Skip to content

NFL warned teams “at least six times” about not dumping salary in uncapped year

Daniel+Snyder+Denver+Broncos+v+Washington+CyPWlgbILpZl Getty Images

Many of you (specifically, Cowboys and Redskins fans) are wondering how and why the NFL would strip millions in cap money for 2012 and/or 2013 from teams that simply took full advantage of the uncapped year.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the teams were told “at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to dump salaries.

The Cowboys and Redskins engaged in “systematic dumping” of salaries into the uncapped year, despite the warnings.

As to the Saints and Raiders, who won’t lose cap space but likewise won’t get the $1.6 million per team that will be redistributed based on the cap space taken from the Redskins and Cowboys, it’s our understanding that the violations were far less severe.  For the Raiders, the dumping of salary in 2010 arose specifically from the dumping of JaMarcus Russell from the roster.

Permalink 150 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Dallas Cowboys, New Orleans Saints, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
150 Responses to “NFL warned teams “at least six times” about not dumping salary in uncapped year”
  1. billinva says: Mar 12, 2012 4:14 PM

    The Raiders shouldn’t be penalized for dumping Fat Marcus. The guy clearly sucked and had to go. I hope they appeal.

  2. spytdi says: Mar 12, 2012 4:14 PM

    But it was approved by the NFL anyway? Pretards

  3. savocabol1 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:15 PM

    HA! Can’t play by the rules.

  4. daysend564 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:15 PM

    Where are the Bears with Pepper’s $35M salary in 2010?

  5. medtxpack says: Mar 12, 2012 4:15 PM

    “For the Raiders, the dumping of salary in 2010 arose specifically from the dumping of JaMarcus Russell from the roster.”

    The NFL felt bad for the Raiders i guess…

  6. jahbird says: Mar 12, 2012 4:15 PM

    Goodell APPROVED THE CONTRACTS! He needs to go.

  7. westampa says: Mar 12, 2012 4:16 PM

    RG3 should pull an Eli / Elway and refuse to play for Washington. They aren’t going to be able to get him V-Jax now and they are destined to remain in cap trouble for the next few years now.

  8. coutre says: Mar 12, 2012 4:16 PM

    So you can front load a contract and get penalized, but you can fake injuries during a play and deliberately have too many men on the field and get rewarded by winning a Super Bowl?

  9. finsfan4life1977 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:16 PM

    Looks like the Redskins just lost out on Vincent Jackson.

  10. jdandcoke says: Mar 12, 2012 4:16 PM

    well, there you have it. so much for them filing their appeals. idiots.

  11. trollhammer20 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:16 PM

    The crying on this issue from two of the NFL’s most spoiled-brat fanbases will be LEGENDARY.

    Going to Costco for the army-sized popcorm container right after work.

  12. dae42 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:16 PM

    Danny and Jerry strike again! Truly amazing…

  13. 808raiderinparadise says: Mar 12, 2012 4:16 PM

    LoL , come on, you can’t penalize a team for dumping JaMarcus Russell, give us the $1.6 million. If anything you should have fined the Raiders and Al for drafting him.

  14. vonmiller58 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:17 PM

    This is confusing as fu.

  15. derekjetersmansion says: Mar 12, 2012 4:17 PM

    Who’s more furious, Jerry and Dan or the players?

  16. kylecleric says: Mar 12, 2012 4:17 PM

    And how is it ok for the league to first of all make these warnings and secondly, act on them?

  17. AlanSaysYo says: Mar 12, 2012 4:17 PM

    A team that dumps JaMarcus Russell should get a parade, not a punishment.

  18. billinva says: Mar 12, 2012 4:18 PM

    The more I read about this, the more it doesn’t make sense. There was no cap, what right does the league office have to tell teams not to spend money?

    It certainly isn’t cheating.

  19. rickvaldez says: Mar 12, 2012 4:18 PM

    Snyder and Jones should get a legal team together on this. If they broke no rules how can you punish them and on top of that take their money and give it to the competition?

    Was Davis the only owner man enough to stand up to the NFL

  20. dequan81 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:18 PM

    So on the eve of free agency the NFL slaps down this? They create the cap number yesterday? What’s is going on? Are they making it up as they go along?

  21. alpod says: Mar 12, 2012 4:18 PM

    “For the Raiders, the dumping of salary in 2010 arose specifically from the dumping of JaMarcus Russell from the roster.”
    ___________________________________

    This is why this doesn’t make sense. How can you call that “salary dumping”? The guy would’ve been cut if the cap was $100 million.

  22. touchdownroddywhite says: Mar 12, 2012 4:18 PM

    So this is not an issue of contracts being overly loaded to the front side to lock up players long term for low salaries in future years but due to teams using the uncapped year to cut players that resulted in massive amounts of dead money?

    Could you guys clarify just a tad?

  23. earfsten7 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:18 PM

    If the other tight-wad owners didn’t want teams like the Cowboys or Redskins do this, then they shouldn’t have had an uncapped year in the first place.

  24. Grulks says: Mar 12, 2012 4:18 PM

    Perhaps you could do some actual research, and list for us readers, WHAT players were considered as having their salaries “dumped” ?

  25. baddegg says: Mar 12, 2012 4:18 PM

    What…so the Raiders should have been forced to keep Jamarcus Russell? That makes no sense.

  26. tinbender2000 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:19 PM

    So the Raiders lose league money for getting JaMarcus out of the league? Didn’t they pay and suffer enough?

  27. nineroutsider says: Mar 12, 2012 4:19 PM

    What else are we going to learn about this year? Is this why they lagged on releasing the cap for 2012?

    One step at a time, but it’s time to light up the Saints…hard! Goodell don’t play, he don’t give a sh@t…gotta say the commish is winning me over…he punishes clubs just as hard as players.

  28. mdock88 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:19 PM

    this is a penalty for not colluding…if there was a gentlemen’s agreement not to spend over a certain amount then that is clear evidence of collusion. NFLPA should sue.

  29. kuantan97 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:19 PM

    “With the 2nd pick in the 2012 NFL Draft, the Washington Redskins select…Justin Blackmon.”

