara is wrong because the only thing of which the Redskins and Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did, effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the other party (i.e., the players) in their collective bargaining agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it were right, is the height of arrogance.

Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want. The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges. And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint, it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from which to attack on this.

Mara is wrong because he's the chairman of the NFL Management Council, which is the group that imposed these penalties, and he's the owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals.<FONT color=#000080 size=5> But one of the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of interest.</FONT> That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.

What's interesting here is that, when these penalties came down, a lot of people assumed it was the teams at the other end of the spending spectrum who were upset with what the Cowboys and Redskins had done -- traditionally low-spending teams like the Buccaneers and the Jaguars and the Chiefs and the Bills. But what seems clear now is that Mara, the owner of the Giants, was one of the driving forces behind holding the Redskins' and Cowboys' feet to the fire over an issue the league office likely wouldn't have pursued if not for pressure from owners. It makes Mara look petty and small and vindictive, and those aren't words usually associated with him. It makes no sense to me that he's gone to such great lengths to allow people to apply them to him now.

I feel like most of the people on this forum felt like this was an 'icing on the cake' issue a few weeks ago when the Cowboys and Redskins were docked cap space. Makes sense. I can understand that and I'd be the same way in your position.

Not sure how much this will affect you, but it involved your team's ownership quite a bit. I respect the Mara family, <FONT color=#000080 size=4>but I really hope this issue comes back to bite John square in the ***</FONT>.
</P>


The jounalist commnent was ****ing hilarious!! Maybe 99% of the journals whom have ever picked a pen to write a column should go back to Journalism 101 then. The media and jounalism thrive on conflict and heresay!! </P>


What should Mara actually be "bitten in the ***" for regarding this?? He is on the commitee and he has the right to voice his opinion. It sounds neither petty nor vindictive. He is dealing with two owners who I can safely assume cause all kinds of issues when it comes to matters revenue sharing and competition versus $$ in the NFL. Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are whats wrong with the NFL not what right with it. </P>

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 09:48 AM
in this thread we learn there are 30 gentleman owners in the league

and Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder


nothing new here

LOL ! Well said and that's not news bro ! Skins and 'Boys fans can say whatever they want but they know what kind of owners they have . Sad seeing how they are trying to portray the victims role in this hole ordeal. You hit the nail right in the head about the 30 gentleman owners this league has and how ironically this 30 owners didn't go the Snyder and Jones way last year.



1. the NFL even admitted that the Cowboys and Redskins didn't break any rules. This is really all I should have to say, but I'll go on...

2. were punished through a very shady process. Ever wonder why the Boys and Skins are just now being punished instead of immediately after 2010?

3. They weren't the only teams to benefit from the uncapped year, but were pretty much the only ones punished. So the other 30 owners that 'didn't go the Snyder and Jones way', weren't exempt from taking advantage of the uncapped year. Ever wonder why the Bucs had a crap ton of money to spend on FA's this year?

4. Were punished by a committee that is headed by a divisional rival. (conflict of interest?)

nygsb42champs
03-26-2012, 09:50 AM
<FONT color=#0000ff>I am so glad we have a class owner like Mara.</FONT>

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 09:59 AM
I feel like most of the people on this forum felt like this was an 'icing on the cake' issue a few weeks ago when the Cowboys and Redskins were docked cap space. Makes sense. I can understand that and I'd be the same way in your position.

Not sure how much this will affect you, but it involved your team's ownership quite a bit. I respect the Mara family, <font color="#000080" size="4">but I really hope this issue comes back to bite John square in the ***</font>.
</p>


The jounalist commnent was ****ing hilarious!! Maybe 99% of the journals whom have ever picked a pen to write a column should go back to Journalism 101 then. The media and jounalism thrive on conflict and heresay!! </p>


What should Mara actually be "bitten in the ***" for regarding this?? He is on the commitee and he has the right to voice his opinion. It sounds neither petty nor vindictive. He is dealing with two owners who I can safely assume cause all kinds of issues when it comes to matters revenue sharing and competition versus $$ in the NFL. Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are whats wrong with the NFL not what right with it. </p>

I guess 'bite him in the ***' is the wrong expression. I meant I want our cap space back and more. We lost out on possibly signing some guys we may have wanted this year because we were informed 1 day before Free Agency that we would be docked 10 million, the skins 36 million.

And I'll stick by it. I've been following this as close as anyone possibly can. John Mara was a big driving force behind the cap docks of two of his divisional rivals. I don't care if he appears to be impartial in demeanor, if he's the driving force in docking two divisional rivals that screams conflict of interest.

You can assume that Jones and Snyder cause all kinds of issues in matters to revenue sharing? Based on what? That you don't like them? The two wealthiest teams in the NFL are the biggest players in revenue sharing. I wouldn't doubt that they have objections to teams like the Vikings eating away at their money for nothing in return.

Moving on, Graziano and Florio are two of the only reporters that didn't let the cap docks be washed away in Free Agent frenzy. Seems like every other day they find something else that just doesn't add up. I don't think they thrive on conflict and heresay. I think in this case, they thrive on getting to the bottom of something that seemed highly illegal in the first place and you just don't want to hear about it.

Captain Chaos
03-26-2012, 10:30 AM
Your really have to love Mara's pragmatism!

GameTime
03-26-2012, 10:33 AM
I feel like most of the people on this forum felt like this was an 'icing on the cake' issue a few weeks ago when the Cowboys and Redskins were docked cap space. Makes sense. I can understand that and I'd be the same way in your position.

Not sure how much this will affect you, but it involved your team's ownership quite a bit. I respect the Mara family, <FONT color=#000080 size=4>but I really hope this issue comes back to bite John square in the ***</FONT>.
</P>


The jounalist commnent was ****ing hilarious!! Maybe 99% of the journals whom have ever picked a pen to write a column should go back to Journalism 101 then. The media and jounalism thrive on conflict and heresay!! </P>


What should Mara actually be "bitten in the ***" for regarding this?? He is on the commitee and he has the right to voice his opinion. It sounds neither petty nor vindictive. He is dealing with two owners who I can safely assume cause all kinds of issues when it comes to matters revenue sharing and competition versus $$ in the NFL. Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are whats wrong with the NFL not what right with it. </P>




I guess 'bite him in the ***' is the wrong expression. I meant I want our cap space back and more. We lost out on possibly signing some guys we may have wanted this year because we were informed 1 day before Free Agency that we would be docked 10 million, the skins 36 million.

And I'll stick by it. I've been following this as close as anyone possibly can. John Mara was a big driving force behind the cap docks of two of his divisional rivals. I don't care if he appears to be impartial in demeanor, if he's the driving force in docking two divisional rivals that screams conflict of interest.

You can assume that Jones and Snyder cause all kinds of issues in matters to revenue sharing? Based on what? That you don't like them? The two wealthiest teams in the NFL are the biggest players in revenue sharing. I wouldn't doubt that they have objections to teams like the Vikings eating away at their money for nothing in return.

