Skip to content

Cowboys, Redskins exploring all options

Redskins_Cowboys_Cap_Space_Punishments_Jerry_Jones_Dan_Snyder Getty Images

The Cowboys and Redskins are faced with the combined loss of $46 million in salary cap space over the next two years for treating the term “uncapped year” too literally two years ago.  And their fans want to know if the teams will be fighting the NFL on this point.

The answer is, “Maybe.”

A source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that the Cowboys and Redskins are exploring all options for challenging the decision.

That means a lawsuit could be coming.  But while the late Al Davis wouldn’t have blinked before loading the legal cannon, Redskins owner Dan Snyder and Cowboys owner Jerry Jones could be influenced by consideration of the big picture.

Suing over what essentially was a refusal to engage in collusion would confirm that the NFL was indeed engaged in collusion in the months preceding the 2011 lockout.  The idea was, apparently, to keep more money in the pockets of the owners and out of the pockets of the players, in advance of the possibility of a full season without football.  Arguing that the NFL has now punished the Redskins and Cowboys for breaking ranks necessarily would expose that strategy.

And with the league and the NFLPA likely to, at some point, be engaged in contentious labor negotiations again, disclosing past instances of collusion could make it harder to employ the same tactics in the future.

More importantly, the Redskins and Cowboys would be accusing their partners of corrupt, improper business practices.  With the intense coverage that the NFL now enjoys, a legal fight featuring two arch rivals coming together and suing the entire league for meting out punishment for refusing to participate in inappropriate business practices against the players would attract much unwanted attention for the NFL.

No decisions have been made as to whether a lawsuit or some other tactic will be pursued.  But for now the Redskins and Cowboys aren’t willing to simply shrug their shoulders and take it.

Permalink 78 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Dallas Cowboys, Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
78 Responses to “Cowboys, Redskins exploring all options”
  1. fin72 says: Mar 15, 2012 8:44 AM

    “Suing over what essentially was a refusal to engage in collusion would confirm that the NFL was indeed engaged in collusion in the months preceding the 2011 lockout.”
    ——————————————–
    Um, I think it’s already been confirmed.

  2. khuxford says: Mar 15, 2012 8:45 AM

    The future ramifications are exactly why the NFL never should have pulled this bush league move. Really? Publicly and obviously punishing two teams for breaking an unwritten rule that the existence of which would prove collusion??? How idiotic is that?The collusion is already evident from the punishment, meaning there is less concern for the two teams in suing than there should have been for the NFL punishing.

  3. dalfanforever says: Mar 15, 2012 8:45 AM

    And honestly they should. The league already admitted they didn’t break any rules and just penalized them because the other owners complained and didn’t like it. They were the victims of collusion of the rest of the owners and that idiot Goodell thinking he could just do whatever he wanted with no ramifications.

    He might have stepped in it this time. When you mess with people’s money even (especially owners like these), he may be in for a long, protracted and embarrasingly ugly fight.

  4. jenniferxxx says: Mar 15, 2012 8:47 AM

    How about the option of not cheating? Seems to me they should explore that one too.

  5. dccowboy says: Mar 15, 2012 8:47 AM

    Jerry won’t fight this because a) it didn’t really hurt the Cowboys all that much, and b) he wants another SB in Dallas and, if he sues the NFL, he knows that Dallas will not see a SB as long as he is the owner.

    I’m sure he’ll find other ways to deny the other owners revenue, but it won’t be overtly because of this.

    So, as in the movie “Liar,Liar”, JJ is going to say, “so what I am going to do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk, and then bend over and take it up the tailpipe! “

  6. tashkalucy says: Mar 15, 2012 8:49 AM

    A picture of two owners that spend, spend, spend, and are only too happy to break the rules in a desperate attempt to win.

    Why are they desperate year after year?

    Because they won’t let professional people run their teams without interference – so quality people don’t want to work for them.

    There may not be an ownership tandem in professional sports as bad as these two. And the guy in Miami is knocking on the door trying to make it a threesome.

  7. chrisritch93 says: Mar 15, 2012 8:51 AM

    Al Davis stood up for what he believed in and the NFL is better because of it.

