Skip to content

Cowboys, Redskins say they complied with salary cap in 2010

Daniel Snyder, Bruce Allen AP

As the saying goes, salary cap shenanigans make for strange bedfellows.  Or something.

Arch rivals on the field, the Cowboys and Redskins find themselves facing the loss of millions in salary cap space ($10 million for Dallas, $36 million for Washington) for allegedly treating the “uncapped year” of 2010 too literally.  In statements issued only minutes apart on Monday night, both teams stated that they at all times complied with the rules.

“The Washington Redskins have received no written documentation from the NFL concerning adjustments to the team salary cap in 2012 as reported in various media outlets,” Redskins G.M. Bruce Allen said.  “Every contract entered into by the club during the applicable periods complied with the 2010 and 2011 collective bargaining agreements and, in fact, were approved by the NFL commissioner’s office.  We look forward to free agency, the draft and the coming football season.”

Said the Cowboys, through a spokesman:  “The Dallas Cowboys were in compliance with all league salary cap rules during the uncapped year.   We look forward to the start of the free agency period where our commitment to improving our team remains unchanged.”

Before the uncapped year of 2010, the NFL told the teams “at least six times” not to dump salaries into the uncapped year.  But any agreement among the teams aimed at limiting spending in the uncapped year constitutes clear and obvious collusion.

The league approved the contracts when submitted because the union would have cried foul if the NFL had tried to apply limits to the uncapped year that didn’t exist in the CBA.  All along, the league planned to serve up a cold plate of salary-cap revenge against the Cowboys and Redskins at a later date, at a time when the union would be inclined to agree to an after-the-fact effort to punish anyone who opted not to limit the players’ supply of cash in the months before the lockout.

In hindsight, the league’s effort to penalize the Redskins and Cowboys (and to a lesser extent the Raiders and Saints) proves that the NFL indeed had a plan in place to keep spending low, by not signing restricted free agents to offer sheets and/or by hiding behind internal budgets to justify a failure to aggressively spend in unrestricted free agency.

Or, as in the case of the Cowboys and Redskins, discouraging teams from taking advantage of the rules that applied at the time.

The union has opted not to pick at old scars, in large part because the league’s willingness to bump up the 2012 salary cap from $116 million to $120.6 million likely averted a mutiny against NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith, whose contract expires this month.

The the procedure for challenging the action isn’t clear, but the Cowboys and Redskins should fight.  Though the NFL deftly persuaded the players to agree with the plan, the Cowboys and Redskins are being penalized for one simple reality.

They refused to engage in collusion.

Permalink 180 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans Saints, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
180 Responses to “Cowboys, Redskins say they complied with salary cap in 2010”
  1. spenserhatch says: Mar 12, 2012 8:41 PM

    They should both sue. All I know is I for one not going to spend one penny on ANYthing NFL related as long as Dictator GODell is in power.

  2. dequan81 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:43 PM

    This is already an annoying story that I will follow immensely. Still confused on how the NFL approves contracts then 2 years later penalize the teams.

  3. bikeman99 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:46 PM

    This will end in court or mediation, Snyder and Jones won’t put up with this

  4. musicman495 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:46 PM

    As a Redskins fan, I thank you Mike for telling it straight, and not falling for the NFL BS line of “because we said so.” I think our friend Roger is getting a little too big for his britches.

  5. bigmike7914 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:47 PM

    If this is true then my fellow football fans we have a fight on our hands and it’s going to get very ugly, if the NFL is fining teams because basically they didnt break the law they have a very rude awakening coming, I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn’t go in front of congress.

  6. skinsrollyou says: Mar 12, 2012 8:47 PM

    This is a joke. Bet all the other nfl fans that don’t have 3 or more super bowls are loving this. And that includes all most all of you! Keep on hating. This is a joke and it won’t go on without a solid fight

  7. chadgoy says: Mar 12, 2012 8:48 PM

    Take that Redskins. On top of trading 3 1st round picks (and a 2nd), you now have no money for free agents. Better put an ad in the newspaper for tryouts. I like seeing Shanahan get Shanahaned.

  8. ericn42000 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:48 PM

    We had to get rid of Roy Williams some how….

    Good one Jerry, Roy just cost you 10 more million, can you pleease pull your head out of your @$$….

  9. jervay77 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:48 PM

    You should retract the the Skins and Boys cheaters comment in a previous post.

  10. deangelo1776 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:49 PM

    So basically both teams told the NFL to $%^$ off.

    Didn’t see that coming..

  11. billyrocket says: Mar 12, 2012 8:50 PM

    They voted for Goddell, so they should have known that he’ll do whatever he pleases. He is out of control, but that is nothing new.

  12. paintan8 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:50 PM

    Goodell and the owners who pushed him to do this have opened up a can of worms they should have left closed. Jerry and Danny will indeed sue and the NFLPA will also jump on the collusion argument in court as a way to get back at the owners for kicking their ass in collective bargaining.

  13. bobulated says: Mar 12, 2012 8:50 PM

    So if the Cowboys and Skins won an appeal would the cap drop back down to $116 million for everyone else?

  14. benh999 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:50 PM

    I hate both teams and the PA, but I do hope they fight it and win. If the league were telling teams not to take advantage of the lack of a cap, wouldn’t that be real (ie, not tacit) collusion?

  15. pwningpft says: Mar 12, 2012 8:50 PM

    This is going to be March Madness indeed. Word is skins plan on going on with Free Agency as they previously would. They sure are showing some balls this Spring.

  16. burgundyandgold says: Mar 12, 2012 8:51 PM

    For once I want Jerry and the Danny to work together. This is not fair and I don’t see how it is legal. I hope the redskins use their 30+ million in cap space this year and then work with the Cowboys to sue the commissioner. This is nuts.

  17. mjbulls45 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:51 PM

    collusion is the greatest word

  18. eli2tyree4 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:51 PM

    Goodell is a disaster. Classless piece of trash. Wow. CBA specifically calls for uncapped year and he warns of consequences for anyone that follows that? Absurd.

    And this is coming from a Giants fan

  19. nineroutsider says: Mar 12, 2012 8:52 PM

    The the procedure for challenging the action isn’t clear, but the Cowboys and Redskins should fight.
    ————————————————————
    It seems pretty clear, they appeal to the same league that penalized them. No mediation, no arbitration; the same mechanism that players have to appeal. Fair is fair. So yeah, fight and good luck!

    The owners are a good ole boys club whether you like it or not and the Skins and Boys took advantage. They are going to pay. The lockout was for all teams, not 30.

  20. PriorKnowledge says: Mar 12, 2012 8:52 PM

    NO WAY… This is either a rumor gone wild, or an unenforceable penalty by the commissioner

  21. dcfan262 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:52 PM

    Looks like this can get real juicy and to think that two of the biggest owners on one side and the NFL on the other. I really think this could blow up in the league face. Can’t have a better year to be media covering the NFL this year. One story after another.

  22. jagsfanugh says: Mar 12, 2012 8:52 PM

    Liars unite.

  23. gibbsandflair says: Mar 12, 2012 8:52 PM

    If only Al Davis was still with us. He would have Jerry and Dans back on this one. NFL would loose in a courtroom on this one

  24. fatcamper says: Mar 12, 2012 8:52 PM

    Dan Snyder is an attorney and Jerry Jones has sued, and won, against the NFL in the past. Al Davis was well-known for taking on the league and I’d imagine the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Goodell must enjoy sitting in a courtroom.

  25. footballfanman says: Mar 12, 2012 8:52 PM

    Obvious collusion, they incriminate themselves with the punishment. Push comes to shove and evidence will show that The Cowboys and Redskins did exactly what was their right to do. I here by clear you of all charges.

  26. gweez76 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:52 PM

    Give Em hell boys

  27. deangelo23hall says: Mar 12, 2012 8:52 PM

    Redskins fan here.

