Skip to content

Owners vote to impose cap penalties on Cowboys, Redskins

nfl_g_jones11_576 Getty Images

The collusion continues for the NFL.

Two years after the league tried to place extra pressure on the players in the season  before the lockout by not treating the “uncapped year” like a truly uncapped year, the NFL took action against the teams that decided to treat the uncapped year like an uncapped year.

And now, to close the loop, NFL owners have unanimously decided, with one abstention and with the Redskins and Cowboys not voting, to reaffirm the $46 million in cap penalties.  Albert Breer of NFL Network reports that a Tuesday morning vote resulted in 29 ayes, no nays, and one “pass.”  (Our guess is that the Raiders abstained.  After all, they abstained from the final vote on the new CBA, and they’re one of the two other teams to be prevented from sharing in the redistributed cap money from the Redskins and Cowboys.)

The move isn’t surprising.  Now that the Redskins and Cowboys have taken legal action, the NFL needs to circle the Conestogas.  And even if an initial vote was a lot closer, the NFL is more than smart enough to conduct a second clean-up vote that creates the impression of unanimity.

The fact that 29 teams think the league is right doesn’t make it right.  Business owners often have a warped view of reality, convinced that their position is correct and any opposing view is wrong and any external body that would disagree is corrupt.

Moreover, rich guys don’t like being told what to do, especially by other rich guys.

In this case, two of the richest of the rich guys –  Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder — also happen to be objectively correct, and we’ve yet to see any evidence to the contrary.  No rules were broken, no policies were violated, and the contracts were approved when submitted.

But with the NFLPA already having waived any collusion claims and with Jones and Snyder apparently unwilling to pull the pin on the collusion grenade, the NFL doesn’t fear any potential fallout from the arbitration process, other than the possibility of having to refund the confiscated cap space.

The league would be wise to at least worry a little about a worst-case scenario.  With Congress already sniffing around the bounty situation, all it takes is one particularly zealous and influential legislator to see this for what it really is (i.e., confirmation of a concerted effort to steamroll the union in 2010 and 2011) and to launch an effort to strip the league of the broadcast antitrust exemption.

Permalink 152 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Dallas Cowboys, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
152 Responses to “Owners vote to impose cap penalties on Cowboys, Redskins”
  1. bozosforall says: Mar 27, 2012 1:38 PM

    Strip the broadcast antitrust exemption…and take baseball’s antitrust exemption away as well. Make those greedy owners EARN their money.

  2. nebster21 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:38 PM

    Sue and Sue big. I am talking in the BILLIONS maybe even TRILLIONS.

  3. marissa227 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:39 PM

    Garbage!!!!

  4. stealthscorpio says: Mar 27, 2012 1:39 PM

    Maybe like a politician representing the Dallas or Greater DC area?

  5. jenniferxxx says: Mar 27, 2012 1:39 PM

    Cheaters be cheatin ‘ … nice try Cowboys and Redskins, but ya got caught. Better luck next time.

  6. dv5454 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:41 PM

    This appears to be a situation the NFL overlooked, and frankly, did a poor job of organizing.

    If the league approved these decisions (which they did) then both the Cowboys and Redskins have every right to disagree with the decision.

  7. 1buckeye76 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:41 PM

    Instant karma’s gonna get you…

  8. deangelo1776 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:41 PM

    This is such a crazy offseason story. Has this EVER happened before?

    This year’s offseason has been so exciting haha

  9. Soulman45 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:42 PM

    Those are the big boys let them play with a few mills.

  10. benh999 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:42 PM

    “Business owners often have a warped view of reality, convinced that their position is correct and any opposing view is wrong and any external body that would disagree is corrupt.”

    Sounds like the people that runs sports blogs.

  11. rc33 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:43 PM

    With Congress already sniffing around the bounty situation..
    ——————————

    Pathetic. Just pathetic.
    With an approval rating of around 15%, you’d think (hope) they’d be smarter than to do this.
    Show’s exactly what they think of us….if we didn’t already know.

  12. timbuttrum says: Mar 27, 2012 1:43 PM

    What owner is going to vote against this? They got extra cap money from the Skins/Cowboys, why would they vote against anything that they clearly benefit from? I’m shocked that the NFL is pressing this much as this can get a lot bigger if this ever gets in front of a federal judge. I think that they would be smart to refund the cap hits and be done with this.

  13. vtopa says: Mar 27, 2012 1:44 PM

    Between this and the way the NFL screwed up the Saints bounty investigation, the NFL shield is looking more and more tarnished every day. It really IS just a sleazy business, isn’t it?

