Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

    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. "


    “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” MB Rule # 1

  • #2
    Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

      [quote user="Dan Graziano"]PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to 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 and the Dallas Cowboys. He didn't hold back, 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
      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



      [+] Enlarge
      Ed Mulholland/US PresswireGiants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

      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.[/quote]

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

        Awesome...So now I get to watch the Tebow AND Carr press conference tomorrow
        "You killed my family, and I don't like that kind of thing."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

          [quote user="bLuereverie"][quote user="Dan Graziano"]PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to 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 and the Dallas Cowboys. He didn't hold back, 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
          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



          [+] Enlarge
          Ed Mulholland/US PresswireGiants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

          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.[/quote][/quote]

          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 ***.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

            [quote user="Ntegrase96"][quote user="bLuereverie"][quote user="Dan Graziano"]PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to 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 and the Dallas Cowboys. He didn't hold back, 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
            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



            [+] Enlarge
            Ed Mulholland/US PresswireGiants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

            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.[/quote][/quote]

            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 ***.
            [/quote]

            I'm guessing we don't know all there is to know about the whole situation.
            “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” MB Rule # 1

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

                [quote user="RoanokeFan"][quote user="Ntegrase96"][quote user="bLuereverie"][quote user="Dan Graziano"]PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to 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 and the Dallas Cowboys. He didn't hold back, 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
                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



                [+] Enlarge
                Ed Mulholland/US PresswireGiants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

                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.[/quote][/quote]

                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 ***.
                [/quote]

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

                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

                  [quote user="gmen46"][quote user="RoanokeFan"][quote user="Ntegrase96"][quote user="bLuereverie"][quote user="Dan Graziano"]PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to 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 and the Dallas Cowboys. He didn't hold back, 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
                  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



                  [+] Enlarge
                  Ed Mulholland/US PresswireGiants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

                  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.[/quote][/quote]

                  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 ***.
                  [/quote]

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

                  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.[/quote]

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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

                    [quote user="bLuereverie"]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.[/quote]

                    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.




                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

                        [quote user="gmen46"][quote user="RoanokeFan"][quote user="Ntegrase96"][quote user="bLuereverie"][quote user="Dan Graziano"]PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful to 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 and the Dallas Cowboys. He didn't hold back, 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
                        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



                        [+] Enlarge
                        Ed Mulholland/US PresswireGiants owner John Mara has openly criticized the Redskins and the Cowboys for their spending during the 2010 uncapped season.

                        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.[/quote][/quote]

                        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 ***.
                        [/quote]

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

                        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.[/quote]
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

                              in this thread we learn there are 30 gentleman owners in the league

                              and Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder


                              nothing new here

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X