    Typical of the comissioner to go after the Top 2 dogs based on franchise value.

    Cowboys Redskins unite.

    Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, time to go to war.

    Go get ‘em boys.

  28. mob6667 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:52 PM

    Al Davis would eat this one for breakfast! I smell a joint lawsuit! come on Jerry&Dannyboy sue there Ass !

  29. Maximus Decimus Meridius says: Mar 12, 2012 8:53 PM

    Smells like a lawsuit to me……Bruce Allen said it all, “approved by the NFL’s Commissioners Office”. Snyder and Jones bonded together? Look out…this isn’t going away anytime soon. I would expect the league to issue some type of retraction or this will be put on hold. Should be an interesting 19 hours or so befor free agency starts tomorrow.

  30. katrinasafterbirth says: Mar 12, 2012 8:53 PM

    Not a big fan of either team, but since the NFL has to approve all contracts, they should have raised hell 2 years ago. This is a scary precedent to set…

  31. canadianskinsfan says: Mar 12, 2012 8:53 PM

    The NFL cartel is at it again. I hope Danny and Jerry boy sue hard! The NFL competition committee is violating antitrust laws and is headed by Jon Mara who is in an obvious conflict of interest considering the sanctions are against NFC East teams.

  32. sdwinkler says: Mar 12, 2012 8:53 PM

    Al Davis sued the NFL and won, and he had less of a case than WAS/DAL have here. Dallas is in dire need of a restraining order here, and they could probably convince a neutral judge that there would be irreparable harm if this cap heist is not stayed by the court. Then it would be in litigation for some time, or, more probably, the league would “settle” by folding with some allowed face saving.

  33. astrosfan75956 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:54 PM

    That’s bull ish the cowboys did nothing wrong.

  34. gweez76 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:54 PM

    Goodell it’s not your league. Those two owners are self made. You think they roll over for legacy guys like you?

    You’re just a guy in a suit…

  35. saintsly says: Mar 12, 2012 8:54 PM

    The NFL is not football anylonger……..

    It’s called “Goodell Ball”…………………

    He doesn’t like the NFL or Football and they will all pay………………………Ha.

  36. dcbluestar says: Mar 12, 2012 8:54 PM

    Roger NOGOODell has to go! This fool HAS to be impeached. The Cowboys did not do anything wrong. They did not break any rules. They worked within the guidelines of that season. I’m sticking up for the Redskins here too, as this is just WRONG! Snyder and Jones need to get their attorneys armed and ready.

  37. mkindred1 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:54 PM

    Dan and Jerry need to put their foot down to the revenue sharing if this is how the league that they carry on their back views them..

  38. seageo says: Mar 12, 2012 8:55 PM

    I am a DIE-HARD GIANTS FAN. I hate the cowboys and skins….

    THAT being said, as much as I enjoy the suffering they are being put through, I think its bogus.

    It doesn’t make sense to me. How specific was the NFL when they warned teams? How much was to much and how were teams supposed to know that number? How can you accept a contract and then penalize it 2 years later?? You didnt want the NFLPA to get upset and screw with your plans? Tough. You can’t have it both ways. Just seems dirty to me.

    THAT being said, I still hope the cowboys and skins get screwed…….

  39. hendawg21 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:55 PM

    Its time to bring Goodell and his goons under control, this making up of rules at any time is just ludacris. And to penalize someone for something that didn’t exist as a rule….whats next. This like school yard play because Dallas and Washington didn’t play along Goodell and goons decided we’ll just take our ball and go home.

  40. profootballwalk says: Mar 12, 2012 8:56 PM

    spenserhatch says: Mar 12, 2012 8:41 PM

    They should both sue. All I know is I for one not going to spend one penny on ANYthing NFL related as long as Dictator GODell is in power.
    ——————————————-

    So not one penny of money you earned selling slurpies at Quickee-Mart will be spent on Peyton Manning Bronco jerseys?

  41. bjbroderick says: Mar 12, 2012 8:56 PM

    I don’t understand the collusion part. Teams were told not to use the uncapped year as a salary dump. So why would they have to collude with the other teams to comply with that?

  42. paintan8 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:56 PM

    Remember the whole lockout was a money grab by greedy owners who are now mad that Jerry and Danny didn’t agree to collude. Gimme a break!

  43. saintsly says: Mar 12, 2012 8:58 PM

    No notification from the League office about the Cap or Bounties…………………………..

    Goodell was just dreaming up ways to get money from all the teams………………..Smart !!!!!

  44. danielcp0303 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:58 PM

    If this stands, it means any team could be next. Cap isn’t high enough, so we’ll take money from a few teams and share it among everyone else. By the way, not sure why all my comments get deleted. Haven’t used any bad language or anything.

  45. patsfiend says: Mar 12, 2012 8:58 PM

    This whole thing sounds shady as heck to me. NFL is run with more scrutiny than most companies and public organizations, it seems… and all they do is play football. I hope Jones and Snyder follow in the footsteps of Big Al. Sue the bastards!!

  46. jcaro5566 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:59 PM

    It’s about time!! There is a reason almost every other team in the league has had to release players it didnt’ want to in order to abide by the cap. When was the last time the Redskins or Cowboys had a salary cap issue yet they are always able to go out and spend wildly every season.

  47. skinsnation703 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:59 PM

    So the Redskins/Cowboys follow the rules and had the approval from the league. Now they want to punish us for nothing. Makes sense. HTTR get ‘em Bruce!

  48. skins4me says: Mar 12, 2012 8:59 PM

    Since the NFL approves all contracts I can’t see how the Cowboys or Redskins could have broken any rules regarding the uncaped year!!!!
    Unless of coures the NFL offices’s don’t realy look at the contracts. Seems really pathetic to me that the NFL is gonna try and Shaft the two teams. I see a huge Lawsuit comming and the NFL losing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  49. jwschee says: Mar 12, 2012 9:00 PM

    Uh oh this is gonna be good then. Jerry the GM is questionable (to put it mildly) but as an owner he has kicked the NFL’s collective butts in court before.

    Anyone remember the NFL suing him for 300 Million years back, for having brokered exclusive deals with Pepsi, etc. That he not only won, but actually made the other owners wake up and realize how they should have been doing that all along.

    I don’t see how the NFL would have a legal leg to stand on here. I know folks hate the Boys and Skins, but if they put up a ruckus I expect this to go away really quick.

  50. wryly1 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:00 PM

    Same season Jerry Jones lost 4,000 Super Bowl seats fans had paid for. Good thing he kept his attention focused on what’s happening with his perennially under-achieving team.

  51. realitypolice says: Mar 12, 2012 9:00 PM

    Excellent article.

    I wasn’t sure what your position would be. You seemed to be leaning towards calling what the Skins and Cowboys did cheating.

    Now, as the slimy details have emerged, you have taken the exact right position.

    The league conspired, through numerous “warnings” to coerce teams into artificially holding down spending in order to correct a mistake they had made in approving the uncapped year.

    They attempted to force collusion amongst the teams and conspired to punish the teams in the league who dared to use the rules to their advantage.

    And to all of the people saying “the league knows more than you, obviously they wouldn’t do it if they didn’t think they were right”, NONSENSE.

    The fact that they would attempt this is nothing more than a sign of how huge the collective egos of the League office have become and how arrogant they have become in their flaunting of the rules that apply to every other business in the world.

    Their “victories” in court during the lockout have given them a sense that they operate above the law.

    I have a feeling they are about to find out differently.

  52. pacificamjr says: Mar 12, 2012 9:01 PM

    greed. pure and simple

  53. davidgq says: Mar 12, 2012 9:01 PM

    Game on Goodell !!!

    Your office APPROVED those contracts.

    See you in court !!!