  8. obxfannings says: Mar 15, 2012 8:52 AM

    I guess my question would involve the role of the NFLPA and De Smith in this shameful episode. Personally, if I were Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones and considering the timing of this penalty, I’d be preparing for a legal battle. It seems to me there is no documented justification for this penalty, just a violation of a “gentlemen’s agreement”. The other puzzler I have is figuring where this legal battle would be played out – in the court system or before an arbitrator. Let’s hold a seance and ask Al Davis what he would do (No Al, we don’t want to draft the fastest receiver at the Combine).

  9. djstat says: Mar 15, 2012 8:53 AM

    GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON

  10. mikea311 says: Mar 15, 2012 8:54 AM

    i continue to think that this isnt an issue that they paid the players but how they paid the players.

    by dumping a majority of the salaries to new signees into the uncapped year they essentially gave themselves an unfair advantage by circumventing the cap in future years.

    its not that the others owners didn’t want to pay the players its that the redskins and cowboys did it in a way to help themselves out in the future.

    so now the league is taking that they thought they gave themselves back.

    but kudos to them, i was wondering why more teams didn’t do it. but now we know, if all the owners banded together and let the uncapped year happen, they needed to stick together.

    so i dont feel bad for them either for being penalized for breaking ranks.

  11. pghguyy says: Mar 15, 2012 8:55 AM

    I hope they sue.

  12. httr73 says: Mar 15, 2012 8:55 AM

    I think a backdoor agreement of some sort will be reached in order to avoid a lawsuit. Most likely you will see them appeal, they will get a reduction in the penalty or a change in the terms (i.e., spreading it out over say 4 or 5 years to lessen the impact). This avoids the ugly lawsuit, the Skins and Boys get some relief and the other owners will still have been able to order thier “code red”.

  13. 49erstim says: Mar 15, 2012 8:56 AM

    This situation just confusing. If the league wanted to hide the issue of “collusion” it would’ve been easier to turn a blind eye. Since they’ve decided to put it out in the open aren’t they almost daring the ‘Boys and ‘Skins to do something?

  14. wesermandc says: Mar 15, 2012 8:57 AM

    With the intense coverage that the NFL now enjoys, a legal fight featuring two arch rivals coming together and suing the entire league for meting out punishment for refusing to participate in inappropriate business practices against the players would attract much unwanted attention for the NFL.

    this is a really long sentence to devoir!

  15. clintonportisheadd says: Mar 15, 2012 8:57 AM

    Excellent summation of the problem they face.

    It must be tough on these two control freaks that they have to sit in corner and write “I will not try to screw my partners” one hundred times before being allowed back in class. However, as much as they have and own, the other owners have just as much (or in some cases a lot lot more) and could care less how they feel about it.

  16. khuxford says: Mar 15, 2012 8:57 AM

    I’m shocked by the number of people calling this cheating and rule breaking when there was no actual rule broken. This was collusion, which couldn’t be a rule or else the NFL would be in front of Congress having their anti-trust exemption pulled from their ungrateful, grubby little hands.

  17. hendawg21 says: Mar 15, 2012 8:58 AM

    That’s right bring down the dictatorship of Goodell…you know they admit nothing was done wrong and both teams were innocent of wrong doing yet they inflict this bogus penalty on both teams…

  18. snowburnt says: Mar 15, 2012 8:58 AM

    They could accuse the league of collusion…or they could go the vanilla route and put the league in danger of implicating itself in collusion.

    If the Redskins and Cowboys use the fact that there was no rule in place and there is still no rule in place to prevent what they did along with the fact that the contracts were approved by the league it would put the league in a position where they would have to say that they verbally warned the teams.

    The teams could press against that and say: “Why warn us if there was no rule? Why not put this in writing?”

    There really is no rational reason other than collusion for them to have this restriction, especially an unwritten one.

  19. sonnyandsam says: Mar 15, 2012 9:00 AM

    At a minimum, Danny and Jerry should be threatening to sue to overturn this hypocritical penalty. They have leverage over the owners who insisted on this because it will damage the NFL’s credibility if brought up in court. Many teams dumped more money in the “uncapped” year by front loading their contracts and more teams purposely spent well below the salary “floor” from the previous year which also affected the “competitive balance”. Ask yourself how teams like Tampa Bay and Cincinnati have all this cap space this year to spend to gain a competitive edge over the other teams.