    That pick, of course, following the refusal of RG3 to play for such a dysfunctional franchise as the Washington Foreskins.

  30. sickcuz says: Mar 12, 2012 4:19 PM

    And the league really cares about player safety as they push for 18 games.

  31. deangelo1776 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:20 PM

    Daniel Snyder is a goofy looking dude. He gives nerds everywhere hope

  32. skinsrock says: Mar 12, 2012 4:20 PM

    Yeah, but what the league is saying…. ALL BONUSES SHOULD BE COUNTED toward every team in the league… They are punishing us for giving bonuses to 2 people…. Haynesworth for 21 million & 15 million for D Hall… So, no other team gave a bonus during the uncapped year? At very least, it should of been a percentage, not the whole amount…. cause bonuses count toward the cap as a portion for each season, not the entire amount for one season! Also, Haynesworth was traded & wasn’t even a Redskin in 2012… Goodell has a little man complex.

  33. rg3isthekidinthegoodburgermovie says: Mar 12, 2012 4:20 PM

    Redskins karma for taking RGIII away from the Browns. Enjoy having a quality QB with no supporting cast and no picks/salary cap space to supplement his talent. Rams will be loving those top 10 picks. He’ll be gone after his rookie contract.

  34. thetooloftools says: Mar 12, 2012 4:20 PM

    What were the Raiders supposed to do… keep JaMarcus Russell on the payroll? He was as worthless of a player as I have ever seen. Dumping him was totally justified. He was a loser.

  35. calibear831 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:21 PM

    But the raiders had a good reason to drop jamarcu russell!!. . .he sucked!!

  36. brandondash says: Mar 12, 2012 4:21 PM

    I wasn’t aware that “warnings” were legally binding.

  37. silvernblackpa says: Mar 12, 2012 4:21 PM

    “For the Raiders, the dumping of salary in 2010 arose specifically from the dumping of JaMarcus Russell from the roster.”

    Wait, what? The Raiders are being punished because Al finally reached his breaking point in 2010 off-season & cut ties with one of the two biggest busts in NFL history? Were they supposed to keep him as a 16 week inactive 4th string sucking up a roster spot?

    Someone tell me I’m misinterpreting this.

  38. gregthomas77 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:21 PM

    the NFL APPROVED the contracts

    and

    you can’t warn teams to follow non-existant rules.

    I would sue.

  39. bigd88 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:21 PM

    This still doesn’t explain how you can punish someone for breaking a rule that was never in place…
    Furthermore, this still doesn’t explain how this wasn’t collusion by the NFL to keep player salaries down during the uncapped year.

    Bottomline: The Redskins and Cowboys didn’t break any rules. It is pretty unlawful for an entity to punish a party that did not break any established rules. And this smells a whole heck of a lot like illegal collusion by the NFL.

  40. mercurialcj says: Mar 12, 2012 4:21 PM

    You have no idea how happy this makes me. Cowboys fans everywhere were bragging about getting Carl Nicks and Cortland Finnegan. HA! Not anymore!

  41. attyken says: Mar 12, 2012 4:22 PM

    RGIII would force a trade if he is as smart as people say he is.

  42. infectorman says: Mar 12, 2012 4:22 PM

    New Orleans Saint’s; caught cheating twice in 2 weeks doin’ the Louisiana 2 step

  43. mdpickles says: Mar 12, 2012 4:22 PM

    Dan Snyder and Jerruh Jones, good luck fighting for last place.

  44. anyslacking says: Mar 12, 2012 4:22 PM

    I swear the Redskins are taking part in some reality TV show where they pick a man off the street and give him the GM job

  45. fringetastic says: Mar 12, 2012 4:22 PM

    You can warn me all day about anything, but until there’s a rule on the books, so what?

    WHERE IS THE RULE?

  46. pwningpft says: Mar 12, 2012 4:23 PM

    How does the league approve deals then do this. The league had to approve these restructures at the time. What this really is, is a group of owners not liking what 2 teams are doing and feeling its unfair. This makes the next CBA a potential powderkeg.

  47. bucsfan714 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:23 PM

    Bruce Allen = FAIL

  48. mdpickles says: Mar 12, 2012 4:23 PM

    Certainly looks like cheating to me! Muahahahahah!

  49. derekjetersmansion says: Mar 12, 2012 4:23 PM

    @thetooloftools

    Cut him the year before.

  50. crimhollingsworth says: Mar 12, 2012 4:24 PM

    There are probably, oh, 28 or so owners that agree with Goodell on this one. Redskins and Cowboys fans crying conspiracy on the Internet likely won’t change anything.

  51. FinFan68 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:24 PM

    NFL warned teams “at least six times” about not dumping salary in uncapped year
    ____________________
    And then the league authorized each instance by officially approving every single contract they are now complaining about. The time time to show “disapproval” was when the contracts were involved in the approval process, not now. It’s stuff like this that makes the league look inept and breeds the conspiracy theories

  52. baddegg says: Mar 12, 2012 4:25 PM

    westampa says:Mar 12, 2012 4:16 PM

    RG3 should pull an Eli / Elway and refuse to play for Washington. They aren’t going to be able to get him V-Jax now and they are destined to remain in cap trouble for the next few years now.

    —————–

    31million under now-18mill lost this year (taking average) =13 left this year + they have already dumped several players to open up more than 5 million of additional cap space. How are they in cap trouble exactly?

  53. cowboyhater says: Mar 12, 2012 4:25 PM

    Waiting hear from Bruce Allen, and Mike Shanahan before I believe this BS from the NFL. Even if they were warned, the cap penalty doesn’t match the crime. They just take a number, and think how much is just enough to screw this team. The penalty should be to take away the ownership from Dan Snyder for running this organization into the ground.

  54. mataug says: Mar 12, 2012 4:26 PM

    The NFLPA will be very very interested in this. How is this not collusion by the owners on not front loading the contracts in 2010 ?