  14. mdpickles says: Mar 27, 2012 1:44 PM

    If I want to learn about legal mumbo jumbo, I watch the second half of Law & Order. Let us know what the end result is, not all the legalese in between. Thx

  15. billsfan27 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:44 PM

    Blah, blah, blah. Bring on the draft.

  16. effedinLA says: Mar 27, 2012 1:45 PM

    Stick it to these clown$. It cracks me up that they spent so much on players and weren’t even close to doing anything in the post season. Cowboys are on their way down but I think the Skins are headed in the right direction. This may hinder that a bit but, they have a better GM than the Cows.q

  17. gweez76 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:45 PM

    Kraft and Mara’s lapdog isn’t the final say in this one. Wellington wouldn’t be proud Johnny.

  18. ssingh85 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:45 PM

    I hope Snyder and Jones sue these donkeys. This is becoming a circus. The NFL and Goodell must really believe they are above the law. And now Goodell is essentially trying to strong arm the skins by “leaving the door open to punishing the skins for bounty gate” if they do not just accept the punishment thats been handed to them. Lol i am use to this corruption from FIFA but not the NFL.

  19. ryansiefert10 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:45 PM

    Of course the other teams are in favor of taking 46 million from the Skins and Cowboys, they all get a portion of it!

  20. mfancy says: Mar 27, 2012 1:45 PM

    of course they were going to vote yes. they aren’t going to turn down an extra $1.6 million in cap space.

  21. astrosfan75956 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:46 PM

    This is BS, of course they voted that way. Goodwill you’re cheating these teams.

  22. duanethomas says: Mar 27, 2012 1:46 PM

    You can champion the cause of The Cowboys and Redskins all you want, and keep drumming up that they should sue. It will not go well for them going up against the NFL and the other 29 teams. They should take their medicine and try to get back to winning a SuperBowl. Something both haven’t come close to doing in over 14 ears…..

  23. sportsmeccabi says: Mar 27, 2012 1:46 PM

    If my friends ever did something like this in our fantasy football leagues, the people we “punished” wouldn’t even play anymore.

    Unfortunately, Snyder and Jones arent playing fantasy football (well, sometimes they do with their franchises), they’re dealing with billion dollar entities, so backing out isn’t an option as a form of protest.

    Please sue the NFL Snyder and Jones, I want Goodell to finally realize he isn’t some kind of king.

  24. YouMadCauseImStylingOnYou says: Mar 27, 2012 1:47 PM

    Love how the teams who went under the cap floor had no problem imposing penalties on those who supposedly went over it.

    Enjoy your lawsuit NFL.

  25. hmpennypacker says: Mar 27, 2012 1:47 PM

    Needs of the many out way the needs of the few. They couldn’t have voted any other way or the collusion issue would be more than the white elephant in the room. Am I wrong?

  26. musicman495 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:47 PM

    Anyone who thinks that senators from VA or MD or TX (or even LA who are ticked about bountygate suspensions) will not demand answers from Goodell and others about this collusion matter while they are under oath has not spent much time watching Congress. And I cannot wait to watch him squirm.

  27. skinsrock says: Mar 27, 2012 1:47 PM

    I just think it’s ridiculous to think last year the Redskins & the Cowboys were the only teams t0 pay a person the last bonus due on a contract. Also, if the Redskins knew they were going to face a collusive penalty brought on by jealous owners, they would of just cut Albert Haynesworth reducing this cap penalty by 21 million. The NFL just hides behind a bunch or rhetoric that basically makes it impossible to get a fair judgement from anyone that isn’t part of the collusion.

  28. blowtorch1964 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:48 PM

    Hate to say it, but my two most hated teams, particularly Dallas, are right about this.

    It is collusion, the NFL owners are a cartel, and the “uncapped/not really uncapped” year created an unfair bargaining position for the owners.

    There are members of Congress who already do not like the anti-trust exemption.

  29. tfbuckfutter says: Mar 27, 2012 1:48 PM

    This kind of vote is always funny, from grade school on up.

    “Who votes we beat up Adam today?”
    “Aye” – Everyone who isn’t Adam.

  30. geniusesq says: Mar 27, 2012 1:49 PM

    And in other news, George Zimmerman still claims self defense.

    Shocker

  31. httr21 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:49 PM

    Of course the owners voted for the ruling. It put more money in their pockets and less in their competitors…

  32. nemesder says: Mar 27, 2012 1:49 PM

    Really? tell me more

  33. PriorKnowledge says: Mar 27, 2012 1:49 PM

    Wow. Unbelievable. 29 of them! Even one of the two that got slightly punished?