    This was jealousy by the other owners who refuse to spend money on players. Jones and Snyder may spend their money poorly at times, but they, unlike many owners, are committed to winning another Super Bowl for their franchise. And these same skin flint owners love accepting the revenue sharing money that comes from the rich teams like Washington and Dallas.

    And shame on Smith and the NFLPA for caving to the NFL management council pressure so they could get the cap raised a couple hundred thousand dollars. This was collusion by a small number of owners and the NFLPA…both are guilty.

    Finally, this is a double penalty. Not only did Dallas and Washington lose cap money, but all the other teams except two got their caps increased. This actually means a $72 million penalty for the Redskins and a $20 million penalty on the Cowboys.

    Danny and Jerry should fight this injustice and fight it hard. The other owners started this, they can end this. It is a virtually guaranteed win for them if they go to court.

    Let Danny and Jerry be the new Al Davis! Right on!

  20. gorilladunk says: Mar 15, 2012 9:00 AM

    All these comments about the Cowboys and Redskins “cheating” are pure nonsense. They no more “cheated” than did the teams who consistently are 20 million below the cap. The league screwed up royally on this one and I suspect that by now, Roger and crew on Park Avenue are aware of that. My only question remains: If the league office approves ALL contracts (which it does) why did it take so long for them to find fault in something that they had known for TWO YEARS and approved in the first place?

  21. fullbagg says: Mar 15, 2012 9:01 AM

    Man I can’t stand the thought of the Skins and cowgirls on the same team. But the NFL is really stupid. By doing this, THEY are telling all that they were colluding. If Danny and Jerry go to court, THE NFL will show that THEY were colluding.

    Do they not know that there is a bigger group of blowhards that reside in Washington??? A congressional hearing would be better than letting Danny and Jerry dump a few contract $$ on a year EVERYONE ELSE IS LOWBALLING AND MAKING $$$$????

    What a crock. I hate all these contract renegotiations to hide cap $, but this ruling is SO transparent. And for the Union to sign off on this?? Smith should be fired promptly! Oh yeah! The cap number is down 4 million… Think that year factored in there somewhere?

    When you make Danny Snydy and Jeery Plastic-face look like the victim? That’s doing something!!

    And I’m a diehard Skins fan!!

  22. clw1906 says: Mar 15, 2012 9:02 AM

    Jenniferxxx how dumb are you? How did they cheat? Amazing how dumb you are to post without knowing the story. Go educate yourself so you don’t look like an assclown.

  23. mrslay1 says: Mar 15, 2012 9:03 AM

    How amazing it is that there are so many SMART people on this site that run a pro team better than the people who own them.

  24. Patriot42 says: Mar 15, 2012 9:03 AM

    I hope they disband the Cowboys

  25. hgl25 says: Mar 15, 2012 9:05 AM

    The NFLPA & De Smith would have been better off declining the extra 4 million + in cap space and just should have took the NFL to court on the collusion charge. Anti Trust laws would have trebled the award, which would have gone into the players coffers. I think the NFL would have avoided such a lawsuit and would have figured out how to get the cap higher than 120 million and change. Good luck in Hawaii, De.

  26. nycowboysfan says: Mar 15, 2012 9:06 AM

    I’ve got to agree with the other posters SB scenario. Jones will never see another if he rocks the boat on this one.

  27. baddegg says: Mar 15, 2012 9:08 AM

    All sides have a lot to lose here. Obviously, by exposing the NFL Owners as guilty of collusion, Snyder and Jones will be inditing themselves as well…since the owners collude on a broad array of issues. So Snyder and Jones can’t just “beat” the NFL without harming themselves as owners.

    At the same time, the NFL has a lot to lose, if they are exposed.

    That’s why this is really a game of chicken.

    My gut tells me that they’ll work out some sort of “compromise payback.” Washington has wanted to host a Super Bowl for instance. Don’t be surprised if the next Northeast team to get a SB is Washington. That kind of thing.

  28. ahsinnyc says: Mar 15, 2012 9:09 AM

    Snyder will certainly sue. AND he should. You gotta love the timing … day before free agency.