  55. phillyforlife says: Mar 12, 2012 4:26 PM

    No you dont understand, they are just hitting them with the dead money they would have had anyway. Sorry but you can not circumvent the system

  56. derekjetersmansion says: Mar 12, 2012 4:26 PM

    @daysend564

    I’m guessing the bonuses were prorated, like they should’ve been.

    Cowboys and Redskins didn’t prorate them, and got busted.

  57. paleandpasty says: Mar 12, 2012 4:26 PM

    rg3isthekidinthegoodburgermovie says: Mar 12, 2012 4:20 PM

    Great name. He does look like that guy.

  58. getyourownname says: Mar 12, 2012 4:27 PM

    Little Danny better hope RGIII doesn’t decide he wants to go somewhere else, like Eli or Elway.

  59. Joe Ferraro says: Mar 12, 2012 4:27 PM

    what the hell did “uncapped” mean, anyway?!

  60. raylewis52 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:27 PM

    God sakes give the Raiders a break they had to suffer through Jamarcus Russel.

  61. guitarmaninks says: Mar 12, 2012 4:27 PM

    Don’t be surprised if the NFL hierarchy is reminded of exactly whom they work for…They all need to think about it…There is a ten year CBA in place and new TV contracts also…Not a good time to pi$$ off the people that sign your paychecks.

  62. jdandcoke says: Mar 12, 2012 4:27 PM

    the cowboys will survive this hit…the skins are sunk. coupled wit the fact that they have no firts round picks until 2015, this could easily set the skins back 5-7 years.

    the skins are now officially the new lions.

  63. derekjetersmansion says: Mar 12, 2012 4:28 PM

    @gregthomas77

    The league could sue them for insubordination. These two are so stubborn.

  64. realitypolice says: Mar 12, 2012 4:28 PM

    I am not sure I understand this.

    You keep saying that the NFL “warned” teams not to do this, but no one has referenced a specific written-down-clearly-in-black-and-white rule about dumping and what would and would not constitute excessive salary dumping.

    Like mdock88 says, if there wasn’t a specific rule in the books outlawing the practice, than coercion by the league to not engage in a technically legal practice would seem to indicate collusion, no?

    I’m probably missing something.

    But when was the last time a league “warned” teams over and over not to do something that doesn’t appear to have violated a specific rule?

  65. maatopdogg32 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:28 PM

    That still brings up the question if they were warned how did the NFL still approve the contracts!!! That year was an uncapped year which means if I wanted to sign a player to a 30 million dollar contract over 5 years the 1st year I gave him 20 million up front and made 5 more smaller payments for the remaining years. How is that illegal or is a violation. That year had no cap ceiling.

  66. bigbluefan1 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:28 PM

    Good news for the Giants
    Redskins no money to do an damn thing
    Cowboys does not matter as long as Romo is behind center.

    And the Saint just keep on marching off a cliff
    Got to love it

  67. datskinzdude says: Mar 12, 2012 4:28 PM

    It always amazes me that non-Skin fans read the headline, click on the headline, read the article then find time to write and give their opinion. It shows that you care about anything that is positivity or negativity said about us.

    Thank you in advance for building our fan base.

  68. footballfanman says: Mar 12, 2012 4:29 PM

    God, everything is looking great for us then this happens. SMH. But at least we can spread it out over two seasons. 18 million this year still gives us 12 million is cap space. The league is really trying to screw us here.

  69. r8rsfan says: Mar 12, 2012 4:30 PM

    Too bad Al isn’t still around because he would have LOVED to beat the heck out of the league in court with this. Sizzurp Boy is still hurting the team.

  70. gmen4life33 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:30 PM

    “So you can front load a contract and get penalized, but you can fake injuries during a play and deliberately have too many men on the field and get rewarded by winning a Super Bowl?”

    NFL didnt tell the Giants 6 times not to do either of those things. And every team faked injuries, Giants just did a horribly acting job. If you want to hate on the Giants, say they are terrible actors.

    As far as the deliberate too many players on field, it wasnt deliberate. I wish it was, it would make us look a lot smarter, but it wasnt. And it is a tactic Buddy Ryan made to stop goal line situations late in games, Giants didnt make it, and were trying to do it.

  71. scratchnpost1234 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:31 PM

    Cowboys signed Miles Austin to a $17 million base salary so it all came off that year . Austin’s a decent receiver but he’s not worth $17 million a year. This would have been a smaller base salary with a signing bonus that would have carried over on his remaining contract years. THAT’s how they dumped his salary in an uncapped year. Fitzgerald doesn’t make $17 million in base salary and the cowboys did exactly what they were told not to. Not sure what the skins offense was

  72. 611jmp says: Mar 12, 2012 4:32 PM

    The whining and crying in Dallas and Washington will be epic. In response to the early bird whiners – did you read the headline for this story?

    NFL WARNED TEAMS “AT LEAST SIX TIMES” ABOUT NOT DUMPING SALARY IN UNCAPPED YEAR.

    If they were warned six times, you can’t complain. They should not be allowed to get an advantage over the other teams that actually heeded the warnings. To demonstrate the absurdity of the whining, I suppose Cowboy fan will tell us it isn’t their fault the other teams followed the rules…

  73. gmen4life33 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:33 PM

    “That still brings up the question if they were warned how did the NFL still approve the contracts!!! That year was an uncapped year which means if I wanted to sign a player to a 30 million dollar contract over 5 years the 1st year I gave him 20 million up front and made 5 more smaller payments for the remaining years. How is that illegal or is a violation. That year had no cap ceiling.”

    It is “illegal” because NFL told all owners 6 times in meeting not to do it. If one team did it, all would start, and it make end up costing owners and league money. While Snyder and Joens dont care about that, NFL had to look out for all owners and make it fair

  74. hail74 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:34 PM

    vinny did this not allen bucsfan, and again for all the haters who are not very bright we can split the 36mil over 2 years. so for example we give 10mil this year and 26 next year when the cap jumps up by 20mil because of the tv contracts we will be left with a little over 20mil in cap space this year.