Moving on, Graziano and Florio are two of the only reporters that didn't let the cap docks be washed away in Free Agent frenzy. Seems like every other day they find something else that just doesn't add up. I don't think they thrive on conflict and heresay. I think in this case, they thrive on getting to the bottom of something that seemed highly illegal in the first place and you just don't want to hear about it.
</P>


Actually don't like Jones or Snyder. IMO they ARE the problems with their own team's lack of success. If they have input to the competition commitee in the same fashion they run their teams then I can see where they would cause huge problems. I am sure the are not the only owners in that catagory.</P>


The NFL is a company. Each team is a "franchise". Eachteam HAS to work for the good of the NFL.If thats not the case then there is no NFL. I dont't know the "in's and out's " of the revenue sharing but if its in favor of making a stronger more competitve and less one sided league as a whole then they have to do it. </P>


The only meaningful part about the the whole issue is the vague nature of the "rule" or "agrement" that was broken. But hey....only two teams out of 32were cited for it. Go figure........</P>

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 10:54 AM
I feel like most of the people on this forum felt like this was an 'icing on the cake' issue a few weeks ago when the Cowboys and Redskins were docked cap space. Makes sense. I can understand that and I'd be the same way in your position.

Not sure how much this will affect you, but it involved your team's ownership quite a bit. I respect the Mara family, <font color="#000080" size="4">but I really hope this issue comes back to bite John square in the ***</font>.
</p>


The jounalist commnent was ****ing hilarious!! Maybe 99% of the journals whom have ever picked a pen to write a column should go back to Journalism 101 then. The media and jounalism thrive on conflict and heresay!! </p>


What should Mara actually be "bitten in the ***" for regarding this?? He is on the commitee and he has the right to voice his opinion. It sounds neither petty nor vindictive. He is dealing with two owners who I can safely assume cause all kinds of issues when it comes to matters revenue sharing and competition versus $$ in the NFL. Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are whats wrong with the NFL not what right with it. </p>




I guess 'bite him in the ***' is the wrong expression. I meant I want our cap space back and more. We lost out on possibly signing some guys we may have wanted this year because we were informed 1 day before Free Agency that we would be docked 10 million, the skins 36 million.

And I'll stick by it. I've been following this as close as anyone possibly can. John Mara was a big driving force behind the cap docks of two of his divisional rivals. I don't care if he appears to be impartial in demeanor, if he's the driving force in docking two divisional rivals that screams conflict of interest.

You can assume that Jones and Snyder cause all kinds of issues in matters to revenue sharing? Based on what? That you don't like them? The two wealthiest teams in the NFL are the biggest players in revenue sharing. I wouldn't doubt that they have objections to teams like the Vikings eating away at their money for nothing in return.

Moving on, Graziano and Florio are two of the only reporters that didn't let the cap docks be washed away in Free Agent frenzy. Seems like every other day they find something else that just doesn't add up. I don't think they thrive on conflict and heresay. I think in this case, they thrive on getting to the bottom of something that seemed highly illegal in the first place and you just don't want to hear about it.
</p>


Actually don't like Jones or Snyder. IMO they ARE the problems with their own team's lack of success. If they have input to the competition commitee in the same fashion they run their teams then I can see where they would cause huge problems. I am sure the are not the only owners in that catagory.</p>


The NFL is a company. Each team is a "franchise". Eachteam HAS to work for the good of the NFL.If thats not the case then there is no NFL. I dont't know the "in's and out's " of the revenue sharing but if its in favor of making a stronger more competitve and less one sided league as a whole then they have to do it. </p>


The only meaningful part about the the whole issue is the vague nature of the "rule" or "agrement" that was broken. But hey....only two teams out of 32were cited for it. Go figure........</p>

Revenue sharing is really simple and I don't disagree with it at all. The highest earning teams are taxed and that money is given to the lower earning teams, but forces the lower earning teams to spend it on players salaries. It keeps the lower earning teams from just hoarding money selfishly, and makes the league competitive. The Cowboys and Redskins are typically the highest earning franchises so they are taxed most. Nothing wrong with that, but I can see the objections Snyder and Jones would have, although the new CBA (which they agreed to) is a better allocation of their tax dollars.

But that has nothing to do with the issue right now as you know. The agreement amongst owners in 2010 is best defined as <u>collusion</u> and the Cowboys and Redskins didn't partake. Also, there were two other teams that were 'punished' as well-- Saints and Raiders. So knock that 30 team agreement down to 28... oh and then there were the teams that committed the same acts but were ignored like the Packers, Bucs, Chiefs, Texans, Niners etc etc. The Cowboys and Redskins didn't act alone, they just pissed off the Chargers somehow along with Mara, who himself just admitted that nothing was wrong with the Miles Austin contract to the press... just the 'spirit of the salary cap' (which obviously didn't exist).

RoanokeFan
03-26-2012, 11:44 AM
in this thread we learn there are 30 gentleman owners in the league

and Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder


nothing new here

LOL ! Well said and that's not news bro ! Skins and 'Boys fans can say whatever they want but they know what kind of owners they have . Sad seeing how they are trying to portray the victims role in this hole ordeal. You hit the nail right in the head about the 30 gentleman owners this league has and how ironically this 30 owners didn't go the Snyder and Jones way last year.



1. the NFL even admitted that the Cowboys and Redskins didn't break any rules. This is really all I should have to say, but I'll go on...

2. were punished through a very shady process. Ever wonder why the Boys and Skins are just now being punished instead of immediately after 2010?

3. They weren't the only teams to benefit from the uncapped year, but were pretty much the only ones punished. So the other 30 owners that 'didn't go the Snyder and Jones way', weren't exempt from taking advantage of the uncapped year. Ever wonder why the Bucs had a crap ton of money to spend on FA's this year?

4. Were punished by a committee that is headed by a divisional rival. (conflict of interest?)




On # 4, did John Mara have the only vote? Would you have a different opinion of the chairman of that committee was Robert Kraft?

Joe Morrison
03-26-2012, 11:53 AM
PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to New York Giants (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/nyg/new-york-giants) owner John Mara for stopping Sunday afternoon in the Breakers lobby to talk to a few of us about the salary cap penalties against the Washington Redskins (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) and the Dallas Cowboys (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys). He didn't hold back (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37413/john-mara-redskins-cowboys-got-off-lucky), and as you can see if you scroll through this blog's timeline, we got plenty of good material out of it.

But in the grand scheme of things, when we sit down to talk about the right and the wrong of this whole situation, there's very little right and a whole big pile of wrong, and the defiant stance Mara took Sunday afternoon made that pile much bigger.