    And the amount of the cap for the Redskins was $36 mil. That is more than compensatory – That was punitive. It said, “How dare you not cheat like the rest of us! Take that!”

  34. glynners says: Mar 27, 2012 1:49 PM

    Soooo.. the owners vote to impose a penalty on two other teams that will give themselves more cap space & effect said teams ability to sign players… Nothing bent about that vote at all…

  35. karlpilkington says: Mar 27, 2012 1:49 PM

    unfreakingbelievable, give the cap space back and move on from this…The part I do not understand is redistributing the monies taken and given to the other clubs. Can someone explain why that took place…

  36. bigd88 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:50 PM

    This is the classic example of a room full of people, and everyone decides to vote in order to take all the money from one person’s wallet and distribute it among everyone else in the room.
    Just because they voted and the majority agreed to take the random person’s money, doesn’t make it OK or legal.
    If the Cowboys and Redskins push this through the courts, the courts will eat this up and Mara and everyone else involved will look even more ridiculous than they already have.

    PS-How can you vote on something that you already did? LOL what a joke this is. Sorry but these guys overstepped their boundaries and backhanded the wrong guys in Dan and Jerry. They’re not gonna roll over for the NFL and it’s BS.

  37. stanklepoot says: Mar 27, 2012 1:50 PM

    I wouldn’t say close the loop as much as brings the issue full circle. I’ve said before in the comments section of other articles that this was not a play by Goodell. The beat down of the Saints coaching staff was, but not this. How do I know that? Simple really. The league office did not file the initial complaint against the Cowboys and Redskins…the other owners did. Goodell may be responsible for deciding the final form that the punishment took, but both the decision to punish the cowboys and redskins as well as the manner in which they would be punished was a decision made by the owners. That being the case, I’m hardly surprised that the owners voted so decisively to continue along this path when they were the ones that chose to go down this path to begin with. As for Goodell, when 28 or 29 of the people who decide whether or not you have a job say someone else needs to be punished, you punish them or they’ll find someone who will. I can’t bring myself to blame him for that. I’m guessing jobs that good aren’t easy to come by.

  38. laramtime says: Mar 27, 2012 1:50 PM

    Batman and Robin strike again

  39. conormacleod says: Mar 27, 2012 1:51 PM

    This will quietly go away very soon. I don’t think they are going to upset the $9 billion apple cart.

  40. kilo0986 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:51 PM

    Please no, the government already f*%!d up everything else in this country. Dont let it stick its scum bag hands in my football.

  41. moagecu says: Mar 27, 2012 1:51 PM

    Also, if the Redskins knew they were going to face a collusive penalty brought on by jealous owners, they would of just cut Albert Haynesworth reducing this cap penalty by 21 million.
    _____________

    Yea…. because EVERYONE is so jealous of the Redskins, thats like saying the NBA owners are jealous of the Wizards. Sucks that they are both in Washington.

  42. jason1980 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:52 PM

    Way to go JJ, hit the NFL where it hurts, and make them pay! I like the way GODdell is shooting himself in the foot. Nice PR for the NFL!

  43. dpinchot says: Mar 27, 2012 1:52 PM

    Mike, how can one sports writer get so much wrong, every time? You miss the point. The Cowboys and Redskins used the uncapped year to resign players with huge bonuses that only counted in the uncapped year. That lead to an uncompetitive advantage and was against what the teams agreed to. The roster bonus was not spread out over the upcoming uncapped years, like a normal signing bonus would. The teams did not collude to pay the players less, they agrees to not abuse the one uncapped year.
    Mike, you are indeed an idiot

  44. foooolerm says: Mar 27, 2012 1:52 PM

    Perhaps you might be wise NOT to offer to offer opinions and NOT bite the hand that feeds. The owners do not all agree at the moment, so you will by definition get someone’s dander up. As you say they are very rich.

  45. pjhurley5 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:53 PM

    I think it’s incredibly unrealistic to expect the league to have combed through each individual contract AT THE TIME IT WAS SUBMITTED and make a determination that it was or was not in accordance with their instructions to the teams. As such, it’s no surprise that the contracts were approved at the time…do you think the teams would have been happy to have a huge backlog of contracts not getting pushed through because the league had to go through each one with an extra-fine-toothed comb?

