Skip to content

NFL’s statement on Cowboys, Redskins grievance

[Editor’s note:  The NFL issued on Monday a statement regarding the grievance filed by the Cowboys and Redskins in response to the decision to remove $46 million in cap space from the two teams.  The full text of the statement appears below.]

The Cowboys and Redskins have challenged the NFL’s recent agreement with the NFL Players Association to set the salary cap for 2012 and to reallocate certain salary cap room from Dallas and Washington to 28 other clubs.

The reallocation aspect of the agreement is intended to address competitive issues arising from contract practices by those clubs in the 2010 League Year intended to avoid certain salary cap charges in 2011 and later years.

Under the agreement with the NFLPA, the two clubs will be charged a total of $46 million in cap room in the 2012 and 2013 seasons ($18 million per year for Washington; $5 million per year for Dallas).  That room, instead, will be reallocated to 28 other clubs in the 2012 or 2013 season as determined by the Club.  (The New Orleans Saints and Oakland Raiders, which engaged in similar contract practices in 2010 at a far different level, will not receive any additional cap room.  Those two clubs have not challenged the agreement with the NFLPA.)

The agreement will promote competitive balance without reducing the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis.

The arbitration will be heard by Professor Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania.  No date has been set for a hearing.  The clubs were advised of the status of the proceeding at today’s league meeting.  The NFL and Clubs will have no further comment at this time.

Permalink 9 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Dallas Cowboys, Features, Washington Redskins
9 Responses to “NFL’s statement on Cowboys, Redskins grievance”
  1. rg3isvictory says: Mar 26, 2012 11:01 PM

    Goodell is a joke amd Mara a cheating ass!!!

  2. dcfan21 says: Mar 26, 2012 11:09 PM

    “competitive balance” = you did not particpate in our illigal collusion.

    Everbody knows what a uncapped year means……spend as much or little as you want.

  3. GoHawks.info says: Mar 27, 2012 12:48 AM

    If they want to promote competitive balance, should the Redskins, Cowboys and Raiders be given MORE cap room? We all know those three teams waste more money than the rest of the NFL combined…

  4. adamjt13 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:24 AM

    The NFL should explain why teams that exploited the uncapped year more than the Saints were not penalized AND were given extra cap room.

    The Packers, for example, gave players such as Nick Collins ($8.3 million) and Ryan Pickett ($6,437,500) huge roster bonuses that were not prorated into the capped years. Those two players’ combined “cap” numbers in 2010 were $19,387,500. In 2011, when the cap returned, their combined cap numbers were more than $10 million less. That’s not taking advantage of the uncapped year?

    During the uncapped year, the largest signing bonus (prorated) handed out by the Packers was $4 million (to Nick Collins, whose roster bonus was more than twice as much). They gave out FIVE unprorated roster bonuses that were at least $5 million.

    A year later, after the cap returned, the largest unprorated roster bonus that the Packers gave out was $3.05 million. They gave out four *prorated* signing bonuses of more than $3.3 million, including $8 million to AJ Hawk and $6 million to Josh Sitton.

    And the Packers’ weren’t taking advantage of the uncapped year by structuring contracts differently? Right …

  5. pjlva says: Mar 27, 2012 6:49 AM

    And there are no penalties for the teams that barely spent half of the “gentlemen’s” cap that year…..So if you can take advantage of the uncapped year by not paying your players shouldn’t the players union be screaming about that too?????? Gee I guess competitive balance only applies when you are jealous of their jersey sales or something.

  6. stats5 says: Mar 27, 2012 11:50 AM

    Jones and Snyder may not be great with football decisions, but when it comes to financial/business decisions they can run circles around most of the idiot owners of the other 30 teams. When the arbitrator or perhaps a federal court ultimately rules on this issue, the rest of the owners, along with Goodell and D. Smith will be looking like fools, and Jones and Snyder will be vindicated. D. Smith comes out of this thing looking the most self serving. The players need to wake up and realize he is in way over his head.

  7. vawoody15 says: Mar 28, 2012 4:39 PM

    Let me get this right…the argument for the rest of the NFL owners went something like this..If I vote against the Cowboys and Redskins, I get paid. If I vote for the Cowboys and Redskins I get nothing.
    “GUILTY!” How much do I get Mr. Goodell?

  8. brickhead2012 says: Mar 29, 2012 4:01 PM

    He OWES the fans of the franchises an explanation of exactly why he did this. OWES an explanation to the sport.
    If he cannot legitimately do so then he may deserve to lose his job . It appears his head is getting a little too big. The Commish is a fool for not explaining himself.

  9. tonyromoisterrible says: Mar 30, 2012 4:29 PM

    I hope Goodell loses his job.

Leave a Reply

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