The aggrieved parties in this instance are the Redskins and the Cowboys, and they're keeping quiet on the whole thing. Sure, they filed a grievance (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7734658/washington-redskins-dallas-cowboys-file-cap-grievance-report-says) against the NFL and the NFLPA on Sunday, seeking to get some relief from the combined $46 million in salary cap room they've been docked over the next two offseasons. But they declined several opportunities Sunday to add to the rhetoric


<DIV class="mod-inline image image-right">
<DIV style="WIDTH: 200px; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px"><A class=enlarge href="http://espn.go.com/espn/gallery/enlargePhoto?id=7735818" data-eheight="750" data-ewidth="440">[+] Enlarge
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0325/nfl_u_jmara_dj_200.jpg</A><CITE>Ed Mulholland/US Presswire</CITE>Giants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

</DIV></DIV>


Stephen Jones, the Cowboys' director of player personnel: "Within the confines of our collective bargaining agreement, we are trying to have a voice and a hearing in terms of our cap situation."

Bruce Allen, the Redskins' general manager: "I have nothing to say on that. We'll let the league speak to it."

Mike Shanahan, the Redskins' head coach: "I'll let the commissioner speak about that."

We tried egging these guys on. I read Jones the quote from Mara in which he said the Redskins and Cowboys were lucky they didn't lose draft picks for this, and all Jones said was, "That's John's opinion. Not my opinion."

But Mara came out guns-a-blazin'. And if there are people out there who believe (as I do) that the NFL has acted with irresponsible, petty arrogance in this case and imposed unjustified penalties against teams that broke no actual rules, Mara's stance isn't likely to change their minds.

There was no salary cap in 2010. This is a fact. Mara repeatedly brushed that aside during questioning Sunday, irritated at the fact's mere existence. "We've had a cap for 29 of the last 30 years," he said more than once, and he explained rather clearly that teams were told, more than once, to watch the way they spent money and structured contracts during the uncapped 2010 season. He basically admitted to what, in any other business, would be collusion and grounds for an antitrust lawsuit. But he bristled at the mention of that word, too, saying, "This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there would be consequences."

What we know about this case is that the NFL basically engaged in a sanctioned form of collusion in 2010, telling its teams that yeah, there was no cap, but that they needed to act as though there were one because they were sure the cap would come back and it was wrong to use this "loophole" as a means of gaining an advantage against the cap in future years. Mara admitted all of that Sunday, and he did so in a way that strongly indicates he believes himself to be on the correct side of the argument.

But he is not, of course. And in more ways than one, he is very much in the wrong.

Mara is wrong because the only thing of which the Redskins and Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did, effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the other party (i.e., the players) in their collective bargaining agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it were right, is the height of arrogance.

Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want. The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges. And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint, it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from which to attack on this.

Mara is wrong because he's the chairman of the NFL Management Council, which is the group that imposed these penalties, and he's the owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.

What's interesting here is that, when these penalties came down, a lot of people assumed it was the teams at the other end of the spending spectrum who were upset with what the Cowboys and Redskins had done -- traditionally low-spending teams like the Buccaneers and the Jaguars and the Chiefs and the Bills. But what seems clear now is that Mara, the owner of the Giants, was one of the driving forces behind holding the Redskins' and Cowboys' feet to the fire over an issue the league office likely wouldn't have pursued if not for pressure from owners. It makes Mara look petty and small and vindictive, and those aren't words usually associated with him. It makes no sense to me that he's gone to such great lengths to allow people to apply them to him now.

I feel like most of the people on this forum felt like this was an 'icing on the cake' issue a few weeks ago when the Cowboys and Redskins were docked cap space. Makes sense. I can understand that and I'd be the same way in your position.

Not sure how much this will affect you, but it involved your team's ownership quite a bit. I respect the Mara family, but I really hope this issue comes back to bite John square in the ***.


I'm guessing we don't know all there is to know about the whole situation.
Exactly right. People are, to a large degree, the sum of all their acts. When the picture this journalist paints here depicts Jones and Snyder acting completely innocently and honorably, and has John Mara as completely dishonorable and making reckless comments regarding the case that could so easily--according to the journalist and some Dallas fans--provoke a second anti trust case against the NFL, something HUGE is missing in terms of actual facts. John Mara, who as a matter of daily routine does not say ANYTHING reckless (or revealing) when it comes to his team, the NFL, and all things relating to them, and who was one of the 4 principles on the side of the owners in the 4 month CBA negotiations last spring/summer--THIS John Mara now all of a sudden "admits" to "collusion"? He has no lawyers advising him? He would actually NOT understand what the owners can legally do and not do? Is this "journalist" serious? He admits that Mara is not "usually associated" with petty and vindictive, but he is so ready to believe that in THIS ONE INSTANCE Mara is being petty, vindictive, AND reckless, and that Jones and Snyder are completely in the right. It seems more clear that this guy has drawn conclusions and worse, published his conclusions, with absolutely no knowledge of all the facts. Lord knows, John Mara sure as hell doesn't need me to defend him, but it always pisses me off when a so-called journalist writes something that obviously has no basis in any fats at his disposal. The picture he presents of the 3 primaries in this story is so completely opposite to their respective public personas and history that it is stunning.</P>


Is he any worse than the so called journalists right here in NY, there aren't any sports reporters anymore, everything now is just hype stories to try and sell papers, make something out of nothing and never get called to the table.</P>


It's a shame we have to read through the BS to try and figure out what is truely said by the spokesperson and not some ridiculous interpetation by the so called journalist.</P>

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 12:01 PM
in this thread we learn there are 30 gentleman owners in the league

and Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder


nothing new here

LOL ! Well said and that's not news bro ! Skins and 'Boys fans can say whatever they want but they know what kind of owners they have . Sad seeing how they are trying to portray the victims role in this hole ordeal. You hit the nail right in the head about the 30 gentleman owners this league has and how ironically this 30 owners didn't go the Snyder and Jones way last year.



1. the NFL even admitted that the Cowboys and Redskins didn't break any rules. This is really all I should have to say, but I'll go on...

2. were punished through a very shady process. Ever wonder why the Boys and Skins are just now being punished instead of immediately after 2010?

3. They weren't the only teams to benefit from the uncapped year, but were pretty much the only ones punished. So the other 30 owners that 'didn't go the Snyder and Jones way', weren't exempt from taking advantage of the uncapped year. Ever wonder why the Bucs had a crap ton of money to spend on FA's this year?

4. Were punished by a committee that is headed by a divisional rival. (conflict of interest?)




On # 4, did John Mara have the only vote? Would you have a different opinion of the chairman of that committee was Robert Kraft?


Good question.

Probably a little different opinion but not of the salary cap docks.

Right now I look at the docked salary caps as baseless punishment that directly benefits a competitor of the parties that have been punished.