    This is all beside the fact that a judgment as to whether a team is complying with the spirit of the NFL’s direction during the uncapped year cannot be made on the basis of each individual contract in a piece-meal fashion. You need to analyze the entire set of transactions that were entered into in order to be able to see any type of pattern of underlying behavior. As it happens, it seems that the NFL did just that with the Redskins and Cowboys. I see it as perfectly reasonable that the contracts were initially approved and the underlying PERVASIVE behavior was discovered afterwards. If you expect on-the-spot detection of these things you’re going to have a lot more delays, which will just make people/teams angry, and you will end up having a lot more “false alarms” when one contract looks suspicious, but it is the only one out of a bunch from one team to look that way.

    Having said all of that, this issue needs to be laid to rest. I am sick of hearing about collusion and “going nuclear.”

  46. myspaceyourface says: Mar 27, 2012 1:53 PM

    Jerry Jones brought up a good point. (don’t often say that)

    If there was something wrong with the contracts, then why did the NFL approve them?

  47. conormacleod says: Mar 27, 2012 1:54 PM

    Crying “it’s not fair” isn’t going to help. Just ask the Saints. And, blaming Goodell is kind of difficult when the vote by owners was 29-0. And, never forget, Goodell is given his power by the owners. And one last newsflash for you all…Billionaires do not play by the same rules as you and I. If you don’t like it, become a billionaire.

  48. lucky5934 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:54 PM

    hmpennypacker says: Mar 27, 2012 1:47 PM

    Needs of the many out way the needs of the few. They couldn’t have voted any other way or the collusion issue would be more than the white elephant in the room. Am I wrong?

    ———————————————————-
    Yes, you are wrong. It is out “weigh” the needs of the few. Oh yeah, and the NFL needs to punish the teams who did not spend enough money as well. I seriously the doubt the “Needs” of the other 30 NFL teams were at risk because the Skins and Cowboys took advantage of the opportunity.

  49. tezz123 says: Mar 27, 2012 1:55 PM

    Jerry Jones and Snyder’s unwillingness to go all out due to the future implications means they probably understand that they aren’t going to win this. I think they’re just posturing at this point for their fans.

  50. profootballwalk says: Mar 27, 2012 1:55 PM

    nflcollusion says: Mar 27, 2012 1:44 PM

    For anyone who wants to see a list of “influential legislators” that have jurisdiction here go to http://www.nflcollusion.com and click on make your voice heard.

    This site was started by a redskins season ticket holder and a die-hard cowboys fan.
    ———————————————-

    If I was a fan of either team, I’d worry more about their failure to make the playoffs.

  51. joetorious says: Mar 27, 2012 1:55 PM

    I’m not a fan of either team, but they are victims of an NFL that makes up the rules as it goes and punishes teams/players/personnel for actions that are perfectly acceptable at a given time, but later determined to be against newly created rules.

    #BringBackTagliabue

  52. pfthatesonme says: Mar 27, 2012 1:56 PM

    Goodell is going to be the cause of death to the NFL

  53. jwreck says: Mar 27, 2012 1:56 PM

    effedinLA says: Mar 27, 2012 1:45 PM

    Stick it to these clown$. It cracks me up that they spent so much on players and weren’t even close to doing anything in the post season.

    I fail to understand how people still fail to understand that the Cowboys and Redskins controversy has nothing to do with Dallas or DC “buying” free agent players. The only team that did that was Chicago when they bought Peppers for 30+ million up front and 900,000 dollars a year for the forseeable future. Dallas and Washington were just dumping off old deadweight so they could get ready to improve in the future.

  54. ffwoodycooks says: Mar 27, 2012 1:57 PM

    The NFL better thank their lucky stars they the public is insane for their product. The garbage that runs this league would’ve run any other less popular sport into the ground. How can you retroactively punish teams for contracts that you approved? Jerry and Snyder need to knock these morons off their moral “in the interest of fairness” high horse and give them a legal beatdown.

  55. radrntn says: Mar 27, 2012 1:58 PM

    Gotta love Mark Davis….the raiders have their own reason for abstaining…they have known all along the nfl violates all anti-trust laws.

    Glad to see Mark holding the line even after his father has passes. Huge props to you

  56. AlanSaysYo says: Mar 27, 2012 1:59 PM

    You know great injustice has been done when Dan Snyder is a sympathetic figure.

  57. repojam says: Mar 27, 2012 1:59 PM

    So of those 29 owners who voted in favor of this, some of them were teams that were below the spending floor. Wasn’t the spending floor part of the prior CBA? Wasn’t that to be part of the ‘handshake agreement’ or was it only when it involved paying the players?