  54. fireeyes111 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:03 PM

    They should both sue. All I know is I for one not going to spend one penny on ANYthing NFL related as long as Dictator GODell is in power.
    _____________________________

    Yeah, how dare he try to prevent the NFL from turning into a league where only 10/32 teams can actually compete.

  55. rickastleydancemoves says: Mar 12, 2012 9:03 PM

    Where are the droves of idiot redskin fans that gave me thumbs down when I said washington was going to ruin RG3? Y’all ain’t talking s*** now.

  56. bucrightoff says: Mar 12, 2012 9:05 PM

    I’m surprised more teams didn’t try this, and am surprised it wasn’t simply a rule set in stone rather than something more along the lines of please agree not to do this.

    Still I see why they got drilled and why it kind of is cheating. For instance if this year was the uncapped with Peyton free, why wouldn’t someone offer him a 4 year $70million deal, you obviously frontload say $40million in year one and then the you only ever have to count $30million against the actual cap, freeing up lots of cap space. It is in essence cap circumvention

  57. jringo99 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:05 PM

    Good for them. This is BS any way you look at it. Forget it and fight it out in arbitration later.

  58. philsimmsisadouche says: Mar 12, 2012 9:06 PM

    Anything that results in the Cowboys being penalized, I’m all for it.

  59. babyhorsemorgan says: Mar 12, 2012 9:06 PM

    Oh, I guess that means they were punished unfairly. Pity about that. On the upside, that makes them victims rather than perpetrators. Sympathy will be flowing in from around the league.

  60. fijabbersman345 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:06 PM

    Good(ell) luck with that. Once the hammer has struck, theres no going back.

  61. glynners says: Mar 12, 2012 9:06 PM

    I’m slightly confused how the Bears get away with paying Peppers $20m ($35m cap hit) in 2010 then drop his base to $900k the year after.. hmm?

  62. jcurran77 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:07 PM

    How you approve contracts and then penalize for them is beyond me. I have always been a supporter of Godell cleaning up things but this is bs.

  63. mdc21787 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:07 PM

    uncapped means uncapped.

  64. usmutts says: Mar 12, 2012 9:10 PM

    Collusion is, in actual fact, what the NFL is all about. The NFL is the most successful socialist enterprise in American history. The salary cap is collusion and socialism. To punish the Cowboys and Redskins the league colluded with the players association. The office of commissioner is a collusion among the socialist owners. The draft is collusion and socialism: players (employees) are not allowed to sell their services on the open market-there is no open market because it’s socialized.

    The Cowboys and Redskins have no case against the NFL for collusion because they participate in the entire collusive system for their own profit.

  65. weaponx73 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:10 PM

    Yea right spenserhatch you know that as empty a threat as the Cowboys and Redskins trying to sue. I don’t know what you don’t get they were told not to do it and they did it anyway. You want to blame someone blame your owner.

  66. rg3toskins says: Mar 12, 2012 9:10 PM

    I will not re-new my season tickets if they make this stick…..complete bs yje NFL would approve and ratify a contract and then penalize the clubs after a new CBA is ratified? And the NFLPA approved this? smh

  67. LoCoSu@%s says: Mar 12, 2012 9:10 PM

    This may be the beginning of the end for Goddell.
    You dont piss off your employers and expect to survive

  68. lucimorland says: Mar 12, 2012 9:11 PM

    They could/should seek an injunction immediately calling a halt to the league year.

    They will be harmed irreparably if other teams can sign free agents while they cannot. The Redskins could be looking at 3-4 big names to go with their shiny new QB; now they have nothing?

    Would they even make the RG3 trade if they knew they couldn’t plug holes with free agents?

    Add to it that these are two owners who were very vocal about the unfairness of the CBA and you have a pretty good case that it’s personal for Goodell as much as it is business.

    That man is single-handedly ruining the National Football League.

  69. manwithpizza says: Mar 12, 2012 9:11 PM

    so… the uncapped year wasn’t uncapped after all?

    That explains a lot about what happened in free agency that year.

    I am dumbfounded that it is OK to punish teams that followed the rules as they were written.

  70. mgmac says: Mar 12, 2012 9:12 PM

    The cowgirls would never lie would they? I always believe jerry jones

  71. torgerl says: Mar 12, 2012 9:12 PM

    I can’t believe the league wanted to go there. This situation is ridiculous.

  72. jameslongstaffe says: Mar 12, 2012 9:14 PM

    Rules are rules, & they were warned. It is not fair to the other teams if they abused that. I mean, the Redskins were the team to sign Albert Haynesworth to a ridiculous contract. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

  73. roamingabriel says: Mar 12, 2012 9:15 PM

    Any chance the name Fat Albert Haynesworth is going to come up in this discussion?

  74. packerjer says: Mar 12, 2012 9:15 PM

    “Though the NFL deftly persuaded the players to agree with the plan, the Cowboys and Redskins are being penalized for one simple reality.

    They refused to engage in collusion.”

    ___________

    I think they have a strong arguement, but let’s not turn them into martyrs here. It’s not as if they were on some noble crusade to fight the evils of collusion. They did it because they thought they could get away with it. They did it to gain a competitive advantage. They’re the reasons we need a salary cap.

  75. gardner47 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:16 PM

    Complete BS. Defer all money to next year and sue.

  76. rickvaldez says: Mar 12, 2012 9:17 PM

    Did Goddell really think he could take 46 mil from Snyder and Jones and they say.. Aww shucks we will accept this even though we did nothing wrong???

    The NFL is becoming comical they way they think they can control everything.

    Those owners that complained sure have no problem reaching in their pockets for the revenue sharing

  77. rarelyclever says: Mar 12, 2012 9:18 PM

    As these moves didn’t offer much competitive advantage (and really just seems to be smart money management), the punishment is shocking. $36 million off the cap is absolutely devastating in a league with this type of parity between teams. On top of that to have it distributed to other teams, this is a death penalty for the Redskins’ season.

  78. larrydavidsaysfu says: Mar 12, 2012 9:18 PM

    There is no way this is not overturned. How can you penalize a team for doing
    the right/legal thing to do? The nfl just openly admitted to collusion. Why? Because the boys and skins told them fu we aren’t going to commit a felony for you. They took advantage of the situation, legally and rightfully so. Like I said no chance this stick. And if the league tries to make it stick. You can expect an injunction or lawsuit.

  79. solomon151 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:21 PM

    No matter how you spin it, it still doesn’t make sense… It was a uncapped year and they approved!!!!!!! What am I missing?!?!?

  80. gcsuk says: Mar 12, 2012 9:21 PM

    I’m a Giants fan, and even I have an issue with this one.

  81. erod22 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:21 PM

    Love or hate these teams, you have to side with them on this. I looked it up; Dallas didn’t even sign a free agent that year. It was an uncapped year, and all four teams did what ANY team could have done. Why were the contract restructures approved by the league if there was a problem?

  82. 70chip says: Mar 12, 2012 9:21 PM

    Guess this is the beginning of #CAPGATE

  83. firethecommish says: Mar 12, 2012 9:22 PM

    Roger NOGOODell has to go! This fool HAS to be impeached. The Cowboys did not do anything wrong. They did not break any rules. They worked within the guidelines of that season. I’m sticking up for the Redskins here too, as this is just WRONG! Snyder and Jones need to get their attorneys armed and ready.

  84. warhog21 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:24 PM

    Goodell & Jim Moron aren’t getting away with this. They are messing with the wrong group of owners. Don’t start a fight you can’t win

  85. phillyphever says: Mar 12, 2012 9:24 PM

    Cry me a river. Just suck it up and move on.

  86. gtotech says: Mar 12, 2012 9:25 PM

    This whole thing smells fishy, how did everyone agree to the deal except the highest earners in the NFL? And I am sure they are not as guilty as they appear.