If it were a different owner or perhaps an unbiased entity that determined the cap reductions, then I still would want to know what basis they had to do so. (they would have none)

RoanokeFan
03-26-2012, 12:05 PM
PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to New York Giants (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/nyg/new-york-giants) owner John Mara for stopping Sunday afternoon in the Breakers lobby to talk to a few of us about the salary cap penalties against the Washington Redskins (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/wsh/washington-redskins) and the Dallas Cowboys (http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys). He didn't hold back (http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37413/john-mara-redskins-cowboys-got-off-lucky), and as you can see if you scroll through this blog's timeline, we got plenty of good material out of it.

But in the grand scheme of things, when we sit down to talk about the right and the wrong of this whole situation, there's very little right and a whole big pile of wrong, and the defiant stance Mara took Sunday afternoon made that pile much bigger.

The aggrieved parties in this instance are the Redskins and the Cowboys, and they're keeping quiet on the whole thing. Sure, they filed a grievance (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7734658/washington-redskins-dallas-cowboys-file-cap-grievance-report-says) against the NFL and the NFLPA on Sunday, seeking to get some relief from the combined $46 million in salary cap room they've been docked over the next two offseasons. But they declined several opportunities Sunday to add to the rhetoric


<div class="mod-inline image image-right">
<div style="WIDTH: 200px; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px"><a class="enlarge" href="http://espn.go.com/espn/gallery/enlargePhoto?id=7735818" data-eheight="750" data-ewidth="440">[+] Enlarge
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0325/nfl_u_jmara_dj_200.jpg</a><cite>Ed Mulholland/US Presswire</cite>Giants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

</div></div>


Stephen Jones, the Cowboys' director of player personnel: "Within the confines of our collective bargaining agreement, we are trying to have a voice and a hearing in terms of our cap situation."

Bruce Allen, the Redskins' general manager: "I have nothing to say on that. We'll let the league speak to it."

Mike Shanahan, the Redskins' head coach: "I'll let the commissioner speak about that."

We tried egging these guys on. I read Jones the quote from Mara in which he said the Redskins and Cowboys were lucky they didn't lose draft picks for this, and all Jones said was, "That's John's opinion. Not my opinion."

But Mara came out guns-a-blazin'. And if there are people out there who believe (as I do) that the NFL has acted with irresponsible, petty arrogance in this case and imposed unjustified penalties against teams that broke no actual rules, Mara's stance isn't likely to change their minds.

There was no salary cap in 2010. This is a fact. Mara repeatedly brushed that aside during questioning Sunday, irritated at the fact's mere existence. "We've had a cap for 29 of the last 30 years," he said more than once, and he explained rather clearly that teams were told, more than once, to watch the way they spent money and structured contracts during the uncapped 2010 season. He basically admitted to what, in any other business, would be collusion and grounds for an antitrust lawsuit. But he bristled at the mention of that word, too, saying, "This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there would be consequences."

What we know about this case is that the NFL basically engaged in a sanctioned form of collusion in 2010, telling its teams that yeah, there was no cap, but that they needed to act as though there were one because they were sure the cap would come back and it was wrong to use this "loophole" as a means of gaining an advantage against the cap in future years. Mara admitted all of that Sunday, and he did so in a way that strongly indicates he believes himself to be on the correct side of the argument.

But he is not, of course. And in more ways than one, he is very much in the wrong.

Mara is wrong because the only thing of which the Redskins and Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did, effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the other party (i.e., the players) in their collective bargaining agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it were right, is the height of arrogance.

Mara is wrong because, by effectively admitting collusion, he's giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want. The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara's admission could well qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges. And because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint, it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from which to attack on this.

Mara is wrong because he's the chairman of the NFL Management Council, which is the group that imposed these penalties, and he's the owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.

What's interesting here is that, when these penalties came down, a lot of people assumed it was the teams at the other end of the spending spectrum who were upset with what the Cowboys and Redskins had done -- traditionally low-spending teams like the Buccaneers and the Jaguars and the Chiefs and the Bills. But what seems clear now is that Mara, the owner of the Giants, was one of the driving forces behind holding the Redskins' and Cowboys' feet to the fire over an issue the league office likely wouldn't have pursued if not for pressure from owners. It makes Mara look petty and small and vindictive, and those aren't words usually associated with him. It makes no sense to me that he's gone to such great lengths to allow people to apply them to him now.

I feel like most of the people on this forum felt like this was an 'icing on the cake' issue a few weeks ago when the Cowboys and Redskins were docked cap space. Makes sense. I can understand that and I'd be the same way in your position.

Not sure how much this will affect you, but it involved your team's ownership quite a bit. I respect the Mara family, but I really hope this issue comes back to bite John square in the ***.


I'm guessing we don't know all there is to know about the whole situation.
Exactly right. People are, to a large degree, the sum of all their acts. When the picture this journalist paints here depicts Jones and Snyder acting completely innocently and honorably, and has John Mara as completely dishonorable and making reckless comments regarding the case that could so easily--according to the journalist and some Dallas fans--provoke a second anti trust case against the NFL, something HUGE is missing in terms of actual facts. John Mara, who as a matter of daily routine does not say ANYTHING reckless (or revealing) when it comes to his team, the NFL, and all things relating to them, and who was one of the 4 principles on the side of the owners in the 4 month CBA negotiations last spring/summer--THIS John Mara now all of a sudden "admits" to "collusion"? He has no lawyers advising him? He would actually NOT understand what the owners can legally do and not do? Is this "journalist" serious? He admits that Mara is not "usually associated" with petty and vindictive, but he is so ready to believe that in THIS ONE INSTANCE Mara is being petty, vindictive, AND reckless, and that Jones and Snyder are completely in the right. It seems more clear that this guy has drawn conclusions and worse, published his conclusions, with absolutely no knowledge of all the facts. Lord knows, John Mara sure as hell doesn't need me to defend him, but it always pisses me off when a so-called journalist writes something that obviously has no basis in any fats at his disposal. The picture he presents of the 3 primaries in this story is so completely opposite to their respective public personas and history that it is stunning.</p>


Is he any worse than the so called journalists right here in NY, there aren't any sports reporters anymore, everything now is just hype stories to try and sell papers, make something out of nothing and never get called to the table.</p>


It's a shame we have to read through the BS to try and figure out what is truely said by the spokesperson and not some ridiculous interpetation by the so called journalist.</p>

Before the newspaper strike of 1978 we were able to READ the news and form our own opinions. The only opinions put forward by the papers were on the OpEd pages. Now we are told what we are seeing and hearing as if we aren't smart enough to figure things out for ourselves. It's been that way so long now that we just seem accept much of what someone else thinks.

Zoboomafoo
03-26-2012, 12:07 PM
It's bad enough that Jones and Snyder were caught with their hands in the cookie jar -- now they're claiming that they didn't know they weren't supposed to take all those cookies even though the league told them multiple times that it was one per customer. They both knew full well they were violating the agreement -- they just didn't think the eventual punishment would actually fit the crime. For these two bozos to act like they're the victims here is absurd -- let's be very clear here, THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING. They just didn't care. Well, they care now. Good for the Management Committee and good for John Mara.