  75. rcampore says: Mar 12, 2012 4:35 PM

    coutre says: Mar 12, 2012 4:16 PM

    So you can front load a contract and get penalized, but you can fake injuries during a play and deliberately have too many men on the field and get rewarded by winning a Super Bowl?

    ___________________________________

    Yeah okay, believe that one hater…… not that Tuck was running off the field and didn’t get off past the line before Brady threw the pass and guess what, if they caught the ball the play would have stood. The play went on and there were only 11 men actually defending.

    Another hater as usual.

  76. batterystreet says: Mar 12, 2012 4:35 PM

    The NFL probably would have let this go, but I bet all the other owners told Goodell to come down hard because they all followed the “rule,” but the Cowboys and Redskins pretty much flipped every other team the bird and did what they wanted.
    I don’t think it was collusion because they didn’t say teams shouldn’t spend the money, just don’t dump it all in the uncapped year.

  77. jakek2 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:35 PM

    The NFL is so ridiculous. I’m a Giant fan and take great pleasure in the misfortunes of the Skins and Cowboys. However, what Goodell has done to those teams is completely unfair. How do you penalize a team that many tens of millions for violating what amounts to an “unwritten rule”. If Goodell was concerned with salary dumping in the uncapped year, he should have circulated a memo saying you can’t dump more than ___% of any player’s contract into 2010. Without such a rule, who is it to say whether any player’s bonus on any other team wasn’t put into 2010 with the intent to dump??? Goodell has got to go. HE IS KILLING THE NFL!!!

  78. dvdman123 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:35 PM

    The NFL if funnier than watching old reruns of classic Saturday Night Live episodes. You couldn’t write better material if you tried.

  79. scratchnpost1234 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:36 PM

    Nothing wrong with a $17 million contract for Austin except he isn’t worth that in base salary. Had the $17 million been base salary and bonuses there wouldn’t be a problem. The NFL ok’d the contract because it was ok for the cowboys to pay austin $17 million in base if they were stupid enough to do that but by not including a signing bonus in that they dumped his whole salary on THAT year instead of having his bonuses counting against this season and net like most contracts are written. They took advantage of the uncapped year by getting $17 million off the books in one uncapped season….got it now?

  80. wrossi81 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:36 PM

    I predict this lasts roughly until the lawyers for Snyder and Jones serve the NFL with lawsuits alleging that this is enforcing an illegal collusion agreement in 2010. Uncapped is uncapped. And I’m an Eagles fan who’d love nothing more than to see the Cowboys and Redskins lose out on their salary cap amounts.

  81. theravenlives2 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:37 PM

    Listen to you guys crying like teenage girls hitting puberty.

    The league told them each at least six times that if they did this it would be considered breaking the rules. They also told them that there would be consequences.

    They disregarded the rules and are being punished. Yes, it was verbal and not written, but it was communicated to them at least six times. Breaking the rules was a choice they made….

    What part are you not understanding?

  82. laeaglefan says: Mar 12, 2012 4:39 PM

    “For the Raiders, the dumping of salary in 2010 arose specifically from the dumping of JaMarcus Russell from the roster”

    I don’t think anyone, not even Roger Goodell, could argue that dumping Russell wasn’t justified.

  83. emonciva says: Mar 12, 2012 4:39 PM

    If these teams are going to be penalized for dumping salaries during a year with NO CAP, what about the teams that ignored the salary floor? I found these numbers.

    Team 2010 Salary
    Kansas City Chiefs $79 million
    Tampa Bay Buccaneers $79 million
    Jacksonville Jaguars $81 million
    Cincinnati Bengals $85 million
    Arizona Cardinals $91 million
    St. Louis Rams $92 million
    Buffalo Bills $98 million

    If you’re going to enforce a salary cap during an uncapped year, shouldn’t you also enforce the salary floor?

    Were these teams warned that they better spend the same minimum as a capped year? I don’t see how one if worse than the other. There’s a cap for a reason as there’s a floor for a reason. It sure wasn’t as if the Cowboys and Redskins went out and bought up all the talent….

  84. savocabol1 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:40 PM

    I don’t think a lot of you Redskin fans get what you guys did that was unfair to the rest of the league. You signed a lot of players to front loaded contracts so they could get paid and stay on your team for the long haul. Since you took most of the brunt in the uncapped year your subsequent years weren’t going to have much of a hit while still having these high paid signings. This creates a competitive advantage because each of the years after 2010 you are under the cap.

    You guys are incredible and it shows why you are stationed in D.C. You blame EVERYONE else for your mistakes.

  85. conormacleod says: Mar 12, 2012 4:42 PM

    Love the whining from Redskins and Cowboys fans. Look, the NFL is a private business. Stop acting like Goodell isn’t within his right to do this! The owners have given him this power because billionaires know they can’t control themselves!

  86. natswizskincap says: Mar 12, 2012 4:44 PM

    Can someone help JDandcoke with his spelling. I love when retards fail at talking sh*t!!!

  87. dcfan21 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:45 PM

    I bet these accused owners regret giving Goodell his $10,000,000/year salary!

  88. ajknox88 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:46 PM

    It’s a bad time to be a Redskins fan after you just got so excited about getting RG3

  89. rcampore says: Mar 12, 2012 4:46 PM

    People keep bringing up the fact that the NFL had to approve the contracts and why didn’t they stop them.

    My guess is they figured that the 6 times they warned them was sufficient warning enough and they were going to let the contracts stand basically understanding that if they see this as dumping salaries, they would then severely punish these teams.

    It’s kind of like telling your kids not to have a party while their gone and then leaving the house for the weekend with the fridge full of food, and beer, and giving them cash.

    Not saying it’s very fair.

  90. scratchnpost1234 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:47 PM

    Didn’t the Skins get rid of Portis and Fat Albert? Was that their offense?

  91. scratchnpost1234 says: Mar 12, 2012 4:53 PM

    Better explanation from Albert Breer NFL.com

    Prior to the uncapped year, the competition committee warned teams that punishment would be levied for taking advantage of the circumstances. The Redskins and Cowboys were the most egregious offenders, as they dumped huge base salaries to players such as DeAngelo Hall, Albert Haynesworth and Miles Austin into the 2010 season in order to get the big numbers in those deals off the books while there was no cap.
    Hope this clear up the violation and what it was all about.