  87. xLith says: Mar 12, 2012 9:25 PM

    I love how people aren’t holding the teams accountable after the NFL warned them 6x. What was that about saving the owners from themselves? LOL…

  88. imissnumber21 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:25 PM

    I’m on an emotional rollercoaster.we gave up tons of draft picks…oh no,we are getting RGIII…oh hell yea,there’s no redskins free agency….WTF march is the only good time to be a skins fan,free agencies back and we are gonna be reckless and sign vjax….wahoo,season starts….damn.

  89. spytdi says: Mar 12, 2012 9:27 PM

    Don’t mess with a Arkansas Oil Tycoon in Texas and an Amusement Park King living in D.C. This story isn’t going to end for a while and I hope Jones and Snyder eat Goodell’s heart.

  90. sschmiggles says: Mar 12, 2012 9:28 PM

    They were told not to do it six times. They did it anyway. The NFL couldn’t stop it because of a loophole in the CBA, but made it clear multiple times that there would be consequences if teams used it.

    Seems crystal clear to me. 28 teams chose to comply with the league, four didn’t. They gave themselves an advantage they knew they weren’t supposed to have.

    That’s the definition of cheating.

  91. baddegg says: Mar 12, 2012 9:29 PM

    This is a game of chicken the NFL does not want. To back the Redskins and Cowboys down, they will have to admit they are guilty of collusion.

    They better watch out; I could totally see congress getting involved.

  92. conormacleod says: Mar 12, 2012 9:29 PM

    The owners themselves are the ones that appointed Rodger Goodell. And those owners are the ones that will abide by whatever he decides. Billionaires are incapable of controlling themselves, and that is why they gave that power to Goodell. Free agency starts in less than 24 hours. Good luck in your appeal.

  93. nfl1818 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:29 PM

    litigation would be coming – though something tells me they are already exempted from antitrust laws – the players presumably demanded the uncapped year to force the league to negotiate – this would subvert that agreement illegally it seems

  94. emptybackfield says: Mar 12, 2012 9:32 PM

    So DeMaurice Smith negotiated a contract with more than 6% wiggle room for the owners to set the salary cap from year to year as they see fit. The league gets Smith to sell some of his players down the river (lower salaries this year because cap money is moved from teams that would spend it to teams that won’t) so that Smith can look good (salary cap doesn’t go down) and be reelected. In future years the owners can move the cap to the lower percentage (as tv contracts go up) and perhaps keep negotiating with a NFLPA Executive Director who is more worried about himself than the players. Am I missing anything? It looks like the owners have a petty dictator and the players a used car salesman. It’s hard to believe these shenanigans are good for the league.

  95. zn0rseman says: Mar 12, 2012 9:35 PM

    The thing about this is that 28 of 32 clubs complied, and four did not giving them an unfair advantage not just in 2010, but in the years to come. For example, they were front loading contracts of free agents they signed from other teams, and their own players, during the uncapped year, to circumvent the system when the salary cap was reinstated. These teams have already reaped the rewards, or will continue to reap the rewards, of those contracts. The other owners didn’t do this, which is why the NFL has to reprimand the offending clubs now, to offset the damage done and keep the NFL balanced.

    Otherwise, you’d have four teams who knowingly broke the rules, getting away with it… kind of like the Saints are going to get away with a slap on the wrist after stealing a Lombardi Trophy.

  96. blackqbwhiterb says: Mar 12, 2012 9:36 PM

    key words- “THE LEAGUE APPROVED THE CONTRACTS”………Enough said, no??? WTF

  97. oquintero99 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:36 PM

    Im no cowboys or redskins fan but this is really messed up penalizing for something that was legal.

  98. skinsnats says: Mar 12, 2012 9:37 PM

    If I were the Skins or Cowboys I would be drafting my papers right now to file for an emergency TRO/preliminary injunction at 9am tomorrow morning in SDNY to enjoin the league from enforcing any salary cap reduction. Frankly, they have a pretty persuasive case for a TRO.

  99. craigskins21 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:37 PM

    fight his a$$…….you make rules…..the team follows the rules then you punish them!!

  100. tothefellowshipofthemiserable says: Mar 12, 2012 9:39 PM

    Let me guess ! Is this the same guy that figured the seating arrangement on last years Dallas Superbowl?

  101. JohnnyRyde says: Mar 12, 2012 9:40 PM

    The Redskins press release emphasizes that they haven’t been told this… in writing. I can’t wait to see how the NFL ties itself in knots trying to point to rules that didn’t exist. It’s going to be tricky to put this stuff down in black and white terms on a piece of paper…

    Your move, Goodell…

  102. vmannj says: Mar 12, 2012 9:41 PM

    Look at the bright side, if Goodell pisses off enough of the owners, starting with two of the wealthiest, he won’t be around too much longer.

  103. nineroutsider says: Mar 12, 2012 9:42 PM

    Too funny…couldn’t happen to a better set of fans. You guys all think the league is in place for your teams! I love it…enjoy!

  104. randygnyc says: Mar 12, 2012 9:46 PM

    By nature, I’m not a litigious person, but I see a pretty clear path to victory in the courts. After Goddell’s self-righteous rulings as of late, why would he want this fight? Why risk (and earn) the hypocrisy label?

  105. theleadersclimb says: Mar 12, 2012 9:46 PM

    does this have real consquences or are these just paper tigers? Both teams are well suited to dish out signing bonuses and prorate for the future.

  106. rickvaldez says: Mar 12, 2012 9:47 PM

    How are people still saying they cheated and broke the rules ? You can’t punish a team for taking advantage of the uncapped year just because some owners were to cheap to pay off some bad contracts. If it was illegal the NFL never would’ve approved the deal.

  107. nineroutsider says: Mar 12, 2012 9:48 PM

    usmutts says: Mar 12, 2012 9:10 PM

    Collusion is, in actual fact, what the NFL is all about. The NFL is the most successful socialist enterprise in American history. The salary cap is collusion and socialism. To punish the Cowboys and Redskins the league colluded with the players association. The office of commissioner is a collusion among the socialist owners. The draft is collusion and socialism: players (employees) are not allowed to sell their services on the open market-there is no open market because it’s socialized.

    The Cowboys and Redskins have no case against the NFL for collusion because they participate in the entire collusive system for their own profit.
    —————————————————-
    Exactly…perfect explanation! The Boys and Skins will swallow their medicine and love it. Better to be in the club than out of it…

  108. cowboyfan45 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:49 PM

    well I guess since Al Davis isn’t around to sue the NFL on every issue, it’s time Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder get together and file a lawsuit… to me, this doesn’t make sense that in an uncapped year the league was clearly using collusion against players but now are the league is punishing teams colluting with the NFLPA against the Skins and Cowboys…

  109. baldeaglejohnie says: Mar 12, 2012 9:49 PM

    Jones and Snyder should get married. they could roll around in there money and ex players jock straps together every night and brag about how much more money they have then the rest of the league owners. Of course these Jackarses would be on top of this list. couple of Redboy Cowskins……………

  110. billymc75 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:50 PM

    Maybe the NFL SHOULD investigate the damn eagles how’d they sign all those all pros?

  111. httr73 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:51 PM

    So in looking at payrolls for the 2010 season, I see the following (in millions):

    1. Oakland: $152.4
    2. Dallas: $146.4
    18. Washinton: $111.9

    Based on the penalties I truly expected the Skins and Boys to be millions over the 3rd place team. I could at least understand if not support the argument of the other organizations if the situation was that these 2 teams took advantage of small market teams by gaming the system by spending several million more than other teams. However, neither one of these teams were first on the list of 2010 salaries. And in the case of Washington, they weren’t even in the top half. It seems the other owners are pissed because these 2 teams opted not to collude.

