For Midget Fans: Why John Mara cheated

[tshile]

The "reason" or "technicality" you're looking for as to why the league had to approve those contracts is what many of us would refer to simply as a "rule". The NFL had to approve them because those contracts were within the rules and the league didn't want to admit at the time that they were illegally colluding against the players. They waited a couple of years until they thought they had immunity from a collusion lawsuit to administer any punishment.

There's way more to it than that.

I can't find anything in writing from anyone at 980 (which is where I heard the break down.. wish my memory wasn't failing me right now) but I did find this from SI:

The teams are expected to base their claim -- likely to Special Master Stephen Burbank -- on two things: one, the Management Council approved the contracts; and two, how could they be at fault when there was nothing in writing that prohibited them from structuring contracts as they did?
There is the perception among some that the league was making up rules as it went along. However, one person familiar with the situation said the NFL had no way of knowing what impact the contracts would have down the road because the league and union still were negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the Management Council felt it would be wrong to disapprove the deals.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...int/index.html

My point is there's a lot more to it than what you're suggesting.

[Rufus T Firefly]

There's way more to it than that.

I can't find anything in writing from anyone at 980 (which is where I heard the break down.. wish my memory wasn't failing me right now) but I did find this from SI:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...int/index.html

My point is there's a lot more to it than what you're suggesting.

No, there's nothing more to it than what I said, and nothing you just posted indicates there is.

[HOF44]

Like I said in an earler post, Mara won this battle. He had his flanks covered, he knew that Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones would not go nuclear by taking this to court, because that would be the definition of cutting your hand to spite your face. The cap penalties suck, but they dont actually take any money out of Snyder's/Jones's pockets. Exposing the NFL as the collusive entity that it is (as would happen if they went to court) would only result in the entire league getting the pants sued off of them, and that would mean money directly out of Snyder's bank account. Thats why they call it the nuclear option, because its not a good option and only assures everybody's destruction.

Lots of truth to this. I also think Snyder and Jones have thought it through and it's much better politically to let the Union go after the NFL. If this ends up costing the NFL a huge sum of money Mara will be finished as far as influence goes. Would not even be surprised if we end up out of the lawsuit and pointing the union in the right direction to find what they need to win. The whole thing comes down to if a court will hear it. If they do it will be a slam dunk. If they don't a procedural win for the NFL.

[DaSkinzBaby]

That's a correct conclusion if you're a redskins fan that's only interested in hating on the NFL and Mara.

The NFL had it's hands tied with the contracts and couldn't reject them. They had to approve them. Using that excuse doesn't fly; which is why it didn't work in arbitration.

The Redskins were warned multiple times not to do it, they did it anyway. They fought through arbitration and lost. They entertained the idea of court but the NFL called their bluff (so far) and it stopped at arbitration.

None of that is to suggest that what the NFL did was right (it wasn't) or to defend the NFL. But the Redskins are not the innocent party in the situation that majority of this board seems to think they are.

How can you warn a team not to do something that is legal to do? Not hating on anything I simply don't think it's right that the NFL Owners as GREEDY as they are lied and then turned around and screwed the Redskins or the Cowboys. If you have an uncapped year brought by GREED as was this case then why should a team act like there is a salary cap when there isn't? That's the problem with Goodell and the NFL now, GREED and being able to have the cake, cut it and set all rules......WOW!!!

[gbear]

I still haven't come to understand why the players ever went along with taking money from 2 owners who spend every bit of cap space to spread amongst the other owners in a year with no floor. There is nothing which says teams have to spend the extra cap space they have been given this year as the floor from the CBA doesn't come into play until next year. Yes, Mara is a cheat, but the Union was unwise in the extreme.

[tshile]

As far as I can see, your doing nothing more than condoning the NFL going back on it's own rules at the time, and two of it's members working within those rules.

Hail.

If thats what you think then you're terrible at reading and being incredibly disingenuous/blind to the argument.

I've said multiple times that what the NFL did was wrong. I've listed what they did that I thought was wrong.

I'm not defending the NFL or condoning what they did. Try reading what I've posted again, and see if you can figure out what I'm saying.

What is the context that you want to put this into? Not being sarcastic.... what is the contextual relevancy that I am missing?

The context is this:
The league was in a dispute with the players association. Part of that did away with the salary cap.
There are two roads to take with that:
- each team does as they please
- each team sticks to a relatively similar strategy they were doing under the old CBA.

If the the owners choose the first option, then you'll have some teams that go way below the floor and way above the cap. Any sort of balance get's thrown out of whack. Not having a new CBA meant not knowing the long term effects of doing that - is it going to cause player salaries to increase more across the board? Is it going to put teams in situations where they can't possibly get under the cap because of what they did during this year? Is it going to let some owner decide that they don't need a football team worth a crap, and get their contracts down the absolute minimum?
There were lots of possibilities. I think the biggest concern was some teams would go way over the cap and then not be able to get under it causing big problems for the team/league - but that is entirely speculation on my part.

The other road allows for teams to maybe do a little more/less here/there and not really change the dynamic of the league.

What happened was the owners apparently (emphasis on apparently) decided to go with the second option. Well, except for the redskins, cowboys, saints, bears, and a few others that went over. Oh, and the handful of teams that took it as a chance to go under and save their money...

But what happened in doing that was that the redskins were allowed to dump contracts that were flat out bad contracts. Contracts that were adding to what was really hurting us a team.
The real context here is that if every team was going to do this, they could have made deals like this a few years before knowing they'd dump them. Or they could dump whatever deals they needed to without the cap once it came (with no real planning years in advance). Either way, it allows teams to essentially wipe the slate clean despite past bad judgement.