  92. realitypolice says: Mar 12, 2012 4:54 PM

    If I am Jerry Jones/and or Dan Snyder, I file a lawsuit immediately and ask for injunctive relief preventing the opening of free agency.

    He can make a pretty good case that

    a) he didn’t violate any provision of the CBA

    b) any “warnings” from the league should be discounted because they would be a form a collusion AND because the league approved the contracts and

    c) allowing free agency to start with these penalties in place would severely hamper his abilities to run his business.

    Unless there is more to this story, I don’t see how he could lose. The CBA is the binding agreement that would certainly supersede any “warnings” from the league and he could certainly show possible irreparable damage if free agency is allowed to proceed before this matter settled.

  93. bwisnasky says: Mar 12, 2012 4:55 PM

    As a Raider fan, although the penalty hurts… it was worth every single penny to get Jalarda$$ off that roster…..

  94. hardpeaches says: Mar 12, 2012 4:57 PM

    Double standards abound. Remember when John Elway and Shanahan cheated to win their superbowls? All they got was a slap on the wrist and a small fine. Pathetic how this league coddles the Broncos.

  95. imsmarterthanyou says: Mar 12, 2012 4:57 PM

    daysend564 says:
    Mar 12, 2012 4:15 PM
    Where are the Bears with Pepper’s $35M salary in 2010?

    —————————————-

    I’m not sure what you’re angry at here. Is it that the Bears actually paid him $35M? Your comment is not relevant. 2010 was when the Bear’s signed him. He still plays for the Bears. As such he has not been dumped by the Bears, so the Bears didn’t dump his salary.

    So, that’s where the Bears were in 2010.

  96. willbphotography says: Mar 12, 2012 4:57 PM

    For all of you Redskin haters that has come out of the wood work can suck on it!!! Jealous cause the skins will be drafting the best athletic quarterback in the draft RG III….Guess what haters the skins will still land which ever player they want in free agency cause our owner is not broke and is willing to spend money when needed. And maybe not this year but the Skins will regain the NFC East for years to come!!!!!

  97. dlr4skins says: Mar 12, 2012 4:57 PM

    Show the rules in writing dated before the transactions! Now you disapprove of deals you approved?

    Should have cheated on the field by video. Less punishment, evidence burning without ANYONE viewing, keep your wins and trophies.

    Regardless of who is “guilty” this reeks so close to FA period. Bears and Packers had huge numbers on players that year and they not only are not fined but actually profit from those who were!

    I don’t like either Snyder or Jones but this seems a little unfair. Al Davis is spining in his grave knowing the league didn’t target him.

    Have you ever been found guilty for the sum of $35+ million for an unwritten rule interpeted years later after league approval??????????

    H

  98. conormacleod says: Mar 12, 2012 4:58 PM

    I can’t wait for Rodger Goodell to read the comments here so he realizes that he can’t do this! Man, he is going to look like such a fool when the fans here have educated him on what is within his power as the NFL Commish. (Note to Cowboys and Redskins fans…this is sarcasm. You don’t know squat about the inner workings of the NFL and/or what the rules are. You are wrong, just like the owners of your favorite team. You did the crime, now do the time.)

  99. gothwolf says: Mar 12, 2012 5:00 PM

    There is a reason we have a cap and it’s to facilitate parity. Even one uncapped year could throw that out of balance for years. The league couldn’t allow that, but they also couldn’t officially cap the year. So they did what they could do which was warn the owners that abusing the uncapped year would result in penalties. It looks like the vast majority of owners got the message.

  100. vanmorrissey says: Mar 12, 2012 5:01 PM

    jahbird says:
    Mar 12, 2012 4:15 PM
    Goodell APPROVED THE CONTRACTS! He needs to go.

    Hey, Idiot, Goodell did not approve their underperformance on the contracts or else they’d still be on the team, dummy. They were told, they chose not to go by the rules, they get hit, period. Case closed, the way it goes. What, they can get away with it but the teams that paid attention could not? Shut up already, just shut up.

  101. stoutfiles says: Mar 12, 2012 5:02 PM

    To everyone cheering this, did the Cowboys or Redskins actually break any written rules that were agreed upon and signed?

    Warnings do NOT hold up in court. Both teams should sue, as well as the Players Association, because these warning negatively affected player salaries.

  102. patpatriotagain says: Mar 12, 2012 5:02 PM

    there was no cap – the teams should take the nfl to court. no cap means NO CAP. all in all it was probably worth it even with the fines

  103. jpfrmdc says: Mar 12, 2012 5:02 PM

    For all of you fans who dislike the Cowboys and Redskins, sorry to disappoint but warnings against unwritten rules not agreed to by the NFLPA wont hold ANY weight whatsoever in ANY court and/or arbitration. Having spent 16 years in Collective Bargaining Law w/ Unions, this so called penalty will be reversed. Perhaps not im time to clean up in Free Agency, but will NOT be upheld non the less.

  104. livebyfaithnotsight says: Mar 12, 2012 5:04 PM

    As someone who dislikes both teams, I couldn’t help but laugh when I read this. And if they did indeed warn said teams multiple times, I have no problem with the penalties; even if it were teams I liked.

  105. jason1214 says: Mar 12, 2012 5:08 PM

    Seems ppl dont understand this…lol
    Its simple NFL warns you not to do something, you do it anway, its not a rule idiots. Apparently at least 26 other teams understood what “serious consequences” means, and now so do the Skins and Boys. As for all those screaming “sue” good luck.

  106. realitypolice says: Mar 12, 2012 5:09 PM

    @gothwolf:

    What you are describing is called “collusion” and it’s illegal.

  107. ebeg420 says: Mar 12, 2012 5:13 PM

    I love it……Skins and Cowboys fans are now lawyers, crying on the internet. Don’t act like you know more than the League…..

  108. kingpel says: Mar 12, 2012 5:13 PM

    Yes! Those 1st round picks from the Redskins are looking mighty sweet at this point. Go Rams!