  112. weaponx73 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:56 PM

    I love how everyone is so fired up about this like dozen of teams did this. Fact is thirty teams knew better than to do this. And lets stop pretending that Jerry and Dan aren’t know for making questionable moves both logically and morally.

  113. gweez76 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:58 PM

    No, no, no.

    The NFL has more latitude because the players are unionized. The union and the franchises both sit down as partners and write up the rules to follow. (the CBA)

    If one side make an agreement on the side (ex. Let’s say the wonders decided to offer Vjax no more than 5 mill/year apart from the CBA they are colluding. Therefore voiding their anti trust exemption.

    That miner guy is talking rubbish

  114. baddegg says: Mar 12, 2012 9:59 PM

    looks like all you guys celebrated over the cowboys/redskins undoing a little too soon.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAH

  115. inishul says: Mar 12, 2012 10:00 PM

    Funny to think that Snyder might actually get some positive press for getting his lawyers involved.

  116. PriorKnowledge says: Mar 12, 2012 10:00 PM

    BUT THEY DID NOT CHEAT!!!! I don’t care how many times they were warned. During the uncapped year, the NFL cannot instruct teams about signings of free agents without violating anti-trust laws. If Redskins or Cowboys refused to sign free agents or lowered their salaries and agree to the illegal collusion, then they are liable to criminal penalties and lawsuits for anti-trust collusion.

    It is the NFL that is trying to cheat.

  117. jwalkerinboots says: Mar 12, 2012 10:02 PM

    Funny, the author who’s last name begins with an F and ends with O won’t post comments that criticize his knee-jerk reaction to call the Skins and Boys cheaters. IN fact, he has now changed his earlier post to say that the NFL sees them as cheaters when the article orignally just flat called them cheaters. Interesting that a liar would call them cheaters.

  118. jervay77 says: Mar 12, 2012 10:02 PM

    If the League knew this then and was afraid of some owners could do what the Skins and Boys did. They should have just extended the old stinking CBA. Like it or not the Skins & Boys are right on this one. This is the business model the NFL made. Don’t create a legal loophole if you see people are going to take advantage of it. Plain and simple.

  119. alphaq2 says: Mar 12, 2012 10:03 PM

    nineroutsider says:
    Mar 12, 2012 9:48 PM
    usmutts says: Mar 12, 2012 9:10 PM

    Collusion is, in actual fact, what the NFL is all about. The NFL is the most successful socialist enterprise in American history. The salary cap is collusion and socialism. To punish the Cowboys and Redskins the league colluded with the players association. The office of commissioner is a collusion among the socialist owners. The draft is collusion and socialism: players (employees) are not allowed to sell their services on the open market-there is no open market because it’s socialized.

    The Cowboys and Redskins have no case against the NFL for collusion because they participate in the entire collusive system for their own profit.
    —————————————————-
    Exactly…perfect explanation! The Boys and Skins will swallow their medicine and love it. Better to be in the club than out of it…

    ==================

    Wanna bet? No way this sticks. Show me a picture of the secret handshake that sealed this gentleman’s agreement. However, as a redskins fan, I’d love to see Snyder get smacked with a leather glove.

  120. chadgoy says: Mar 12, 2012 10:05 PM

    Sooo….the Raiders only ended up getting punished with NO $1.6 million extra cap room. Water under the bridge.

  121. realitypolice says: Mar 12, 2012 10:05 PM

    jameslongstaffe says:
    Mar 12, 2012 9:14 PM
    Rules are rules, & they were warned. It is not fair to the other teams if they abused that. I mean, the Redskins were the team to sign Albert Haynesworth to a ridiculous contract. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
    ==================

    Good Lord, HOW are people still making this argument!?!?!? Have you actually read the articles?

    They did NOT break any rules. The RULES were that there was no cap. The league ILLEGALLY warned the teams that if they took advantage of the rules and did something completely LEGAL- bury alot of money in that uncapped year, they would be punished.

    The facts in this case are not in dispute. The league attempted to use coercion to force down contract values.

  122. skinsnats says: Mar 12, 2012 10:06 PM

    @usmutts and @nineroutsider

    You miss an important point — collusion is perfectly legal when a collective bargaining agreement (the CBA) is in force between a union and an employer. That’s why unions can agree to things like wage and benefit scales based on seniority. However, for an employer to do that in the absence of a CBA is unlawful collusion (so, because their workers are not unionized, Burger King, McDonalds and Wendy’s can’t get together and agree to cap pay or limit benefits).

    So the salary cap isn’t collusion, it’s collective bargaining. However, tacit agreements to limit pay without an in-force CBA (which is what seems to have happened here) certainly IS collusion.

    Original posts:

    Collusion is, in actual fact, what the NFL is all about. The NFL is the most successful socialist enterprise in American history. The salary cap is collusion and socialism. To punish the Cowboys and Redskins the league colluded with the players association. The office of commissioner is a collusion among the socialist owners. The draft is collusion and socialism: players (employees) are not allowed to sell their services on the open market-there is no open market because it’s socialized.

    The Cowboys and Redskins have no case against the NFL for collusion because they participate in the entire collusive system for their own profit.
    —————————————————-
    Exactly…perfect explanation! The Boys and Skins will swallow their medicine and love it. Better to be in the club than out of it…

  123. georgebrett says: Mar 12, 2012 10:07 PM

    6 times they were told. They didn’t comply. Al Davis got ridiculed each and every year for his moves but he never cheated.

  124. JohnnyRyde says: Mar 12, 2012 10:07 PM

    This whole “they were warned” thing really doesn’t hold up. Say I warn you six times that if I see you at the supermarket I’ll punch you in the face. If I then punch you in the face at the supermarket, I’m still going to be arrested for assault. The fact that a warning is issued is no reason to think that the warning has validity behind it…

  125. jwschee says: Mar 12, 2012 10:09 PM

    Here’s something I just thought of. If this stands then it is going to be something some of the other owners are going to be able to crow about getting over their more prosperous partners.

    Yet when the next CBA comes up, and yes I know it is years away. Isn’t this going to be Exhibit A for players in a collusion lawsuit?

    I think one reason players have been hesitant to really stick it out in the lawsuits, was there was a doubt if they’d win. Yet this seems to give them such hard evidence that the case would be almost a slam dunk.

    So congrats NFL, you may put it to Jerry and Dan for now. Yet during that next CBA, don’t be surprised to get steamrolled by the players.

  126. realitypolice says: Mar 12, 2012 10:10 PM

    bjbroderick says:
    Mar 12, 2012 8:56 PM
    I don’t understand the collusion part. Teams were told not to use the uncapped year as a salary dump. So why would they have to collude with the other teams to comply with that?
    ===========================

    I will explain it to you.

    Other than the rules spelled out in the CBA, the franchises are NOT supposed to act in concert with each other to hold down salaries. When the teams were warned not to use the uncapped year as a salary dump- even though they were well within the rules to do so- the league was attempting to coerce the teams in taking action as a group not to spend money.

    That is pretty much the definition of collusion.

  127. drgreenstreak says: Mar 12, 2012 10:11 PM

    Goodell is pushing it. I think the feds will end up setting him straight.
    D Smiff has colluded with Goodell and I hope they both find themselves looking for work. Not that they need the money.

  128. davidgq says: Mar 12, 2012 10:13 PM

    @nineroutsider

    Have you read the Redskins and Cowboys statement tonight? They’re not going to swallow it. Maybe you team would but not those 2 teams. Verbal and written are 2 different things. If they break the “rule”, show them where it is in writing, not verbal.

    IF I call you Stupid verbally, can you prove it in court?

  129. richardshttr says: Mar 12, 2012 10:13 PM

    Dan and Jerry own the two most successful franchises in football from a business and marketing standpoint. This will end in court! hopefully judge Judy so I can see.