  29. 1fit4life says: Mar 15, 2012 9:10 AM

    @tashkalucy – your comment, while maybe true, is completely besides the point of this particular topic. This is an example of the NFL doing whatever it wants, to whomever it wants, and when it wants to do it, when no written rules were broken, and furthermore, when the league actually APPROVED the contracts they are now calling “an unfair competitive advantage”. If they were unfair, why did Goodell’s office approve them? That should make all 32 owners nervous.

    Not to mention, how is the money the Tampa Bay is spending in this years free agent market any different that what these 2 teams did? They have a ton of cap room, and are using that to dump a huge portion of players salaries into this years cap.

  30. mempusa says: Mar 15, 2012 9:10 AM

    Imagine that! It only took a couple hundred years to get the Cowboys and Redskind (Indians) to fight on the same side!

  31. therealsmiley says: Mar 15, 2012 9:10 AM

    jenniferxxx -How did they cheat? Oh…you mean the remaining teams colluding about the uncapped year.

  32. CKL says: Mar 15, 2012 9:10 AM

    I admit I still don’t get exactly why what they did is a big deal in and of itself but Polian said the other day on NFL32 that not only were all the teams warned but also they were told that the new CBA might retroactively remove all that cap relief. It seems wrong to penalize Wash & Dall but it’s going to be tough to fight IMO since the NFLPA agreed to it.

  33. JC says: Mar 15, 2012 9:11 AM

    jenniferxxx says: Mar 15, 2012 8:47 AM

    How about the option of not cheating? Seems to me they should explore that one too.
    ——————————————————

    The point is that these two teams are being punished for not cheating you jack wagon.

    They should sue the NFL, sue the hell out of them. Makes them both look better as owners and since they are easily the two most despised owners in all of sports, why not?

  34. ftblfan9 says: Mar 15, 2012 9:11 AM

    I can’t stand either team, but they sure got screwed. Good for them if they pursue this.

  35. fullbagg says: Mar 15, 2012 9:12 AM

    That is soo wrong. What about the owners who are making money paying WAY UNDER THE CAP?????

    Who pays them? Danny and Jerry!!!

  36. the3taveren says: Mar 15, 2012 9:12 AM

    jenniferxxx says:
    Mar 15, 2012 8:47 AM
    How about the option of not cheating? Seems to me they should explore that one too.
    _________________________________

    How about you explore knowing what the hell you are talking about!

    No cheating took place! The Skins and Cowgirls did the same thing nine other teams did. They operated within established rules! Meaning they broke no rules. AKA not cheating!

    EVERY NFL TEAM COULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING!!! There was nothing illegal about it. There wasn’t any cheating.

  37. skinsrock says: Mar 15, 2012 9:13 AM

    This is one Daniel Snyder lawsuit I would be all for. These bratty billionaires all in the corner crying “It’s not FAIR!” Yet, nothing on paper that says the Redskins & Cowboys couldn’t do what they did.

  38. traevin says: Mar 15, 2012 9:13 AM

    If the league were truly worried about the NFLPA making a collusion case against them, the owners wouldn’t have fined the two teams in the first place.

  39. sj39 says: Mar 15, 2012 9:14 AM

    Seems the only ones upset are their own fans. Typical but I think both these owners know it is not wise to bite the hand that feeds you. (Especially when it is sort of like your own hand)

  40. GG Eden says: Mar 15, 2012 9:17 AM

    I’d guess Goodell approved the contracts after warning everyone six times, just so he could punish them when it came time to.

    It’s like a dad/mom saying to their 17 y/o kid who is a chronic partier…”we’re going for the weekend, we’re leaving the house in your hands, so don’t throw any parties when we’re gone”….fully aware he will throw a party just so they can get that thrill of meting out punishment.

  41. mikea311 says: Mar 15, 2012 9:17 AM

    i also think that teams that dont spend all their cap should get penalized. how is that fair to your fanbase.

    it dilutes the product too..

  42. vaphinfan says: Mar 15, 2012 9:18 AM

    What did the NFL expect? These two teams throw money at players all the time and overpay all the time.