  58. chawk12thman says: Mar 27, 2012 2:00 PM

    Seems a bit slanted here. You obviously have made up your mind due to the lack of information regarding the specifics in this case. The NFL is not going to put out the evidence with pending arbitration or legal action. Until this case runs its course a little objectivity would be nice. Not to say we all think the case made in the press by the NFL has been weak, but that we obviously don’t have all the facts, yet.

    As I see it, if the owners were previously instructed and agreed in principle to continue with the terms of the previous CBA regarding salary cap restrictions and then were repeatedly warned to comply, there is little recourse. This is espcially true given the collusion waiver by the NFLPA.

    I would like to see Washington and Dallas (owners) actually come out and say that “they didn’t agree” or “know of any such agreement by the owners existed.” If that is the case, they may have a better arguement.

    Again, not making an arguement for or against the Salary Cap system or severity of the penalty regarding this issue. Just want to be a bit more objective in the reporting and slant taken until more information comes out.

  59. baddegg says: Mar 27, 2012 2:00 PM

    This is just a vote in a kangaroo court…aren’t the Redskins and Cowboys still going to get this case seen by an arbitrator?

    All this vote prooves is that the collusion has been agreed to by a wide number of NFL clubs. However, this vote does not necessarily what will inform what an arbitrator or judge will say when presented with this case.

  60. kevpft says: Mar 27, 2012 2:00 PM

    Amazing how quickly the NFLPA became lapdogs, eh?

    A unanimous vote couldn’t look any more like collusion.

  61. hendawg21 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:00 PM

    Oh as someone once said they’ve “F”d with the wrong two owners and you don’t think Snyder and Jones don’t have political connections especially Snyder having Bruce Allen on his payroll and brother George and former Gov of Virginia I think you just might start hearing some rumblings up on the HILL…

  62. stanklepoot says: Mar 27, 2012 2:02 PM

    YouMadCauseImStylingOnYou says: Mar 27, 2012 1:47 PM

    Love how the teams who went under the cap floor had no problem imposing penalties on those who supposedly went over it.

    Enjoy your lawsuit NFL.
    _____________________________
    There’s not going to be a lawsuit. The Cowboys and Redskins named the NFLPA in their grievance not because they think the NFLPA can change their penalty in any way, but because in doing so they create an owner-player dispute that allows them to have their grievance heard by the arbitrator. The arbitrator was never intended to handle disputes amongst the owners, but it looks like Jones and Snyder found another loophole…kind of ironic really. the thing is, neither Jones nor Snyder want to file a lawsuit, because even if they win, they could end up losing even more. If the judge found that inappropriate actions were taking place within the league that were aimed at altering the ability of certain teams to compete, then the judge could use that as an opening to give him/herself certain oversight over the inner workings of the league office. No owner wants that. It would be much worse than when Doty put himself in position to oversee the dealings between the owners and the players. Having finally rid themselves of Doty with the new CBA, what owner would be crazy enough to risk a judge putting his/herself in a position to interfere to a much greater degree?

  63. Punk says: Mar 27, 2012 2:03 PM

    Goodell continues to go outside the lines of convention to keep people from gaming the system.

    Some people support him and some people do not. It seems to me that whether or not you agree with Goodell on a particular ruling tends line up with whether or not the ruling went in favor of your favorite team.

  64. irishdawg42 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:03 PM

    “”Love how the teams who went under the cap floor had no problem imposing penalties on those who supposedly went over it.

    Enjoy your lawsuit NFL.””

    @YouMadCauseImStylingOnYou

    It isn’t because they spent over the cap in 2010..It is because they restructured contracts that would effect future caps. They cleared money that should have gone against future years and dumped them into 2010 because they wanted to keep their players and still have money to manipulate the market in future years.

    For instance, they would not have had the money for their off season moves in 2012, if they still had Haynesworth and others on their books. But because they circumvented the system, they were able to make some crazy moves already since that money is off the books.

    Now they must account for that money that they hid in 2010 with the salary cap sanctions. It really comes down to evening out what other clubs didn’t do to manipulate the system. They have essentially taken the cap money they removed from future years and placed in 2010 and re-distributed it back into 2012 and 2013.

  65. ceschatz says: Mar 27, 2012 2:06 PM

    Ahhh, the other owners are upset because they didn’t realize they could have done the same thing. No rules were broken meaning no penalties should occur. The NFL office is rediculous with their greed.

  66. bucs13 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:07 PM

    I really wish there was some more legal analysis here, given the proprietors of this site. Take the following scenario-

    Player signs contract with Team A in uncapped year. Player signs contract with third party on behest of Team A during uncapped year that guarantees payout during capped years. Team A pays large sum to third party during uncapped year. Kosher?