  109. gweez76 says: Mar 12, 2012 5:16 PM

    conormacleod says:
    Mar 12, 2012 4:42 PM
    Love the whining from Redskins and Cowboys fans. Look, the NFL is a private business. Stop acting like Goodell isn’t within his right to do this! The owners have given him this power because billionaires know they can’t control themselves!

     Actually that’s not true. The NFL is a group of 32 businesses. The Supreme Court shot down the “single entity” idea not 10 months ago.

  110. scratchnpost1234 says: Mar 12, 2012 5:16 PM

    Gothwolf, yeah 28 of the teams got it . The owners were the ones that tore up the old CBA resulting in an uncapped year. Jones was one of the ring leaders of that and in a sport with a cap it wouldn’t have been right to have the rich teams spend their way to the top . Do it the old fashioned way work for it.

  111. realitypolice says: Mar 12, 2012 5:17 PM

    jason1214 says:
    Mar 12, 2012 5:08 PM
    Seems ppl dont understand this…lol
    Its simple NFL warns you not to do something, you do it anway, its not a rule idiots. Apparently at least 26 other teams understood what “serious consequences” means, and now so do the Skins and Boys. As for all those screaming “sue” good luck.
    ======================

    So if the league “warned” a team not to sign a particular free agent because they wanted to see that player on another team, that would be fine as well.

    How about if they decide to “warn” teams not complain about having home games taken away?

    I’m curious, just how far does this blanket right of the league to control the business practices of it’s franchises by issuing “warnings” instead of rules go?

  112. peternorth1 says: Mar 12, 2012 5:18 PM

    Mr Jones, get that high priced lawyer on the phone asap!

  113. hendawg21 says: Mar 12, 2012 5:21 PM

    So you can make a new rule and penalize any team when you feel like it even though they broke not one rule? This stinks all the way to NY! A recommendation is just that doesnt mean you have to, I see an injunction and possible law suit Al Davis lives on…

  114. mrpowers88 says: Mar 12, 2012 5:25 PM

    This is BS. Under the rules of the last CBA- which was negotiated and agreed to by the OWNERS AND LEAGUE- 2010 was to be uncapped if a new CBA was not agreed to by then. The fact that these warnings even occurred should be the basis of a collusion claim by the NFLPA (if there was a way that teams could give incentive to FAs to sign with them-i.e. huge 2010 salaries-, why wouldnt they?)

    The fact that the cap penalty gets redistributed throughout the league is also garbage, but maybe a way to make the NFLPA think that the players are getting the money back, but how much more would they have got if teams werent colluding in 2010?

    If the league really wants to put that image out there, why dont they raise the salary floor for the teams that didnt spend, so that they have to make up for that year? (If teams get penalized for spending too much, they should get penalized for not spending enough, right?)

    How can the NFLPA not pursue this when the league has pretty much confessed to trying to agree to not dump salaries unilaterally for the time in question(I hope that is correct)?

    The only reason I can think of for not acting is if DSmith somehow agreed not to pursue it, like he did for the Conduct Policy enforcement for repeat offenders. And if he did, he deserves to be $h*tcanned.

  115. scratchnpost1234 says: Mar 12, 2012 5:27 PM

    jpfrmdc says

    The NFLPA represents the PLAYERS. No players are being fined or penalized. The NFL controls and runs the rules for teams to follow as far as how business is conducted by the teams and there was no CBA agreement at the time because the owners tore it up. 28 teams heeded the warnings given at the owners meetings. 4 teams did not, how is that collusion? Maybe you had 16 years of BAD experience?

  116. footballfanman says: Mar 12, 2012 5:27 PM

    if this our penalty for moving some money, then what will be the penalty for the Saints trying to hurt guys?

  117. jpfrmdc says: Mar 12, 2012 5:34 PM

    As it turns out, yes many of us Skins fans are attorneys. We live in DC, what do you expect.There are rules and laws, when unwritten and simlpy agreed to without ratification they’re nothing more than that. They’re nothing..!! Dannyboy & Jerry have the time and most certainly the money to deal with petty nonsensical hysteria brht forth by the other owners, without the resources, i.e; Money to fight this unmerrited attack by the have-not owners. Sorry legion of Skins & Boys haters, rich or poor: its good to have money..lots of it..!!!

  118. blspears says: Mar 12, 2012 5:34 PM

    Uncapped year guess that wasn’t true.

  119. jwreck says: Mar 12, 2012 5:35 PM

    All in all, I’m not too concerned about this. If Snyder and Jones can fight it they should, but if they can’t, I think both teams will land on their feet and be just fine.

    I think the issue is more with all the questions this article brings up, but doesn’t answer. Questions such as: Was there a written rule against this in addition to a verbal warning? Did the league okay these contracts at the time and change their minds later? Where did the league pull the numbers 10 million and 36 million from? The previous article explained that Dallas dumped 17 million of Austin’s contract into 2010, yet they’re only being fined 10 mil. What did Washington do to earn a 36 million dollar sanction? Front load a contract to the Russian Mafia to make a bunch of players and their agents simply disappear? I mean has anyone seen Cornelius Griffin lately?

    I guess what I’m getting at here is that it would be really helpful if there was a football news website written and edited by a former lawyer who could explain what was going on to everybody. Of course that lawyer would have to not have a bizarre, unprofessional bias against the Redskins and Cowboys. This lawyer would also have to not demonstrate creepily immature childlike delight at the spectacle of NFL teams and players getting punished and sanctioned by the league. If only there was a website like that… But we can only hope…

  120. realitypolice says: Mar 12, 2012 5:38 PM

    theravenlives2 says:
    Mar 12, 2012 4:37 PM

    What part are you not understanding?
    ================

    The part where you keep saying there was a “verbal rule” when everyone knows that it completely and totally illegal to impose rules involving contract negotiations with players that are not collectively bargained and included in the CBA.

    That part.

