MARA TALKS TEBOW, COWBOYS, AND REDSKINS

[RoanokeFan]

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]

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]

[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



<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
</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.[/quote]

[titwio]

Awesome...So now I get to watch the Tebow AND Carr press conference tomorrow

[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



<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
</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.[/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 ***.

[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



<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
</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.[/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.

[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.

[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



<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
</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.[/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.

[Mod_C]

[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



<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
</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.[/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.

[Ntegrase96]

[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.