    Now, try this out again.
    A. Team A pays superstar $25 million one year contract during uncapped year.
    B. Team A pays superstar $25 million signing bonus during uncapped year, and $5 million guaranteed annual salary for next five years.
    C. Team A pays superstar $25 million guaranteed contract for uncapped year, and $1 million guaranteed for next five years.

    I think that C is arguably a problem. Could the site proprietors, using the CBA, explain why it isn’t (since in year two, it’s an evasion of that year’s salary cap)?

  67. karlpilkington says: Mar 27, 2012 2:08 PM

    effedinLA says: Mar 27, 2012 1:45 PM

    Stick it to these clown$. It cracks me up that they spent so much on players and weren’t even close to doing anything in the post season.

    I fail to understand how people still fail to understand that the Cowboys and Redskins controversy has nothing to do with Dallas or DC “buying” free agent players. The only team that did that was Chicago when they bought Peppers for 30+ million up front and 900,000 dollars a year for the forseeable future. Dallas and Washington were just dumping off old deadweight so they could get ready to improve in the future.

    Exactly spending all that money? Dude do your homework, yes they spent money but it was on Fat Albert and D. Hall, its not like thgey went and signed a bunch of FA’s

  68. flaccotoboldin says: Mar 27, 2012 2:10 PM

    Ethics? Spirit of the game? Competitive balance / parity?

    Right, none of that matters. Just legality.

    Like we DON’T have a commissioner to protect the game and the validity and fairness of the competition we pay for.

    Cowboys and Deadskins acted against the spirit of the game, and acted unethically. And this was after warning from the Commish. They deserve the penalty.

    But lawyers runnign a sports blog will focus on the legal X’s and O’s for the sake of it. Ugh.

  69. mhuffstetler says: Mar 27, 2012 2:13 PM

    “With Congress already sniffing around the bounty situation, all it takes is one particularly zealous and influential legislator to see this for what it really is”

    – Interesting to point out that Bruce Allen’s brother, George, is a former Senator. Don’t think it would be hard to push this to the politicos for Bruce.

  70. 1oz1 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:13 PM

    They spent money to make thier team better (or try at least) It was an un regulated year! If other teams did not, then that fan base should be upset! If you was with in your right to make your team better would you? I think you would. The other teams just didn’t want to spend bottom line. This will get over turned.

  71. jbl429 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:15 PM

    I wonder if it’s worth it to Jerry Jones to put up all this stink if it means there will never be another Super Bowl in Dallas in his lifetime.

  72. bleedsoe9mm says: Mar 27, 2012 2:18 PM

    Good to see 29 owners are interested in the long term health of the league , not only their teams short term interest

  73. stanklepoot says: Mar 27, 2012 2:18 PM

    PriorKnowledge says: Mar 27, 2012 1:49 PM

    Wow. Unbelievable. 29 of them! Even one of the two that got slightly punished?

    And the amount of the cap for the Redskins was $36 mil. That is more than compensatory – That was punitive. It said, “How dare you not cheat like the rest of us! Take that!”
    _______________________________
    Whether you agree with the punishment or not, those numbers are not arbitrary. Remember, they’re not being punished for spending too much money, they’re being punished for dumping too much money in the uncapped year. these two teams did so not to get more players in the uncapped year, but so that those big money players would hit the cap like middle of the road backups when the cap was reinstated. That would allow these teams to bring in even more big money players once the cap was back in place, giving them a competitive advantage over the owners that didn’t dump an excessive amount of contract money in the uncapped year. That’s the league’s argument anyway.

    As to the specific amount that their caps are being reduced, the $36 million hit the Redskins were assigned is based on the $21 million of Albert Haynesworth’s contract and the $15 million of DeAngelo Hall’s contract that was dumped into the uncapped year. So, the $36 million hit is not a generic attempt to punish the Redskins, but an attempt to cancel out the cap space they saved by doing what they did. I believe the $10 million cap hit the Cowboys were assessed is based off of Miles Austin’s contract.

  74. feck12a says: Mar 27, 2012 2:19 PM

    the arbitrator himself is in the nfl’s back pocket. He will undoubtedly rule for the nfl and then the fun will begin…the nfl as you know it will cease to exist. times are a changin’ nfl your old men owners/sons inheriting a team will soon have to realize it.