  43. dcwarpath says: Mar 15, 2012 9:18 AM

    So, how many people think the Redskins and Cowboys are promised (behind closed doors) that is they take this and shut up they will get an opportunity to host a superbowl…

  44. realitypolice says: Mar 15, 2012 9:19 AM

    djstat says:
    Mar 15, 2012 8:53 AM
    GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON
    =======================

    You are absolutely right.

    The NFL should get over the fact that the Cowboys and Redskins worked the game better than everyone else while doing nothing wrong, give them back their cap space, and move on.

  45. realitypolice says: Mar 15, 2012 9:21 AM

    jenniferxxx says:
    Mar 15, 2012 8:47 AM
    How about the option of not cheating? Seems to me they should explore that one too.
    ============================

    Has there ever been a dispute or issue reported about on this site that you actually understood?

  46. GG Eden says: Mar 15, 2012 9:22 AM

    I’m guessing the reason why the NFL is okay with teams like the Bucs etc for underspending is because in an uncapped year, heading to a lockout, the NFL wanted to squeeze the players, who would be afraid of losing pay and needing cash. So teams who underspent was ok as those teams helped the “NFL cause” against the NFLPA during the lockout battle.

    yes/no?

  47. realitypolice says: Mar 15, 2012 9:22 AM

    mikea311 says:
    Mar 15, 2012 8:54 AM
    i continue to think that this isnt an issue that they paid the players but how they paid the players.

    by dumping a majority of the salaries to new signees into the uncapped year they essentially gave themselves an unfair advantage by circumventing the cap in future years.
    =======================

    No one is disputing what they did. The dispute is whether the NFL is entitled to make up the rules as they go along.

  48. 1fit4life says: Mar 15, 2012 9:25 AM

    The NFL has screwed over, not just 2 teams, but 2 teams fan base as well. How do those fans feel who just renewed their season tickets, based on the fact the (especially Redskins fans) teams had quite a bit of cap room to really try and improve their rosters. And the league waits until the day before free agency to make this grand announcement, after season ticket renewals were already due. Total crap!

  49. GG Eden says: Mar 15, 2012 9:26 AM

    Jerry fashions himself as an ‘Al Davis, mentored by him; but he’s too much of a suit and tie and NFL sleeping-partner to rock the boat like Al would have. The ball’s in your court, Dan, to show you have principles.

  50. fan1001 says: Mar 15, 2012 9:26 AM

    The issue IS NOT “refusal to engage in collusion”…it is that the Cowboys and Redskins went along with the other owners’ agreement (or “collusion” if you want to call it that) when it was discussed (several times it’s been reported)…and then gaining a competitive advantage by not following that agreement in practice. What’s so hard to understand about that. They lied! If they had a problem with “collusion” they could have told the other owners that they weren’t going along. Can’t you see what the issue really is here?

  51. canesgiants says: Mar 15, 2012 9:27 AM

    they will play like nice little boys and wont raise a stink. how often do u see 2 rich powerful shmucks like jones and snyder basically get on all 4′s.

  52. clintonportisheadd says: Mar 15, 2012 9:27 AM

    clw1906—–

    They did not “cheat”. What they did was try to screw their fellow partners.

    It’s obvious to anyone paying attention that whatever was agreed on ( “collusion”, an “unwritten rule” or a “gentleman’s agreement”) was followed by every team EXCEPT these two. They made a choice to see what they could get away with-how far they could push the envelope- and now they got their answer.

    Remember who punished who here. It wasn’t Goodell laying down the law-it was the guys ABOVE Goodell who dropped the hammer. The other owners punished these two.

  53. hendawg21 says: Mar 15, 2012 9:29 AM

    As reported by Andrew Brandt the contracts in question as far as the Redskins are concerned were done in 2009 not 2010 therefore the contract were done before it was announced that 2010 would be an uncapped year…what this basically boils down to is if your union head says we’re possibly going on strike don’t spend to wildly this could go on for awhile, well it’s just a suggestion there’s nothing written saying you must or that you’re breaking a rule furthermore its your money to do as you wish…

  54. mjkelly77 says: Mar 15, 2012 9:33 AM

    Those who are contending collusion aren’t thinking this through. So let the NFL even lose its Sherman antitrust protection. It will be nice to have a 12 team league, dominated by a handful of big market teams. Enjoy $1,000 tickets necessary to support those that are overpaid in the controlling markets. The NFL would morph into a smaller league supported by fewer fans.