It's always nice to see arrogance humbled.

TrueBlue@NYC
03-26-2012, 12:10 PM
in this thread we learn there are 30 gentleman owners in the league

and Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder


nothing new here
LOL ! Well said and that's not news bro ! Skins and 'Boys fans can say whatever they want but they know what kind of owners they have . Sad seeing how they are trying to portray the victims role in this hole ordeal. You hit the nail right in the head about the 30 gentleman owners this league has and how ironically this 30 owners didn't go the Snyder and Jones way last year.



1. the NFL even admitted that the Cowboys and Redskins didn't break any rules. This is really all I should have to say, but I'll go on...

2. were punished through a very shady process. Ever wonder why the Boys and Skins are just now being punished instead of immediately after 2010?

3. They weren't the only teams to benefit from the uncapped year, but were pretty much the only ones punished. So the other 30 owners that 'didn't go the Snyder and Jones way', weren't exempt from taking advantage of the uncapped year. Ever wonder why the Bucs had a crap ton of money to spend on FA's this year?

4. Were punished by a committee that is headed by a divisional rival. (conflict of interest?)




On # 4, did John Mara have the only vote? Would you have a different opinion of the chairman of that committee was Robert Kraft?


Good question.

Probably a little different opinion but not of the salary cap docks.

Right now I look at the docked salary caps as baseless punishment that directly benefits a competitor of the parties that have been punished.

If it were a different owner or perhaps an unbiased entity that determined the cap reductions, then I still would want to know what basis they had to do so. (they would have none)
</P>


They have the basis that owners were told BEFOREthe uncapped year to watch how they handled their contracts so that it wouldn't have an adverse effect when the cap returned. </P>


30 owners listened to that edict. Jones and Snyder did not. Stop acting that only your team and Snyders were smart enough to think to front load contracts for an uncapped year. They weren't, but the other 30 owners knew better. </P>


The ONLY thing I agree with is that Mara should not, b/c of his position within the division, be the spokesperson on this issue. And it wasn't Mara alone that made this decision, it was a whole committee of owners, not all of whom even have a team in the same conference. </P>


And last I checked the finance committee was a little busy last offseason dealing with that CBA thing to really deal with this type of issue. </P>

RoanokeFan
03-26-2012, 12:11 PM
in this thread we learn there are 30 gentleman owners in the league

and Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder


nothing new here

LOL ! Well said and that's not news bro ! Skins and 'Boys fans can say whatever they want but they know what kind of owners they have . Sad seeing how they are trying to portray the victims role in this hole ordeal. You hit the nail right in the head about the 30 gentleman owners this league has and how ironically this 30 owners didn't go the Snyder and Jones way last year.



1. the NFL even admitted that the Cowboys and Redskins didn't break any rules. This is really all I should have to say, but I'll go on...

2. were punished through a very shady process. Ever wonder why the Boys and Skins are just now being punished instead of immediately after 2010?

3. They weren't the only teams to benefit from the uncapped year, but were pretty much the only ones punished. So the other 30 owners that 'didn't go the Snyder and Jones way', weren't exempt from taking advantage of the uncapped year. Ever wonder why the Bucs had a crap ton of money to spend on FA's this year?

4. Were punished by a committee that is headed by a divisional rival. (conflict of interest?)




On # 4, did John Mara have the only vote? Would you have a different opinion of the chairman of that committee was Robert Kraft?


Good question.

Probably a little different opinion but not of the salary cap docks.

Right now I look at the docked salary caps as baseless punishment that directly benefits a competitor of the parties that have been punished.

If it were a different owner or perhaps an unbiased entity that determined the cap reductions, then I still would want to know what basis they had to do so. (they would have none)


We're not privy to what was discussed at the owner's meetings leading up to the CAPless period. There were discussions, it seems, among all 32 owners. Again, we don't have a clue as to what was or was not agreed upon. It seems there were enough owners who thought certain teams overstepped that a committee investigated and recommended the penalties assessed.

None of us, and that includes the media heads, know anything but what has already been made public. Every story has two sides.

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 12:20 PM
We're not privy to what was discussed at the owner's meetings leading up to the CAPless period. There were discussions, it seems, among all 32 owners. Again, we don't have a clue as to what was or was not agreed upon. It seems there were enough owners who thought certain teams overstepped that a committee investigated and recommended the penalties assessed.

None of us, and that includes the media heads, know anything but what has already been made public. Every story has two sides.




We do know two things, and really they're the only two things that matter.

1. In reference to the gentleman's agreement, there is nothing in writing. If there was it would be evidence of collusion against the NFLPA (who had recently dropped as similar suit against the NFL). Thus there were no legal or contractual obligations that the Cowboys, Redskins or any team for that matter had to abide by.

2. There were no cap rules for the 2010 season.

We'll find out what else went on since the Cowboys and Redskins are filing a grievance with the NFL. In order to win that battle, the NFL and several other owners will have to admit to collusion against the NFLPA to do so.

If that happens, it could become a federal court matter-- then things would start to get really messy.

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 12:28 PM
It's bad enough that Jones and Snyder were caught with their hands in the cookie jar -- now they're claiming that they didn't know they weren't supposed to take all those cookies even though the league told them multiple times that it was one per customer. They both knew full well they were violating the agreement -- they just didn't think the eventual punishment would actually fit the crime. For these two bozos to act like they're the victims here is absurd -- let's be very clear here, THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING. They just didn't care. Well, they care now. Good for the Management Committee and good for John Mara.

It's always nice to see arrogance humbled.

You're out of the loop, good sir.

RoanokeFan
03-26-2012, 12:30 PM
We're not privy to what was discussed at the owner's meetings leading up to the CAPless period. There were discussions, it seems, among all 32 owners. Again, we don't have a clue as to what was or was not agreed upon. It seems there were enough owners who thought certain teams overstepped that a committee investigated and recommended the penalties assessed.

None of us, and that includes the media heads, know anything but what has already been made public. Every story has two sides.




We do know two things, and really they're the only two things that matter.

1. In reference to the gentleman's agreement, there is nothing in writing. If there was it would be evidence of collusion against the NFLPA (who had recently dropped as similar suit against the NFL). Thus there were no legal or contractual obligations that the Cowboys, Redskins or any team for that matter had to abide by.

2. There were no cap rules for the 2010 season.

We'll find out what else went on since the Cowboys and Redskins are filing a grievance with the NFL. In order to win that battle, the NFL and several other owners will have to admit to collusion against the NFLPA to do so.

If that happens, it could become a federal court matter-- then things would start to get really messy.



You really think there will be a legal battle? That would put Snyder and Jones at odds with everyone else. It's not likely they will take this out of house. They will sit down and hash it out.