  130. charger383 says: Mar 12, 2012 10:15 PM

    Danny Boy, Jerry and the Son Of AL will prevail

  131. rickvaldez says: Mar 12, 2012 10:19 PM

    I think some people should read the story…there was no rule in place to be broken. I’m pretty sure the redskins and cowboys had a lawyer go through the rules of the uncapped year before they did anything .

  132. iamhoraceknight says: Mar 12, 2012 10:20 PM

    There were NO rules to Follow. The Owners and The NFL Voted Top Have NO Cap for a year so they get out of the CBA. If you Vote to have NO Cap, Then there is NO cap. You Cant Enforce Penalties on Something you VOTED NOT To HAVE.

  133. ratay1 says: Mar 12, 2012 10:21 PM

    …ask yourself one question:

    why did the NFL want owners to NOT spend money in the uncapped year?

    …in the end, this all comes down to the fact that the players would’ve been emboldened in their position to demand significant concessions in the next CBA if many of the game’s top players received shiny new contract extensions that dropped millions of dollars in their pockets at the outset of the 2010 season.

    the league was looking for a strategic advantage, here…that’s why they didn’t want the owners opening up pocketbooks…it weakened their position and would likely serve as a driver of extending the lockout.

    in that scenario, there’s no argument that the teams were wrong here “because they didn’t heed the league’s warnings.” sorry, if that’s how it played-out, then — just like with the bogus TV contract — the NFL is guilty of breaking the law.

  134. jamaltimore says: Mar 12, 2012 10:24 PM

    The NFL and the owners have been and will always be engaged in collusion. collusion is what keeps the 32 teams on an equal playing field or ONE COMPANY THAT SHARES PROFITS. It’s obvious everytime their is a strike. Having the two richest and most dysfunctional teams suing them could be just the case the NFLPA wants so they can go to a European Soccer League type of structure.

    Jerry and Beltbuckle boy are probably on the phone with Jeff Kessler right about now.

  135. damianx31 says: Mar 12, 2012 10:34 PM

    Base Salary S. Bonus Misc. Bonus Cap Hit
    2010 20,000,000 1,083,333 13,850,000 34,933,333

    Julius Peppers 2010 Salary -
    Base Salary – $20,000,000
    S. Bonus – $1,083,333
    Misc. Bonus – $13,850,000
    Cap Hit (in the uncapped year) – $34,933,333

    That definitely looks legit to me compared to what the Cowboys and Skins did, yet no fine for the Bears. AND they get a $1.6M credit. OKKKKKKKKKKK

  136. rickvaldez says: Mar 12, 2012 10:41 PM

    So the Redskins and Cowboys should go about Free agency with the numbers they have on the books and when the NFL rejects FA contracts saying they dont have the cap room the teams can then have the NFL prove what Rule they violated to be punished.

    No rule= no violation

  137. blackqbwhiterb says: Mar 12, 2012 10:46 PM

    Mr. Goodell and his henchmen forget that they work for the owners, the owners don’t work for them.

    (Kind of reminds me of the United Nations, they used to serve member nations, now they dictate to the members what they want them to do.)

    The owners should remind their business administrator who answers to whom in the NFL.

  138. baddegg says: Mar 12, 2012 10:49 PM

    nineroutsider says: Mar 12, 2012 9:48 PM

    usmutts says: Mar 12, 2012 9:10 PM

    Collusion is, in actual fact, what the NFL is all about. The NFL is the most successful socialist enterprise in American history. The salary cap is collusion and socialism. To punish the Cowboys and Redskins the league colluded with the players association. The office of commissioner is a collusion among the socialist owners. The draft is collusion and socialism: players (employees) are not allowed to sell their services on the open market-there is no open market because it’s socialized.

    The Cowboys and Redskins have no case against the NFL for collusion because they participate in the entire collusive system for their own profit.
    —————————————————-
    Exactly…perfect explanation! The Boys and Skins will swallow their medicine and love it. Better to be in the club than out of it…
    ———————
    No, it’s not really a good explanation at all. There is a big difference between the draft, which is a process that has clear, unambiguous rules written down for all to see, and a situation where the NFL signs off on contracts in one month then penalizes those contracts the next.

    It’s one thing for the NFL to enjoy their unique economic status by according to rules that are written out for all to see. It’s another thing to make those rules up as you go along and contradict yourself in the process.

    The explanation is sorely lacking in my opinion.

  139. flsnupe says: Mar 12, 2012 10:49 PM

    bjbroderick says:
    Mar 12, 2012 8:56 PM
    I don’t understand the collusion part. Teams were told not to use the uncapped year as a salary dump. So why would they have to collude with the other teams to comply with that?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Your line “teams were told” is what collusion is. They did not have an agreement and it was illegal to tell teams what they could spend. If this stands, there will be lawsuits flying everywhere. the NFL is not being smart here.

  140. jonasgrumbyoftx says: Mar 12, 2012 10:49 PM

    Couldn’t happen to two more worthless owners.

  141. rubbernilly says: Mar 12, 2012 10:54 PM

    Doesn’t it also seem strange that after waiting so long for the cap number (with the source-substantiated rumor being that the league was somehow looking for ways to raise the number), we now have a net-effect raising of the cap number for 28 of the 32 teams?

    The League office found a way to raise the number, after all.

  142. tropboi11 says: Mar 12, 2012 10:55 PM

    This whole thing is just a big mess but it couldn’t have happened to the best teams, haha. Just when the Foreskins thought they were going to be making some big moves, boom, all their money is gone but I wont be surprised if this whole thing falls through, it just sounds to good to be true

  143. gbrussell says: Mar 12, 2012 11:11 PM

    bjbroderick says: Mar 12, 2012 8:56 PM

    I don’t understand the collusion part. Teams were told not to use the uncapped year as a salary dump. So why would they have to collude with the other teams to comply with that?

    ———————

    The 2006 and 2011 CBA both say that it is collusion for teams to have an express or implicit agreement to limit the terms that can be offered in a player contract. If the league tells teams not to use the uncapped year to pay for future cap space, that’s limiting the terms that can be offered.

    By signing the 2011 CBA though, the players gave up the right to sue the NFL for collusion that may have been committed prior to 2011. So even if they have evidence of the collusion (now), they can’t gain anything from it. Other than agree to endorse the punishment the NFL wants in exchange for some other consideration the NFL was willing to offer, like a higher salary cap than would have otherwise resulted.

  144. gonzo703 says: Mar 12, 2012 11:29 PM

    As a Redskins fan, I cannot wait till free agency starts tomorrow just so they (skins) and Cowboys can start throwing money around to whoever.

  145. musicman495 says: Mar 12, 2012 11:37 PM

    As usual, league wants it both ways – negotiates an “uncapped” year with the union, then once it goes into effect says is expects the Owners to abide by a cap anyway (clearly illegal collusioon), then strong arm the union (the executive board, not the membership) into accepting it because Dee Smith needs to get his rear reelected. Sounds more like the actions of Don Corleone than Pete Rozelle. If the players have any sense, they will kick Smith to the curb, and get their new Exec. Director to side with Snyder and Jones.

  146. musicman495 says: Mar 12, 2012 11:44 PM

    And while we are at it, how about someone in the sports media having the guts to confront Goodell with the question of making public the so called 50,000 pages of evidence against the New Orleans Bountyhunters? I don’t want to just take Mr. Goodell’s word for it in that case either, thank you. I want to find out if there really is any evidence to support the conclusions the league has given us as to the Saints *behavior* over three years – not *discussions* over three years – in intentionally hurting opponents. Or is this just a case of Goodell trying to make an example of the Saints and cover his backside in the face of these lawsuits the league is facing? Am I really the only fan who thinks it is weird that the Saints are the only team even being investigated in this probe, despite the fact that everyone in football knows “pay for performance” at least has been going on for 50 years or more?