  55. the3taveren says: Mar 15, 2012 9:35 AM

    The only two teams out of the eleven plus teams that did the EXACT SAME THING that had cap space removed were NFC East teams.

    The Chairman of the NFL Executive Committee is John Mara!

    So the owner of the Giants decided two teams from his own division should be punished for breaking no rules.

    Again, the head of the committe that decided to only punish two NFC East teams is the owner of their division rival, even though a dozen other teams dumped cap space into the “uncapped year”!

  56. dccowboy says: Mar 15, 2012 9:35 AM

    “If the league were truly worried about the NFLPA making a collusion case against them, the owners wouldn’t have fined the two teams in the first place.”

    The League WAS worried about it, that’s why they didn’t do this until they were in a position to ‘bribe’ the Union into not calling collusion with an increase in the overall cap. Bribe may not the right word, blackmail might be more representative of what the NFL did.

  57. blackfoot11 says: Mar 15, 2012 9:37 AM

    As for the NFLPA , by being bribed by the NFL Mgmt and owner for and extra $4 million plus on the 2012 cap can never use this collusion situation as a bargaining chip in the future. That ship has sailed. De Smith sold his soul to Goddell for a higher 2012 cap and to save his job.

  58. kiltherl says: Mar 15, 2012 9:38 AM

    The redskins were headed for serious cap trouble before the “uncapped year” and used it to get out of their trouble….I think they should pay for signing all those espensive free agents and then ice skating out of their cap situation

  59. stricknineskinz says: Mar 15, 2012 9:38 AM

    Someone touched on TB and their spending spree and I agree. They spentwell below the perceived salary floor…like $2oM below and now are buying every high priced FA there is with that new salary cap space. And its the Cowboys and Redskins that gained an “unfair Competitve advantage”?!?!

    It was pure collusion…owners wanted to cheat the players and the Boys/Skins didnt participate…plain and simple.

  60. dccha7777 says: Mar 15, 2012 9:39 AM

    I’ve seen too many comments about this being an issue with the Cowboys and Redskins dumping money from new contracts into the uncapped year. In reality, that wasn’t the case at all. All the contracts in question was for existing players, not New drafter players for 2010. So, please everyone understand the controversy, before making comments.

    All that being said, the NFL definitely overstepped on this issue. All the contracts that where in question where ALL approved by the NFL and NFLP. So, this is nothing more than an attempt by owners with less revenue to stick it too two of the more wealthy owners for doing what they have done for years in this NFL Salary Cap World we live it today.

    Was it illegal for both teams to do this, NO. Was it fair gamesmanship, NO. But, the bottom line is there wasn’t any rules violations here and therefore no penalties should have been inflicted on either team.

    This is a law suit ready to happen, but my guess is that neither owner will go that route. However, both make sure that the commissioner know how they feel and will be owed a HUGE favor of the commissioner some day. In the Words of Marlon Brando in the God Father Movie: Someday, and that day may never come, I’ll call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day accept this justice as gift”…

    One day, Jerry and Dan will come to the Goddell and ask for a favor.. And he will owe them, for NOT Suing and dragging this out in court!!!!

  61. weswelkerspornstash says: Mar 15, 2012 9:40 AM

    If they cap there spending aren’t they going to get to keep more of their own money? It’s not like it goes to the same place James Harrison pays all his fines too

  62. nortonfest says: Mar 15, 2012 9:41 AM

    PFT, I know this is a busy week with free agency and all, but I would really love to see an article with real contract data from 2010. It seems that other teams did the same thing and went unpunished. Many people are holding up the Bears contract to Peppers as an example, but you guys could put some real facts before us instead of what is being put into the comments.

    The sad thing for the players is many teams won’t use the extra $1.6 million. Look at this year where the Cardinals only carried over $2 million of the possible $7 million from 2011. Just an example of one team that won’t be spending the extra cap space that they get via this scam.