Zoboomafoo
03-26-2012, 12:56 PM
It's bad enough that Jones and Snyder were caught with their hands in the cookie jar -- now they're claiming that they didn't know they weren't supposed to take all those cookies even though the league told them multiple times that it was one per customer. They both knew full well they were violating the agreement -- they just didn't think the eventual punishment would actually fit the crime. For these two bozos to act like they're the victims here is absurd -- let's be very clear here, THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING. They just didn't care. Well, they care now. Good for the Management Committee and good for John Mara.

It's always nice to see arrogance humbled.

You're out of the loop, good sir.

You really think this was an accident or a misunderstanding? No, it was two arrogant bozos who thought they were smarter than everyone else.

Sorry your owner overestimated his abilities and screwed your team yet again, but your tears should be shed exclusivsely for being saddled with the Joneses.

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 01:33 PM
We're not privy to what was discussed at the owner's meetings leading up to the CAPless period. There were discussions, it seems, among all 32 owners. Again, we don't have a clue as to what was or was not agreed upon. It seems there were enough owners who thought certain teams overstepped that a committee investigated and recommended the penalties assessed.

None of us, and that includes the media heads, know anything but what has already been made public. Every story has two sides.




We do know two things, and really they're the only two things that matter.

1. In reference to the gentleman's agreement, there is nothing in writing. If there was it would be evidence of collusion against the NFLPA (who had recently dropped as similar suit against the NFL). Thus there were no legal or contractual obligations that the Cowboys, Redskins or any team for that matter had to abide by.

2. There were no cap rules for the 2010 season.

We'll find out what else went on since the Cowboys and Redskins are filing a grievance with the NFL. In order to win that battle, the NFL and several other owners will have to admit to collusion against the NFLPA to do so.

If that happens, it could become a federal court matter-- then things would start to get really messy.



You really think there will be a legal battle? That would put Snyder and Jones at odds with everyone else. It's not likely they will take this out of house. They will sit down and hash it out.


The Boys and Skins are already filing a grievance and like I said, the only way I can see the NFL winning this is for other owners to admit to collusion. Then it becomes a dispute between the NFL and the NFLPA. That could easily go to federal court.

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 01:37 PM
It's bad enough that Jones and Snyder were caught with their hands in the cookie jar -- now they're claiming that they didn't know they weren't supposed to take all those cookies even though the league told them multiple times that it was one per customer. They both knew full well they were violating the agreement -- they just didn't think the eventual punishment would actually fit the crime. For these two bozos to act like they're the victims here is absurd -- let's be very clear here, THEY KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING. They just didn't care. Well, they care now. Good for the Management Committee and good for John Mara.

It's always nice to see arrogance humbled.

You're out of the loop, good sir.

You really think this was an accident or a misunderstanding? No, it was two arrogant bozos who thought they were smarter than everyone else.

Sorry your owner overestimated his abilities and screwed your team yet again, but your tears should be shed exclusivsely for being saddled with the Joneses.

We agree on Jones being a crappy GM and to some extent a crappy owner. But no, it wasn't a misunderstanding or accident. The point your missing is that the Cowboys and Redskins did nothing wrong.

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=112&amp;f=1786&amp;t=8804558

The NFL even admitted it.

The only thing the Cowboys and Redskins are guilty of are breaking a gentleman's agreement amongst owners (if they even agreed to it in the first place) and not colluding against the NFLPA.

RoanokeFan
03-26-2012, 01:49 PM
We're not privy to what was discussed at the owner's meetings leading up to the CAPless period. There were discussions, it seems, among all 32 owners. Again, we don't have a clue as to what was or was not agreed upon. It seems there were enough owners who thought certain teams overstepped that a committee investigated and recommended the penalties assessed.

None of us, and that includes the media heads, know anything but what has already been made public. Every story has two sides.




We do know two things, and really they're the only two things that matter.

1. In reference to the gentleman's agreement, there is nothing in writing. If there was it would be evidence of collusion against the NFLPA (who had recently dropped as similar suit against the NFL). Thus there were no legal or contractual obligations that the Cowboys, Redskins or any team for that matter had to abide by.

2. There were no cap rules for the 2010 season.

We'll find out what else went on since the Cowboys and Redskins are filing a grievance with the NFL. In order to win that battle, the NFL and several other owners will have to admit to collusion against the NFLPA to do so.

If that happens, it could become a federal court matter-- then things would start to get really messy.



You really think there will be a legal battle? That would put Snyder and Jones at odds with everyone else. It's not likely they will take this out of house. They will sit down and hash it out.


The Boys and Skins are already filing a grievance and like I said, the only way I can see the NFL winning this is for other owners to admit to collusion. Then it becomes a dispute between the NFL and the NFLPA. That could easily go to federal court.


The NFL has avoided going to court whenever another avenue is available. They, the Cowboys and Redskins, included the NFLPA in the grievance in the hopes of having a mediator assigned whose decision would be binding. They really don't want to take this into court where the whole anti-trust issue will be vulnerable to more scrutiny.

They are going to have their hearing, the amount of the fines will be reduced and that will be the end of that.

Technically speaking, verbal agreements can be as binding as those put to paper.

Zoboomafoo
03-26-2012, 02:02 PM
We agree on Jones being a crappy GM and to some extent a crappy owner. But no, it wasn't a misunderstanding or accident. The point your missing is that the Cowboys and Redskins did nothing wrong.

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=112&f=1786&t=8804558

The NFL even admitted it.

The only thing the Cowboys and Redskins are guilty of are breaking a gentleman's agreement amongst owners (if they even agreed to it in the first place) and not colluding against the NFLPA.




Listen, if Jones and Snyder came out and said, "This gentleman's agreement is total BS, so screw that", your case may have something to do with their case, but they aren't saying anything like that. What they are claiming is that they didn't know this would be a problem, and that's a bald faced lie. So the fans may be hopping mad that the agreement exists, but these two bozo owners haven't disavowed it, which means they have no leg to stand on.

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 02:02 PM
We're not privy to what was discussed at the owner's meetings leading up to the CAPless period. There were discussions, it seems, among all 32 owners. Again, we don't have a clue as to what was or was not agreed upon. It seems there were enough owners who thought certain teams overstepped that a committee investigated and recommended the penalties assessed.

None of us, and that includes the media heads, know anything but what has already been made public. Every story has two sides.




We do know two things, and really they're the only two things that matter.

1. In reference to the gentleman's agreement, there is nothing in writing. If there was it would be evidence of collusion against the NFLPA (who had recently dropped as similar suit against the NFL). Thus there were no legal or contractual obligations that the Cowboys, Redskins or any team for that matter had to abide by.

2. There were no cap rules for the 2010 season.

We'll find out what else went on since the Cowboys and Redskins are filing a grievance with the NFL. In order to win that battle, the NFL and several other owners will have to admit to collusion against the NFLPA to do so.

If that happens, it could become a federal court matter-- then things would start to get really messy.



You really think there will be a legal battle? That would put Snyder and Jones at odds with everyone else. It's not likely they will take this out of house. They will sit down and hash it out.