  147. vaskinsfan says: Mar 12, 2012 11:48 PM

    Couldn’t fans sue the NFL for committing fraud? The league committed fraud by approving these contracts and now penalizing not only the teams and players that will be cut to clear salary cap space but also the fans of these teams who’ve been duped into thinking their teams made legal moves. Again, this can’t be stressed enough, the NFL office APPROVED the contracts). Some fans may have made ticket puchase decisions in part thinking that their team would be more competitive with more salary cap space to improve their team with free agents.

  148. jagerbmb says: Mar 12, 2012 11:53 PM

    Why do I get the feeling that Little Danny is going to whisper to Goodell (just to get him to bend over to hear him), while Jerry Jones plants a Cowboy boot all the way up from the other side. This doesn’t look good for Goodell.

  149. scocar says: Mar 13, 2012 12:03 AM

    This is not really a penalty. What they are saying is that those contracts you paid heavily for in the uncapped year you will now take some of that cap hit to level the playing field because too small an amount of that money is currently counting. Hypothetically if Bill Gates owned a team he could have signed everyone in 2010 to restructured contracts that paid their entire salary in the uncapped year that they could have unlimited cap space now. It clearly did give a competitive advantage to teams with owners that had huge personal bankrolls.

  150. kxlllxst says: Mar 13, 2012 12:03 AM

    Tomorrow will be interesting. The Cowboys and Redskins are saying they abided by all rules and are continuing as planned with free agency, but it’s not going to be that easy. Doesn’t the league/nflpa have to approve all contracts? The Skins/Boys can make offers and players can agree, but if the league refuses to approve… Do the players who signed wait it out until the lawsuit plays out? Do they sign elsewhere? Ai looking forward to see this one play out. And yes, wish Al Davis (RIP) was around to be a part of this showdown as well

  151. mtmal says: Mar 13, 2012 12:05 AM

    Maybe it is just me, but does anyone else get the sense from reading the Skins and Cowboys’ statements that they just intend to move forward into free agency as though the sanctions were never applied. Read the statements. The only mention of the sanctions is in Washington’s and all they say is they have received no written notice of the sanctions. If they are sure they can win in court, why sue? There is only a day until free agency, and suing costs money. Why not just sign players as though the sanctions don’t exist and make the league sue them. That way, the short notice doesn’t hurt them and the league will likely be forced to recompense them for at least some of their legal fees. Again, this is based on the assumption they are sure to win, which I would think they would, though I admit I am far from a legal expert.

  152. jimbo75025 says: Mar 13, 2012 12:19 AM

    wryly1 says:
    Mar 12, 2012 9:00 PM
    Same season Jerry Jones lost 4,000 Super Bowl seats fans had paid for. Good thing he kept his attention focused on what’s happening with his perennially under-achieving team.

    ———————————

    Not a Cowboy or JJ fan but get your facts straight. Was a few hundred and the NFL sells the Super Bowl tickets. JJ presented a seating plan during the Super Bowl bid (probably revised after awarded, etc) and the NFL sold tickets based on that. The contractors JJ hired to put in the additional seats were working until basically gametime but could not complete so the Fire Marshall said no way the seats could be occupied.

    Was a failure on many fronts, but the week leading up to Super Bowl had the worst weather I have seen in 6 years living in Dallas area so everything was hampered as basically nobody could get anywhere.

    There were other major failures also as maybe a few months before the game an NFL employee left his business laptop (with ticket, security details, etc) sitting in his car while eating around the stadium and was stolen.

    Other than the seat debacle no different than Atlanta in 2000 when an ice storm hit a day or two before the game and screwed everything up.
    Right or wrong, SB has not been in Atlanta since and doubt will be in Dallas again anytime soon.

  153. geemoney713 says: Mar 13, 2012 12:19 AM

    Great, so now as a Redskins fan I’m gonna team up with Cowboys fans to cheer on this one and what… hate the Eagles the most now?

    This really confuses the ideals I grew up with.

  154. nss987 says: Mar 13, 2012 12:23 AM

    Hmm…Roger and the NFL waited for the passing of Al Davis to impose these ridiculous sanctions.

  155. maverick2560 says: Mar 13, 2012 12:23 AM

    Let’s understand the NFL and nflpa agree to penalize two teams who violated an imaginary cap level which in the short term and long term actually created more money or benefit for the player.All the while have failed to penalize those teams who failed to meet the minimum spending requirements (also a somewhat imaginary minimum) which in real terms or money harmed the players. These cheap teams are now also receive more benefits in the cap by virtue of being able to carry over their unused cap number, thereby creating an artificial way of once again meeting the new minimum requirements.
    If only Judge Doty were in play!
    This conduct is consistent with the owners and Mr. Goodalls conduct in their secret negotiations with the networks to create a strike fund. Judge Doty clearly found the NFL to have violated it’s duty to the players.
    The nflpa should be ashamed of itself.

  156. jwreck says: Mar 13, 2012 12:29 AM

    If my kid asks me for a cookie and I say sure, go take a cookie from the jar. So he eats his cookie, then two hours later, after dinner, he asks for another cookie, I can’t say “no, no desserts, you’re grounded. You know you’re not soused to have desserts before dinner, but I saw you easy a cookie. So now you’re in trouble and can’t have any desserts.” That would make me a horrible parent. I gave him an effin cookie, and goodell signed off on the effin contracts, you punish somebodylong after the fact for something you previously okayed. at least not in football. I don’t know if that’s how parenting works, I’m 22 but I thought the analogy was perfect.

  157. maverick2560 says: Mar 13, 2012 12:30 AM

    One additional thought, did the nflpa waive all it’s rights to bring suit for collusive acts by the NFL it was not aware of. I believe the union might have an argument if they were unaware of the NFL s conduct.
    However given the unions past I believe it is unlikely.

  158. jwreck says: Mar 13, 2012 12:32 AM

    *supposed to have desserts before dinner, but I saw you eat that cookie.

    Last time I ever post from my phone.

  159. savvybynature says: Mar 13, 2012 12:32 AM

    The way I see it is, it is bad for league-wide parity to have the two richest owners spending like drunken sailors without a salary cap, which is meant to be a significant motivation for owners to get a CBA deal done!
    The league shouldn’t shield the owners from the negative consequences of not negotiating a CBA, those natural motivations to negotiate are what is supposed to drive the whole deal. Take away the consequences of failing to negotiate a deal and you screw up the whole system.
    The owners and the league obviously acted in collusion here and I hope their own hubris brings down the entire glass house.

  160. Angry Orange Man says: Mar 13, 2012 12:44 AM

    So they broke the unwritten rules and still sucked. Isn’t that punishment enough?

  161. geniusesq says: Mar 13, 2012 12:52 AM

    The only thing that could bring the Skins & Cowboys together is a joint lawsuit to fight this crock of B.S.

  162. davidgq says: Mar 13, 2012 1:11 AM

    So I am driving to work every day on this highway at 70 mph(the Speed Limit is 70). Polices told me not to drive too fast because speeding is dangerous.

    Two years from now they put up a new sign with Speed Limit 55. I receive a ticket in the mail for going 70 mph 2 years ago. How cool is that?

  163. youallrfools says: Mar 13, 2012 1:16 AM

    500 posts by rubes who forget the NFL is an organization who gave a directive that was not followed. Just cause you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

  164. mjkelly77 says: Mar 13, 2012 1:33 AM

    And Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.

  165. crisco2001 says: Mar 13, 2012 1:36 AM

    You haters that keep commenting on the warnings given by the league need to learn what collusion means. That was that whole collusion part. By telling the teams that they cant spend over a non existent cap in an “uncapped” year. Again, pay attention to the part that says uncapped. There are no rules in the agreement that state that they cannot spend.