  75. tominma says: Mar 27, 2012 2:19 PM

    Pardon my stupidity, but there is something I truly do NOT understand!! 2010 was an UNCAPPED year right? That means there was NO cap, no floor, no ceiling. So how do 2 teams get penalized for violating cap rules??? THERE WAS NO CAP!! Therefore there WERE no cap rules. Of course, these 2 teams, and any other team would be subject to cap rules this past season, including whatever they did in 2010! the NFL approved the contracts, there was NO cap— what am I missing??? Somebody explain it to this old man who remembers Alan Ameche pounding the ball over the goal line to beat the Giants in the NFL Championship. PLEASE??? Id like to think Im not going senile!!

  76. joebagadonuts says: Mar 27, 2012 2:21 PM

    karlpilkington says:
    Mar 27, 2012 1:49 PM
    unfreakingbelievable, give the cap space back and move on from this…The part I do not understand is redistributing the monies taken and given to the other clubs. Can someone explain why that took place…

    —————————–
    The NFLPA would not have approved the sanctions unless the penalized cap space remained in the overall cap space bank. If the NFL docked $46 million from the Redskins and Cowboys, but did not redistribute it, that would mean there is $46 million that is all of a sudden not available to pay to players via free agency. Because the $46 million is reintroduced to the other teams, it’s still available to be spent on players.

    The NFLPA basically said that they don’t care who has it, as long as the total amount of dollars available by all teams to spend on free agents remains the same. However, they kind of shot themselves in the foot – we all know that a cap space dollar owned by the Redskins has a better chance of being spent than a cap space dollar owned by the Bengals. The NFL redistibuted cap dollars to teams that wouldn’t spend it anyway.

  77. uwsptke says: Mar 27, 2012 2:21 PM

    I wonder how fast the Giants and Eagles owners voted “yes” on this topic. They get an extra couple million to play with while their division rivals are saddled with $46 million in penalties. It was probably like the scene in “Half Baked” when Dave Chappelle finds out he can get all the weed he wants by just signing some forms at the medical facility he works at and becomes orgastic. “Maui Wowi!”

  78. silasw33 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:21 PM

    There are so many memos that the NFL circulates and I am sure that one of them said that if you dump salaries and treat vets like trash you can expect some backlash.

    I guess they really didn’t care.

  79. bduncanscott says: Mar 27, 2012 2:22 PM

    I have first hand knowledge of the political connection talked about and let me tell you both teams will come out on top! However those connection are not needed, this is an easy court case. The Redskins and the Cowboys were courteous enough to give the other owners a chance and keep this “in house” they chose to stay dishonest so here comes Big court case and main stream media. Look at the mess Goodell is making for the NFL and our sport

  80. careerender56 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:24 PM

    Snyder and Jones should noe be upset with this. every year htey spend a TON of money on bad free agents. all the NFL did was save them from themselves.

    Even then Snyder figured out a way to spend a TON for two so-so recievers.

    People are acting like they took hte money out of Snyders and Jones’wallets, they just removed hte cap room htey were going to waste on bad players anyway.

  81. lovetron says: Mar 27, 2012 2:25 PM

    Wow. That’s like 30 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

  82. thereisfootballwestofjersey says: Mar 27, 2012 2:27 PM

    When ego outweighs smarts, there is trouble ahead

  83. stanklepoot says: Mar 27, 2012 2:29 PM

    karlpilkington says: Mar 27, 2012 1:49 PM

    unfreakingbelievable, give the cap space back and move on from this…The part I do not understand is redistributing the monies taken and given to the other clubs. Can someone explain why that took place…
    ______________________________
    No problem. The league wanted to alter the salary cap, and since the salary cap is a negotiated item between the league and the players, they needed the players to agree to the change. The players aren’t dumb enough to allow the league to simply lower the cap of two teams. That’s less potential money for the players. So, the league negotiated a deal with the players in which the league would redistribute the cap space being taken away from the Redskins and Cowboys to the other teams in the league if the players would consent to this particular change in the salary cap. the league got what it wants, and the players didn’t lose anything. In fact, the deal also avoided a possible drop in the salary cap from $120 million to $116 million per team. Considering that $4 million times 32 is $128 million, you could say the players had 128 million reasons to give their consent, and none to refuse. Well, they may not have loved the idea of punishing two teams known for paying players, but they certainly loved the $128 million more.

  84. andyreidisfat says: Mar 27, 2012 2:30 PM

    So 29 owners, you know, the guys whom own the league think its right. But, “objectively” it’s wrong ? Because your objective ?

  85. daysend564 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:31 PM

    karlpilkington says:
    Mar 27, 2012 1:49 PM
    ==========================
    That took place because the salary cap number for teams was going to go down from the previous year. They took the money from the Cowboys and Redskins to redistribute it such that it appeared that the cap did not go down. With this, the NFLPA agreed so it didn’t look like a heel with having the cap go down the year after it struck a deal.