    As a Cowboys fan would love to see Jones stick it to them. The fact that Jerry has been so quiet on this issue so far amazes me more than anything else! I imagine there will be more to come at the owners meeting later this month.

  63. Kevin Broom says: Mar 15, 2012 10:33 AM

    What I don’t get is why the players union has rolled over for the league on this subject. I understand that Goodell increased the cap by about $4 million to buy off the union, but that’s selling pretty cheap in my opinion.

    The union has agreed to turn a blind eye to an illegal practice that took money out its members pockets in 2010 for a payment of no more than $128 million this year.

    The union ought to be even more pissed about this than the Redskins and Cowboys. The league has ADMITTED they were involved in collusion designed to suppress player salaries during a season that was specifically negotiated to be uncapped.

    Now the two biggest spenders — two of the highest revenue teams — have been prevented from doing the kind of spending they’d normally do. And the union just takes it, even though many teams won’t even use that redistributed $1.6 million.

    It’s stunning.

  64. snowburnt says: Mar 15, 2012 10:37 AM

    @nortonfest

    The difference between what the other (8 teams I believe, including the superbowl winning Packers) did was they signed new people to deals rather than restructure deals that already existed. The skins and cowboys also used techniques to make massive amounts of the restructured deals disappear during that uncapped year so that once the CBA was completed they wouldn’t have to worry about the cap hit, the other teams gave more standard deals to their players where they did get rid of some money during the non-capped year, but most of their contracts were still spread throughout the length of the contract. I think the teams still got rid of at least $10 million each that way, but those contracts still felt some cap hit after the CBA.

  65. daysend564 says: Mar 15, 2012 10:37 AM

    Heck, all they really have to do is go after the fact that items such as this have to go through a vote. They have to get 24/32 teams to agree to the punishment. There was no vote, just something handed down by Mara and Goodell.

  66. orakpownd says: Mar 15, 2012 10:40 AM

    Haters gonna Hate…

    Don’t be mad our owners spend money on their respective football teams.

  67. thraiderskin says: Mar 15, 2012 10:51 AM

    Going off what Norton sort of hinted at, If I were the league, I would be a little unsettled, seeing how the most outspoken owner in the league has said nothing. Something big is brewing in the Jones’ camp and I doubt Snyder is far behind. I’m glad that there are so many people on here that think the Redskins, Cowboys, Saints and Raiders cheated, because it just proves you have no grasp of the english language and probably struggle in critical thinking situations. While it may seem harsh, you’ve proven nothing else.

  68. rebel2650 says: Mar 15, 2012 10:54 AM

    Look, I don’t know about JJones, but not even the Danny can just kiss $36 million bye-bye without a fight! I mean people please! What’s all the discussion about?! They should get their attorneys to climb so far up GODell’s favorite orifice that it makes him walk bow-legged, and oinkin’ from the boinkin’!

  69. craigskins21 says: Mar 15, 2012 10:58 AM

    i keep reading these comments on how these teams shouldn’t have cheated…….maybe some of you didnt read or cant read…..the league said they didnt cheat…..it wasnt against any rule……we just prefer you not do it because all the other owners are cheap and wanna put their money in their own pocket!!!!

  70. tmkelley1 says: Mar 15, 2012 11:15 AM

    Something tells me that at least one of the Federal DAs in NYC will start looking into this unless the NFL backs down and rescinds these penalties. Mr. Goodell seems to getting a little power-mad, and he may have turned on a light he shouldn’t have.

  71. phillyforlife says: Mar 15, 2012 11:17 AM

    mikea311 says: Mar 15, 2012 8:54 AM

    i continue to think that this isnt an issue that they paid the players but how they paid the players.

    by dumping a majority of the salaries to new signees into the uncapped year they essentially gave themselves an unfair advantage by circumventing the cap in future years.

    its not that the others owners didn’t want to pay the players its that the redskins and cowboys did it in a way to help themselves out in the future.

    so now the league is taking that they thought they gave themselves back

    —————————————————-

    I totally agree. It not that the league was colluding , it the fact that 2 team played word games with contracts.
    Example-In the Cowboys’ case, it was the lumping of $17 million of base salary into the uncapped year in an apparent effort to draw down his cap hit in future years.