The Boys and Skins are already filing a grievance and like I said, the only way I can see the NFL winning this is for other owners to admit to collusion. Then it becomes a dispute between the NFL and the NFLPA. That could easily go to federal court.


The NFL has avoided going to court whenever another avenue is available. They, the Cowboys and Redskins, included the NFLPA in the grievance in the hopes of having a mediator assigned whose decision would be binding. They really don't want to take this into court where the whole anti-trust issue will be vulnerable to more scrutiny.

They are going to have their hearing, the amount of the fines will be reduced and that will be the end of that.

Technically speaking, verbal agreements can be as binding as those put to paper.


True. I agree, I think it gets settled within the NFL. But I think that both the Skins and Boys will be compensated for potentially missing out on big FA targets as well as reimbursed cap space. Maybe draft picks? Of course that's just speculation, but that's what would be fair.

Verbal agreements can be as binding as written, but unless the other owners want to admit to collusion, how will they prove it? I'm not saying that the Cowboys and Redskins aren't guilty of breaking an agreement, I'm saying I don't think any other owner wants to fall on that sword to prove it and give the NFLPA any ammo for possible future lawsuits.

The only angle I think the competition committee can take is that the Cowboys and Redskins hurt the competitive balance of the NFL. But I personally don't think it's enough to build a case around seeing how the NFL made up rules retroactively to punish the two organizations for not breaking any rules.

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 02:07 PM
We agree on Jones being a crappy GM and to some extent a crappy owner. But no, it wasn't a misunderstanding or accident. The point your missing is that the Cowboys and Redskins did nothing wrong.

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=112&amp;f=1786&amp;t=8804558

The NFL even admitted it.

The only thing the Cowboys and Redskins are guilty of are breaking a gentleman's agreement amongst owners (if they even agreed to it in the first place) and not colluding against the NFLPA.




Listen, if Jones and Snyder came out and said, "This gentleman's agreement is total BS, so screw that", your case may have something to do with their case, but they aren't saying anything like that. What they are claiming is that they didn't know this would be a problem, and that's a bald faced lie. So the fans may be hopping mad that the agreement exists, but these two bozo owners haven't disavowed it, which means they have no leg to stand on.

...Do you even know what they have said?

G-Man67
03-26-2012, 02:08 PM
ha, while i think we shoulda taken the high road ... that is still very funny and to me it shows how annoyed our organization was with all the noise coming out of Jets land last year until we put them back in their place

giantyankee1976
03-26-2012, 06:25 PM
.<FONT color=#000080 size=5> But one of the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of interest.</FONT>

LOL, GTFO !!!!

all the BS media does is PLAY FAVORITES.

so again, GTFO here !

RoanokeFan
03-26-2012, 06:30 PM
We're not privy to what was discussed at the owner's meetings leading up to the CAPless period. There were discussions, it seems, among all 32 owners. Again, we don't have a clue as to what was or was not agreed upon. It seems there were enough owners who thought certain teams overstepped that a committee investigated and recommended the penalties assessed.

None of us, and that includes the media heads, know anything but what has already been made public. Every story has two sides.




We do know two things, and really they're the only two things that matter.

1. In reference to the gentleman's agreement, there is nothing in writing. If there was it would be evidence of collusion against the NFLPA (who had recently dropped as similar suit against the NFL). Thus there were no legal or contractual obligations that the Cowboys, Redskins or any team for that matter had to abide by.

2. There were no cap rules for the 2010 season.

We'll find out what else went on since the Cowboys and Redskins are filing a grievance with the NFL. In order to win that battle, the NFL and several other owners will have to admit to collusion against the NFLPA to do so.

If that happens, it could become a federal court matter-- then things would start to get really messy.



You really think there will be a legal battle? That would put Snyder and Jones at odds with everyone else. It's not likely they will take this out of house. They will sit down and hash it out.


The Boys and Skins are already filing a grievance and like I said, the only way I can see the NFL winning this is for other owners to admit to collusion. Then it becomes a dispute between the NFL and the NFLPA. That could easily go to federal court.


The NFL has avoided going to court whenever another avenue is available. They, the Cowboys and Redskins, included the NFLPA in the grievance in the hopes of having a mediator assigned whose decision would be binding. They really don't want to take this into court where the whole anti-trust issue will be vulnerable to more scrutiny.

They are going to have their hearing, the amount of the fines will be reduced and that will be the end of that.

Technically speaking, verbal agreements can be as binding as those put to paper.


True. I agree, I think it gets settled within the NFL. But I think that both the Skins and Boys will be compensated for potentially missing out on big FA targets as well as reimbursed cap space. Maybe draft picks? Of course that's just speculation, but that's what would be fair.

Verbal agreements can be as binding as written, but unless the other owners want to admit to collusion, how will they prove it? I'm not saying that the Cowboys and Redskins aren't guilty of breaking an agreement, I'm saying I don't think any other owner wants to fall on that sword to prove it and give the NFLPA any ammo for possible future lawsuits.

The only angle I think the competition committee can take is that the Cowboys and Redskins hurt the competitive balance of the NFL. But I personally don't think it's enough to build a case around seeing how the NFL made up rules retroactively to punish the two organizations for not breaking any rules.




I understand the new media buzzword...collusion... has now been repeated ad nauseum which is typical when news Breaks. I'm not sure I understand where/when the "collusion" occurred. If all 32 teams were involved in the meeting(s) where this issues was discussed and agreed upon (at least by consensus) there really can't be collusion as all the parties that could have been affected were present.

Here's the definition of collusion: "Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others"

1. What was the secret involved
2. Who was being cheated or deceived as a result of the discussion

We have two positions within an organization which will be resolved at some point in time by the members of that organization.

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 07:55 PM
We're not privy to what was discussed at the owner's meetings leading up to the CAPless period. There were discussions, it seems, among all 32 owners. Again, we don't have a clue as to what was or was not agreed upon. It seems there were enough owners who thought certain teams overstepped that a committee investigated and recommended the penalties assessed.

None of us, and that includes the media heads, know anything but what has already been made public. Every story has two sides.




We do know two things, and really they're the only two things that matter.

1. In reference to the gentleman's agreement, there is nothing in writing. If there was it would be evidence of collusion against the NFLPA (who had recently dropped as similar suit against the NFL). Thus there were no legal or contractual obligations that the Cowboys, Redskins or any team for that matter had to abide by.

2. There were no cap rules for the 2010 season.

We'll find out what else went on since the Cowboys and Redskins are filing a grievance with the NFL. In order to win that battle, the NFL and several other owners will have to admit to collusion against the NFLPA to do so.

If that happens, it could become a federal court matter-- then things would start to get really messy.



You really think there will be a legal battle? That would put Snyder and Jones at odds with everyone else. It's not likely they will take this out of house. They will sit down and hash it out.