  121. jamoked says: Mar 12, 2012 5:40 PM

    The NFL are the people who leave a bowl of candy and a “one piece only” note on their porch on Halloween. The Cowboys and Redskins are just the smart kids who dumped the bowl into their bags.

  122. fringetastic says: Mar 12, 2012 5:42 PM

    Here’s a conspiracy theory:

    Goodell didn’t want owners taking advantage of the lack of rules during the uncapped year, so he told them to act as if rules were in place. He was hoping they’d listen but he made threats he couldn’t back up — because they didn’t break any rules!

    Fast forward to and through the season. Goodell is pissed that some teams didn’t listen to him and he knows he can’t make any punishment stick — because they didn’t break any rules!

    What can he do to punish those teams that didn’t follow rules that don’t exist? He knee-caps those teams right before the start of free agency so those teams are in turmoil and trying to straighten out what the hell is going on. He knows the punishments won’t stick but he will severely damage their ability to take part in the early — and best — part of free agency.

    Even if there is an appeal that wins, or jeez, the spirit of Al Davis takes hold and sues the league successfully, the damage to filling roster holes is already done.

    Genius! And rotten.

  123. scratchnpost1234 says: Mar 12, 2012 5:43 PM

    oops…………. Rams took all the skins draft picks that’s right! Cowskin fans sorry

  124. realitypolice says: Mar 12, 2012 5:57 PM

    scratchnpost1234 says:
    Mar 12, 2012 5:27 PM
    jpfrmdc says

    The NFLPA represents the PLAYERS. No players are being fined or penalized. The NFL controls and runs the rules for teams to follow as far as how business is conducted by the teams and there was no CBA agreement at the time because the owners tore it up. 28 teams heeded the warnings given at the owners meetings. 4 teams did not, how is that collusion? Maybe you had 16 years of BAD experience?
    =======================

    If the NFL imposed a rule that was not collectively bargained that affected the amount of money teams offered players, that would certainly be something the NFLPA should be concerned about.

    It doesn’t matter if every team heeded the verbal warnings or if none of them did- the NFL attempting to impose unwritten caps on spending through verbal warnings is collusion by it’s very definition.

    And your assertion that there was no CBA is not true. The owner only figuratively “tore it up” meaning they opted out early but it was still in effect that year.

    The reason there was no salary cap is because the uncapped year had been collectively bargained with the union and was PART of the CBA.

  125. scratchnpost1234 says: Mar 12, 2012 5:58 PM

    jpfrmdc says:

    And I think all would agree, you lawyers are doing a GREAT job running the country…………..keep up the great work amigo

  126. patsfiend says: Mar 12, 2012 6:12 PM

    patpatriotagain says:
    Mar 12, 2012 5:02 PM
    there was no cap – the teams should take the nfl to court. no cap means NO CAP. all in all it was probably worth it even with the fines
    ————
    Right. How about that idea… perhaps Snyder and Jones knew damn well they’d be fined, and it was worth it for them anyway. That would be very Belichickian of them… I like it!

    They should appeal / sue though, anyway.

  127. romoscollarbone says: Mar 12, 2012 6:15 PM

    So you can take a 10mil cap hit, and shift it to a 925k base salary and a 9 mil bonus, but you can’t shift contracts to dump money off in an uncapped year……rightttt?

    Balderdash, I say.

  128. rickvaldez says: Mar 12, 2012 6:21 PM

    ESPN crawl …..redskins and cowboys take hit because they overspent during 2010′s uncapped season.

    Does it take a genius to see what’s wrong with that statement

  129. maatopdogg32 says: Mar 12, 2012 6:23 PM

    If I’m the Skins I lawyer up go after the players I was planning to go after in FA and take the NFL to court.

  130. vincentbojackson says: Mar 12, 2012 6:30 PM

    NFL said don’t take advantage of uncapped year to dump salaries. If you do, there will be consequences.

    Cowboys and Redskins did it anyway and were penalized.

    Somehow Redskin and Cowboy fans are still confused.

    Seems pretty straight forward to me.

  131. bigdaddystyle says: Mar 12, 2012 6:34 PM

    You fans blaming Goodell need to stop.

    Goodell = THE OWNERS. He is their spokesman. If they fire him the next guy will do the same exact thing….represent ownership as a whole.

  132. pastorbobs says: Mar 12, 2012 6:41 PM

    Redskins were the oldest team in the league for years with many free agents. They had to clean house. Contracts were approved; NFLPA + Goodell have messed this one up bad.

    There’s just no defending allowing the rest of the owners to impose a penalty that not only hurts the Redskins but helps the other teams in the process. That is a major conflict of interest, something that could not be defended in court. The Redskins will likely try to appeal instead of sue but the NFL have left themselves open on this one. Imposing a huge penalty when there clearly was no agreement or rules. A non-capped year was an outcome of the desire the owners had to enforce a lock out, so they can’t complain because there were no rules.

  133. skinsdiehard says: Mar 12, 2012 6:46 PM

    This is bull! The Skins are being penalized for accelerating two bonuses into the uncapped year: $21MM for Haynesworth and $15MM for Deangelo Hall. The NFL Mgt Council approved the contracts. WTF!!! Pure jealousy reigns amongst the other owners. Kiss the rings bitches!

    Skins’ 2013 commitments only total $83MM in 2013. They can just allocate $10MM to this year and $26MM next to better absorb the hits and still sign a WR for 2012.

  134. bobonmycob says: Mar 12, 2012 6:48 PM

    WoW some of you redskin & cowboys fans need to go back to school for some education. These teams were WARNED up to six times about abusing the uncapped years. Yes goodell approved the contracts why would he not? He’s not your teams babysitter he told you not to do it but why would he stop you from doing it? lol he would rather make an example out of you and he sure did. It’s simple business.