    By telling the teams not to spend, the league is limiting players salaries without a written agreement. That is the definition of collusion, and illegal. They also approved the contracts. It does not matter that they were worried about being sued by the union, they still approved them. How can you approve something and then later say that these teams were in the wrong. These are the issues that some of you haters dont get. This is a bad presidence to set.

  166. drisdale says: Mar 13, 2012 1:37 AM

    How about Godell’s timing on this one? Nice.

  167. stercuilus65 says: Mar 13, 2012 2:30 AM

    jagerbmb says: Mar 12, 2012 11:53 PM

    “Why do I get the feeling that Little Danny is going to whisper to Goodell (just to get him to bend over to hear him), while Jerry Jones plants a Cowboy boot all the way up from the other side. This doesn’t look good for Goodell.”
    ===============

    Funniest comment of the day. Goodell is the one in charge here. He’s the on wearing the big boy pants. This was initiated by the other owners who played by the rules.
    It was Jones and Danny Boy who just got their asses handed to them and they aren’t going to be able to do squat about it.

  168. rodell77 says: Mar 13, 2012 3:16 AM

    The league tried to cross Jones once before over revenue sharing and lost. This one will be easy. You have to know the Skins and Boys knew this was coming. The two most valuable franchises…..COME ON MAN!!!!!

  169. rodell77 says: Mar 13, 2012 3:22 AM

    Oh and that Superbowl for North Texas to atone for the last one is soon to be a done deal.

  170. maxvain says: Mar 13, 2012 3:37 AM

    Is it safe to say that an apt comparison would be that of the Cowboys and Redskins breaking the picket line?

    Player have a union we all know that, but can we for simplicity sake look at the NFL league members as a unified body as well. So it appears that everyone had the opportunity to act in the same manner in which the Cowboys and Redskins acted, but choose not to for some strange reason… dare I say being honorable.

    So the Skins and the Boys decided to get ahead not by out drafting, out playing, out managing… they decided to play the game using 5 downs instead of 4.

    Ethically right… answer is a clear no.

    Legally right? Could be, but I am sure we will find out soon enough!

    What if all teams decided to front load contracts and for players, can you imagine the bidding war! Yankees Sox’s anyone?

  171. rickvaldez says: Mar 13, 2012 6:50 AM

    So the union did this for the players? You take cap money from 2 owners that were willing and able to spend it and give it to other teams that are to cheap to use it just to make the overall number look good. How are the players the Redskins and Cowboys feeling that will be cut because of this?

    NFLPA is just as crooked as the NFL.

    If the cheap owners wont spend because the cant make money then sell or fold the team, dont punish the owners that do.

  172. stanklepoot says: Mar 13, 2012 7:23 AM

    dequan81 says: Mar 12, 2012 8:43 PM

    This is already an annoying story that I will follow immensely. Still confused on how the NFL approves contracts then 2 years later penalize the teams.
    ___________________________
    If you look past the contractual and legal speak, it’s a pretty simple story really. The owners came together and struck an agreement on what to do in the uncapped year, all the time planning ahead for the lockout they knew was coming. When the uncapped year came into effect, the Redskins and Cowboys backed out of the arrangement. They didn’t simply spend too much money, they wrote up the contracts so that the vast majority of the money was paid in the uncapped year, meaning that when the cap came back into effect those players’ salaries would hit the cap for about the same amount as that of a backup player. The league approved those deals because it couldn’t legally not approve those deals. It was an uncapped year after all. Once the CBA was agreed upon (thereby removing the threat of anti-trust litigation) the other owners decided to make the offending owners pay for betraying them. This has nothing to do with Goodell really. He’s simply managing the system. It’s the owners that came up with this idea.

  173. waltdawg says: Mar 13, 2012 7:41 AM

    This really is awful! Worse than if they had takend our 1st round draft pick! How could the league handicap our team like this??? I mean 36 million? Really Roger? How can you do this and make our team suffer? This is unfounded and unfair. How can we file a league complaint?

  174. juanhughjazz says: Mar 13, 2012 7:47 AM

    It’s because of owners like Snyder and Jones that we need a salary cap in the NFL. The salary cap is why the NFL is so popular. Who would watch football if only 4 or 5 clubs could remain competitive. Snyder and Jones thought they could get away with it, and I hope they don’t.

  175. stanklepoot says: Mar 13, 2012 7:49 AM

    It’s kind of funny really. When the lockout was going on and people who were making pro-player comments mentioned collusion and anti-trust laws they got jumped all over. Now that it’s affecting certain teams as a whole, and not individual players, people are remarking on what a clear case of collusion this is. It is, of course, a case of collusion, and it’s certainly not the only one. Now that there’s a CBA in effect, however, the league has anti-trust exemptions that protect them from collusion charges. The agreement they reached with the players also gives them amnesty shall we say from any collusion charges that would have resulted from their actions during the period in which there was no CBA. So, unlike what someone stated earlier, the other owners are free to exact their revenge on the owners they believe betrayed them because this can’t be used against them in the courts by the players…and the owners certainly aren’t going to shoot themselves in the foot by bringing these issues in front of a judge (court interference is exactly the last thing the owners want). At worst, if there is a lockout in the future and the players can demonstrate future cases of collusion, then this one can be used to demonstrate a pattern of behavior.

    Oh, and can we can the Socialist BS? The league as a whole, and the owners in particular, are anything but Socialists. If you want to label them something, the accurate term would be Cartel: a small group of business/individuals who come together to regulate the cost of labor and the price of their product. The whole purpose of the NFL is to control the industry and maximize owner profit. In other words, it’s about concentrating the most amount of money possible into a small number of hands. That’s hardly Socialism. The problem is that there have been so many incorrect accusations of Socialism in the political realm that now people simply yell socialism any time something happens they don’t agree with. It’s like all those people that kept saying everything was ironical after that Alanis Morrissette song, despite the fact that the things she sang weren’t instances of irony at all.

  176. georgebrett says: Mar 13, 2012 11:46 AM

    That’s not what happened.

  177. pastorbobs says: Mar 13, 2012 3:55 PM

    Great article, Skins and Boys fire opening shots for what will be a fight. NFL/NFLPA and Goodell have no leg to stand on, and it could open a huge can of worms if their evidence relies on open collusion.

    In the end there will probably be some settlement solution that both agree to. Neither side wants to take it to court.

  178. hail67 says: Mar 13, 2012 4:12 PM

    I would have to say honestly…the NFL, Goodell, the other 28 owners, have sunk to a new low on this one. I don’t see what it was that Jones and Snyder did wrong…they are businessmen – first! They saw a loophole and capitalized on it. To all you folks (and haters) out there that are bashing the Cowboys and Redskins for what they did..They did nothing wrong. Remember, to those two, this is business! They did what is done every single day in the BUSINESS world-capitalized on an opportunity or in this case a BS NFL faux pas loophole. They did what the others are too scare to do..you need read between the lines. This is about the other owners in the league being too cheap, too scared, whining and vindictive against the two top money dogs in the league. I am NOT a Cowboys fan…I am a born and bred Redskins fan but guess what? I’m all in for the Boys and the Skins on this one..call it whateva you want. Bad karma, what goes around comes around…whatever! Probably, but trust …the NFL needs to lawyer up because Jones/Snyder have a case so stop bashing these owners and look at what’s the real…the NFL/Goodell are full of it and need to get backhanded for this one because it stinks!

  179. hail67 says: Mar 13, 2012 4:16 PM

    And how perfect is their timing with the ish?!! Gimme a break!

  180. jameslongstaffe says: Mar 13, 2012 5:12 PM

    Rules are rules, and they were warned. They should not be allowed to dump salary in an uncapped year. Not when other teams complied with theses restrictions. Why even have any rules? I would appreciate, if teams like the Redskins, whom are typically very active in FA, were actually held accountable for their decisions. That is my personal opinion. Good work NFL:)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!