So basically teams that made bad deals could get out from under them real quick/free of charge, while others who played smartly (and by the rules) got nothing.

It's kind of like the banking crisis... the ones that didn't play by the rules got bailed out by the government and the ones that did got an 'atta boy'... i bet those ones that didn't get bailed out don't think it's fair that the people who abused the rules, made bad decisions, etc were able to wipe all that away... (that's a gross over-simplification of the banking crisis, but i think it explains what i'm trying to say... i think...)

Now, again, for the umpteenth time, it appears there was collusion - which is wrong. It also appears the NFL selectively went after teams - for some reason none of the teams that went under the floor got hit (gee... wonder why? maybe because that hurt the players, not the teams...) - which is also wrong. (at least in my opinion both of those are wrong)

But, none of what the NFL did wrong makes what the redskins did right. They tried to dump bad contracts to get out from under them, and the teams that try really hard not to make bad contracts said "No, that's not fair." And I, personally, agree with them. I just think they should have either penalized everyone or no one.

[HOF44]

I still haven't come to understand why the players ever went along with taking money from 2 owners who spend every bit of cap space to spread amongst the other owners in a year with no floor. There is nothing which says teams have to spend the extra cap space they have been given this year as the floor from the CBA doesn't come into play until next year. Yes, Mara is a cheat, but the Union was unwise in the extreme.

Had to do with Smith saving face to get re-elected. His short term personal gain over the NFLPA's long term interest.

[tshile]

No, there's nothing more to it than what I said, and nothing you just posted indicates there is.

Yes... it does.
It's more than 'the rules said it's ok'.

[SkinsHokieFan]

But, none of what the NFL did wrong makes what the redskins did right. They tried to dump bad contracts to get out from under them, and the teams that try really hard not to make bad contracts said "No, that's not fair." And I, personally, agree with them. I just think they should have either penalized everyone or no one.

Your argument is flawed.

The Redskins broke no rules. Contracts were approved, period.

Had the NFL in 2010 rejected the contracts, this is a non issue. Instead the NFL came back, 2 years later, and stripped the Redskins of 18 M on the eve of free agency.

[PortisBetts]

I'd be willing to bet most players don't care/aren't even aware of what happened...this is a big deal to the fans and maybe the FO.

It doesn't affect the players. Hell, if it wasn't for the whole thing, some wouldn't even be on the team.

We should want to win because it's a 1st place game...

---------- Post added October-16th-2012 at 02:33 PM ----------

Idk...I'm over it. No use whining about **** that won't change...let's just win Sunday

How doesnt this affect our players? We lost 18 million in cap space. It affects them in 2 ways-

A) Players lose out on salaries by a team that is willing to spend it. 2 million being sent to teams like the Bucaneers and Bengals wont help becuase they wont spend it

B) It hurts our team directly becuase we were not able to offer contracts to players in the secondary and line (RT specifically), which makes it harder for us to win. And our players want to win. So it did directly effect them.

[SkinsHokieFan]

But you know what? **** Jerry Jones for not being vocal enough. When it came time to talk, he eventually shut his mouth after saying bull****. He's a *****, and **** the NFL for allowing someone like Mara to have a position with that much power.

And he was on the Management Council but was NOT informed of the decision prior to it coming down.

Instead of worrying about his team on the field, he wanted to keep this in his back pocket so he could get another Superbowl (noteably Superbowl 50) in Jerryworld

[Rocky52Mc]

But you know what? **** Jerry Jones for not being vocal enough. When it came time to talk, he eventually shut his mouth after saying bull****. He's a *****, and **** the NFL for allowing someone like Mara to have a position with that much power.

It was collusion it's obvious, not like we can push forward anyways, the Redskins would end up financially getting exposed if the courts got deeply involved. There's no way out of this one sadly, just pray and hope RG3 buries their asses.

[SkinsHokieFan]

But you know what? **** Jerry Jones for not being vocal enough. When it came time to talk, he eventually shut his mouth after saying bull****. He's a *****, and **** the NFL for allowing someone like Mara to have a position with that much power.

And he was on the Management Council but was NOT informed of the decision prior to it coming down.

Instead of worrying about his team on the field, he wanted to keep this in his back pocket so he could get another Superbowl (noteably Superbowl 50) in Jerryworld

[Rufus T Firefly]

Yes... it does.
It's more than 'the rules said it's ok'.

You can say that all you want, but you have nothing to back up that statement apart from that you think you heard something on the radio.

The leue approved the contracts because they were within the rules and they didn't want to admit to collusion. That's well-established.

It's as basic as can get. If the contracts vilated any rules the league could have declined them. Period.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

If thats what you think then you're terrible at reading and being incredibly disingenuous/blind to the argument.

I've said multiple times that what the NFL did was wrong. I've listed what they did that I thought was wrong.

I'm not defending the NFL or condoning what they did. Try reading what I've posted again, and see if you can figure out what I'm saying.
.....

I've read and taken on board everything you've posted in this thread, and to me your doing nothing more than condoning the NFL and Mara changing tact and cheating us out of what we legally did.

You can't say what they did was wrong ...... BUT in context ..... the context is NO rules were broken. Period. Contracts sent in within those rules were approved. Period. And then the NFL completely changed direction after the fact and sanctioned two teams in a move that was nothing shy of tantamount to cheating on their behalf.

You can dress it up anyway you want man, but every time you add the 'but' in the form of 'context' or whatever; your doing nothing more than condoning the underhand actions of the league.

It's black and white. Or at least it should be.

Hail.