  135. scratchnpost1234 says: Mar 12, 2012 6:48 PM

    realitypolice says: Mar 12, 2012 5:57 PM

    It’s not about HOW much money the teams offered players. It’s about HOW they paid it to them. Lots of players agents were opting for 1 year contracts for FA’s because of the uncertainty of the new CBA. The teams paid the whole contract in base salary which is almost never done . It’s usually a base salary plus bonus money over a period of years. The contracts would have had bonus money still owed to the players tat the Cowboys and Skins avoided having to claim on their cap. The owners are the ones that tore up the old CBA and locked the players out and Jerruh the greedy was one of the ring leaders of that. If you think Snyder and Jones were the only ones smart enough to take advantage of it if it was legal when you have organizations like the Packers, Pats, Steelers, Giants that have been well run for years that weren’t smart enough? Get over the denial and Give me a break!

  136. faceholes10 says: Mar 12, 2012 6:56 PM

    Griffin drops back finds Hankerson.Touchdown! Redskins!!!

  137. scratchnpost1234 says: Mar 12, 2012 7:04 PM

    The NFLPA agreed to it, so much for that lawsuit…………………………..

  138. rickvaldez says: Mar 12, 2012 7:06 PM

    vincentbojackson says:
    Mar 12, 2012 6:30 PM
    NFL said don’t take advantage of uncapped year to dump salaries. If you do, there will be consequences.

    Cowboys and Redskins did it anyway and were penalized.

    Somehow Redskin and Cowboy fans are still confused.

    Seems pretty straight forward to me.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Did he wag his finger while he told them?
    If you do there will be consequences…which means we dont know how we will punish you because you havent broken any rules but the other cheap owners will complain.

    Seems like a bunch of the occupy crowd in here today complaining about a couple guys that make money and arent afraid to spend it. They should be punished for not being FAIR. Forget the fact they broke no rule.

  139. realitypolice says: Mar 12, 2012 7:08 PM

    vincentbojackson says:
    Mar 12, 2012 6:30 PM
    NFL said don’t take advantage of uncapped year to dump salaries. If you do, there will be consequences.

    Cowboys and Redskins did it anyway and were penalized.

    Somehow Redskin and Cowboy fans are still confused.

    Seems pretty straight forward to me.
    =============

    Seems pretty straightforward to me too. You can’t make up rules as you go along. If it’s not in the CBA, it’s not a rule.

  140. stevecmh says: Mar 12, 2012 7:20 PM

    This proves it, once and for all, Goodell is a Bears fan!

  141. deddmunnie says: Mar 12, 2012 8:47 PM

    So dumping Jamarcus Russell is allowable but dumping Albert Haynesworth isn’t?

    Laughable God-del… Laughable.

  142. deddmunnie says: Mar 12, 2012 8:56 PM

    savocabol1 says:
    Mar 12, 2012 4:40 PM
    I don’t think a lot of you Redskin fans get what you guys did that was unfair to the rest of the league.

    Um “a lot of guys?” Try two, one which was cut the other which will be traded or cut this year. 2. Get your facts straight.

  143. deddmunnie says: Mar 12, 2012 9:03 PM

    Love the “lack of education” and “you were warned” “you broke the rules” posts guys.

    Show me the rule? Was there a leg to stand on legally when they issued a warning about a rule that didn’t exist?

    A multi-billion dollar corporation has to operate within the law just like everybody else.

    You think if a McDonalds franchise owner was just told at an owners get-together that he would lose 36 million dollars if he kept breaking a rule that didn’t exist he would lose that money in court?

    I feel sorry for your children. Letting them out into the world is like like sending little one-legged versions of yourselves into an ass kicking contest.

  144. mjkelly77 says: Mar 12, 2012 9:14 PM

    Not cheating? Then what would prevent a billionaire owner from signing 20 or 25 of the best players in the NFL to 5 year contracts and paying the complete contract in one year because it’s uncapped? The circumvention must be punished, especially if the owners were warned
    ““at least six times” during ownership-level meetings that there would be “serious consequences” for any team that used the uncapped year as an occasion to dump salaries.”

    Cheating a$$ clowns.

  145. sschmiggles says: Mar 12, 2012 9:21 PM

    billinva says:
    Mar 12, 2012 4:18 PM
    The more I read about this, the more it doesn’t make sense. There was no cap, what right does the league office have to tell teams not to spend money?

    It certainly isn’t cheating.
    ___________________

    It’s cheating because it gave them an advantage that other teams didn’t have. The league told them not to do it; 28 teams complied, four didn’t.

    Cheating’s cheating, right?

  146. radrntn says: Mar 12, 2012 9:57 PM

    the raiders should dump the nfl

  147. commitment2excrement says: Mar 12, 2012 10:18 PM

    Stop crying Raider fans, it was your choice to draft JaPorkus. Your idea to to dump him without the cap space. You made your bed, now lie in it. I love how its biting you in the a$$ years later still. In a year where you could use the extra 1.6m. Enjoy futility!

  148. wfingers23 says: Mar 13, 2012 12:34 AM

    I understand what everyone is saying that they were warned. ..however, for a league that spells out every rule word for word it is odd this isnt written anywhere. If owners were “warned” in a meeting and not in writing not to do something and almost all parties agreed to go by this “rule”, then isnt that the basic definition of collusion? I am not a fan of either team so i dont care what happens to them, but this seems insane to me.
    Every transaction or missed catch or bad call, it seems people are reciting codes and rules that are in the rule book. It just seems a few teams disobeyed their father and are being punished.

  149. geniusesq says: Mar 13, 2012 12:55 AM

    If Goodell had a problem with these contracts, why did he approve them?

    That’s like approving a tax return, then jailing someone two years later because you didn’t like their legal deductions.

  150. basedrum777 says: May 23, 2012 12:35 AM

    Approving a contract by NFL standards just implies that they ensure that it meets with labor laws and standards set by the league. The salary cap review does not take place until after the year when the league reviews the totality of each team’s contracts to ensure they were/are in compliance.

    The NFL sets the rules regarding the cap and its application. In a weird situation the league (in ownership level meetings) made rules around not frontloading contracts so that they could circumvent the rules in future years. Every owner sans 4 understood and followed those rules, all to a varied degree. They each are being punished.

    Quit your bitching as you sound like the spoiled brats you are rooting for a team that hasn’t been good since 1994 or a team that hasn’t been good since 4 years before that.

Leave a Reply

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