The Boys and Skins are already filing a grievance and like I said, the only way I can see the NFL winning this is for other owners to admit to collusion. Then it becomes a dispute between the NFL and the NFLPA. That could easily go to federal court.


The NFL has avoided going to court whenever another avenue is available. They, the Cowboys and Redskins, included the NFLPA in the grievance in the hopes of having a mediator assigned whose decision would be binding. They really don't want to take this into court where the whole anti-trust issue will be vulnerable to more scrutiny.

They are going to have their hearing, the amount of the fines will be reduced and that will be the end of that.

Technically speaking, verbal agreements can be as binding as those put to paper.


True. I agree, I think it gets settled within the NFL. But I think that both the Skins and Boys will be compensated for potentially missing out on big FA targets as well as reimbursed cap space. Maybe draft picks? Of course that's just speculation, but that's what would be fair.

Verbal agreements can be as binding as written, but unless the other owners want to admit to collusion, how will they prove it? I'm not saying that the Cowboys and Redskins aren't guilty of breaking an agreement, I'm saying I don't think any other owner wants to fall on that sword to prove it and give the NFLPA any ammo for possible future lawsuits.

The only angle I think the competition committee can take is that the Cowboys and Redskins hurt the competitive balance of the NFL. But I personally don't think it's enough to build a case around seeing how the NFL made up rules retroactively to punish the two organizations for not breaking any rules.




I understand the new media buzzword...collusion... has now been repeated ad nauseum which is typical when news Breaks. I'm not sure I understand where/when the "collusion" occurred. If all 32 teams were involved in the meeting(s) where this issues was discussed and agreed upon (at least by consensus) there really can't be collusion as all the parties that could have been affected were present.

Here's the definition of collusion: "Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others"

1. What was the secret involved
2. Who was being cheated or deceived as a result of the discussion

We have two positions within an organization which will be resolved at some point in time by the members of that organization.


1. The Gentleman's agreement itself could be looked at as collusion against the NFL Players Association. The owners didn't want to pay their players. This doesn't have as much to do with the 'competitive balance' angle the league is trying to stand on as it does overpaying its players. If it did, the teams that spent well below the projected salary floor would have been punished too.

So if the league and a handful of owners said "I know there's a not a cap, but don't spend or you'll be punished" then the NFLPA association would be irrate because of a loss of funds.

So a gentleman's agreement amongst the NFL and a few of its owners in order to control a non existent salary cap...

-Illegal Cooperation amongst several entities? Check
-NFL Players cheated out of money? Check

At least that's how I'm understanding this.

2. The NFLPA was directly impacted. But now you might be asking yourself, why did the NFLPA sign off on the sanctions? Because the CEC backed the NFLPA into a corner. Executive Chair DeMaurice Smith's job was basically on the line due to a league wide salary cap drop-- unless of course, some of that cap space was reapportioned from the Cowboys and Redskins, that is.

RoanokeFan
03-26-2012, 08:47 PM
We're not privy to what was discussed at the owner's meetings leading up to the CAPless period. There were discussions, it seems, among all 32 owners. Again, we don't have a clue as to what was or was not agreed upon. It seems there were enough owners who thought certain teams overstepped that a committee investigated and recommended the penalties assessed.

None of us, and that includes the media heads, know anything but what has already been made public. Every story has two sides.




We do know two things, and really they're the only two things that matter.

1. In reference to the gentleman's agreement, there is nothing in writing. If there was it would be evidence of collusion against the NFLPA (who had recently dropped as similar suit against the NFL). Thus there were no legal or contractual obligations that the Cowboys, Redskins or any team for that matter had to abide by.

2. There were no cap rules for the 2010 season.

We'll find out what else went on since the Cowboys and Redskins are filing a grievance with the NFL. In order to win that battle, the NFL and several other owners will have to admit to collusion against the NFLPA to do so.

If that happens, it could become a federal court matter-- then things would start to get really messy.



You really think there will be a legal battle? That would put Snyder and Jones at odds with everyone else. It's not likely they will take this out of house. They will sit down and hash it out.


The Boys and Skins are already filing a grievance and like I said, the only way I can see the NFL winning this is for other owners to admit to collusion. Then it becomes a dispute between the NFL and the NFLPA. That could easily go to federal court.


The NFL has avoided going to court whenever another avenue is available. They, the Cowboys and Redskins, included the NFLPA in the grievance in the hopes of having a mediator assigned whose decision would be binding. They really don't want to take this into court where the whole anti-trust issue will be vulnerable to more scrutiny.

They are going to have their hearing, the amount of the fines will be reduced and that will be the end of that.

Technically speaking, verbal agreements can be as binding as those put to paper.


True. I agree, I think it gets settled within the NFL. But I think that both the Skins and Boys will be compensated for potentially missing out on big FA targets as well as reimbursed cap space. Maybe draft picks? Of course that's just speculation, but that's what would be fair.

Verbal agreements can be as binding as written, but unless the other owners want to admit to collusion, how will they prove it? I'm not saying that the Cowboys and Redskins aren't guilty of breaking an agreement, I'm saying I don't think any other owner wants to fall on that sword to prove it and give the NFLPA any ammo for possible future lawsuits.

The only angle I think the competition committee can take is that the Cowboys and Redskins hurt the competitive balance of the NFL. But I personally don't think it's enough to build a case around seeing how the NFL made up rules retroactively to punish the two organizations for not breaking any rules.




I understand the new media buzzword...collusion... has now been repeated ad nauseum which is typical when news Breaks. I'm not sure I understand where/when the "collusion" occurred. If all 32 teams were involved in the meeting(s) where this issues was discussed and agreed upon (at least by consensus) there really can't be collusion as all the parties that could have been affected were present.

Here's the definition of collusion: "Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others"

1. What was the secret involved
2. Who was being cheated or deceived as a result of the discussion

We have two positions within an organization which will be resolved at some point in time by the members of that organization.


1. The Gentleman's agreement itself could be looked at as collusion against the NFL Players Association. The owners didn't want to pay their players. This doesn't have as much to do with the 'competitive balance' angle the league is trying to stand on as it does overpaying its players. If it did, the teams that spent well below the projected salary floor would have been punished too.

So if the league and a handful of owners said "I know there's a not a cap, but don't spend or you'll be punished" then the NFLPA association would be irrate because of a loss of funds.

So a gentleman's agreement amongst the NFL and a few of its owners in order to control a non existent salary cap...

-Illegal Cooperation amongst several entities? Check
-NFL Players cheated out of money? Check

At least that's how I'm understanding this.

2. The NFLPA was directly impacted. But now you might be asking yourself, why did the NFLPA sign off on the sanctions? Because the CEC backed the NFLPA into a corner. Executive Chair DeMaurice Smith's job was basically on the line due to a league wide salary cap drop-- unless of course, some of that cap space was reapportioned from the Cowboys and Redskins, that is.


We'll just have to agree to disagree and see what happens.