  72. renaldballet says: Mar 15, 2012 11:17 AM

    Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.[citation needed] It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production.[1] It can involve “wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties”.[2] In legal terms, all acts affected by collusion are considered void.

  73. phillyforlife says: Mar 15, 2012 11:21 AM

    That was Miles Austin’s contract I was referring to.

  74. dccha7777 says: Mar 15, 2012 11:31 AM

    @phillyforlife says…

    Yes, it was for Miles Austin… And, he’s not a new player so your statement: “by dumping a majority of the salaries to new signees into the uncapped year”, is incorrect.

    Front loading contracts are nothing new!! Its been done for years. Hell, it was done this week, ala Megatron’s Deal!! As well as whatever Mario Williams finally signs for as well as Payton Manning. HUGE Upfront Bonus money is “Front Loading Contracts”.

    It basically comes down to the “Haves and Have Nots”. And not just in the NFL. Big money teams in the NBA, MLB and even NHL do it.

  75. dccha7777 says: Mar 15, 2012 11:45 AM

    All of the NFL Teams that have been on a shopping spree this year with tons of cap space, (Tampa Bay for instance) are all front loading contracts, because they have allot of space to fit it in this year.

    Because 2010 was an uncapped year, any team could have done what the Skins and Boys did. However, every team in the NFL don’t have the revenue stream that these two teams have, with Stadium Revenue, Sponsorship, etc.

    So, just like the Yankess and Red Sox of MLB and Lakers, Knicks and Mavericks of the NBA. All have significant revenue streams that other teams in their leagues don’t.

    As a fan of a small market team (Bengals Fan), I hate that we can’t compete with the revenue streams of the Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots.

    Is it unfair, Yes!! But that’s the way it works in a Capitalistic Society!!

  76. nineroutsider says: Mar 15, 2012 11:47 AM

    Exactly how I thought this would go down…these guys know they have to give their fans a few bones, but NOTHING will come of this…I give you my full money-back guarantee. If they go after the league, they open every team up to much bigger problems than cap penalties and they aren’t going to do it. Simple.

  77. tchas35 says: Mar 15, 2012 12:00 PM

    I sure hope you stay on this story until NFL fans get some satisfactory explanation.

    Messing around with cap limits surely does screw up competitive balance. I’m not a fan of either the Cowboys or the Skins, but if their owners were willing to pay Steinbrenner to try to win, that’s fair, and I’m happy to root against their attempts to buy titles. I’m not happy to have the other owners hamstring them after the fact to try to enforce collective cheapskate behavior.

    I don’t think it’s fair to say that there were no rules for 2010. There were rules — the prior CBA that said that 2010 would be an uncapped year. Uncapped year meant that they could pay everybody infinite amounts for that year and that they could give everybody contracts that had all the cash in that year. A billion $ for 2010 and a dollar a year for all other years of a contract is fair if the year was really uncapped. That’s the club that the CBA allowed the players and the more rich owners to hold over the less rich owners who wanted to let the CBA expire to force a better deal.

    If I’m Jones and Snyder, and I’ve got a contract (the CBA) that says that I can spend all I want in 2010, I don’t care how many times somebody else “warns” me not to do it, I’ve got a contract that says I can.

    I’m a fan of the league, and I want to know how the other teams can force on these two a penalty that wasn’t in the contract. If there’s something in the new CBA that allows the league to penalize certain owners for doing what the old CBA allowed, let’s hear what that is.

    And if I were a season ticket holder for the Boys or Skins, I’d be screaming for the teams to explain to me what stops them from fighting a penalty that seems unfair. Did these two sign onto something in the new CBA that makes them have to take this? The teams’ fans should want to know, or see some explanation about why they wouldn’t go to the mat on this one.

  78. emperorzero says: Mar 15, 2012 12:06 PM

    I have a question: If the NFL was found guilty of collusion, wouldn’t it be likely the Redskins and Cowboys would also be forced to cough up a lot of coin as part of any settlement? I know the NFL says the teams act as 32 seperate businesses, but if the league was found guilty of collusion, but the Cowboys and Redskins avoided the financial fallout, I think Jones and Snyder would find life working within the NFL quite difficult.

Leave a Reply

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