  86. jnichols1210 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:32 PM

    Look at all the thumbs up and thumbs down on the comments! There is quite a bit of Redskins and Cowgirl fans crying!! LMAO

  87. steelpalace302 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:32 PM

    Of course the teams that benefit from it are going to vote yes. Did any one expect anything else? Its going to go before an abitrator and the league is going to lose 100%. They are just making it worse as they go.

  88. bucs13 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:32 PM

    “Of course, these 2 teams, and any other team would be subject to cap rules this past season, including whatever they did in 2010! the NFL approved the contracts, there was NO cap— what am I missing???”

    Let me use an analogy-

    Imagine the President of a Company is judged to have wronged his company (unjustly enriched himself) by $1 million dollars. He is ordered by a Court to repay it to the company.

    On Feb. 12th, he cuts a check to the Company for $1 million dollars. The same day, he instructs the treasurer of the company to cut him a $1 million bonus check. He claims to the Court- “Hey, I repaid the money! I didn’t break any rules!”

    This is similar to what is happening here. The Cowboys and Redskins were within their rights to spend as much money as they wanted to in the uncapped year. They could sign players to, for example, one year, $50 million contracts with no problem. But what they couldn’t do is (knowing the cap was coning back) structure contracts in such a way as to evade the future cap. See my example C, above.

    I’m not saying that this is correct or not, but it’s plausible.

  89. jr4real says: Mar 27, 2012 2:35 PM

    As much as i hate to say this as a Steeler fan, JJ is right in this case. The owners took a chance on an uncapped year and basically won. Now they are trying to eat their cake too.

  90. captaintriumph says: Mar 27, 2012 2:37 PM

    Please don’t use the word ‘collusion’ anymore to justify cheating. The Cowboys and Redskins tried to take advantage of a technically to cheat. I hope they don’t get away with it.

  91. steelpalace302 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:39 PM

    Oh and its nice of them to vote on it after they already did it lol

  92. jackstraw999 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:40 PM

    “Business owners” often have a warped view of reality, convinced that their position is correct and any opposing view is wrong and any external body that would disagree is corrupt.

    Substitute journalist, blogger, politician, professional athlete, bureaucrat, right winger, left winger ………

  93. stunzeed5 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:40 PM

    Messing with the two biggest and richest franchises in the NFL (by a HUGE margin) is a no-win proposition. Trust me, Jerry and Danny have this.

    It’s going to be so sweet reading 29 apologies, especially from Mara.

    Well, make that 30, because Goodell will be apologizing too.

  94. steelpalace302 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:41 PM

    This wasnt the ruling this was just the owners who benifited from it agreeing with it. This means nothing the league is going to lose this battle. JJ and Dan did nothing wrong. NOTHING at all. The other owners broke federal law.

  95. rcampore says: Mar 27, 2012 2:42 PM

    uwsptke says: Mar 27, 2012 2:21 PM

    I wonder how fast the Giants and Eagles owners voted “yes” on this topic. They get an extra couple million to play with while their division rivals are saddled with $46 million in penalties. It was probably like the scene in “Half Baked” when Dave Chappelle finds out he can get all the weed he wants by just signing some forms at the medical facility he works at and becomes orgastic. “Maui Wowi!”

    —————————————————–
    The Giants have a whopping 2.3 million in salary cap room while the Redskins still had 15 million under the cap AFTER the penalty so pretty sure they are not jumping up and down in money.

  96. daysend564 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:44 PM

    bucs13 says:
    Mar 27, 2012 2:32 PM
    ===========================
    You mean sort of like what the Bucs did last year by going so far under the cap that their balance was shifted into this season, resulting in 50-60M to spend in FA? Same result, different path.

  97. steelpalace302 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:44 PM

    Whats going to happen is JJ and Dan are going to win the arbitration and then congress is going to start sending out the subpoenas and then all heck is going to fly. This is far from over.

  98. deadmanwalking47 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:45 PM

    Get ready for the biggest nfl vs nfl lawsuit since al davis sued the league in the 1980s!snyder and jones will sue the league,and rightfully so!

  99. captaintriumph says: Mar 27, 2012 2:46 PM

    It’s so frustrating how so many people are justifying cheating, just because technically it might have been legal. What ever happened to fairness and integrity? Such warped logic. Jones and Snyder would throw every other owner off a bridge if it would get them a Super Bowl. It would be so disheartening if Jones and Snyder are able to get away with this.

  100. youngry says: Mar 27, 2012 2:47 PM

    So sick and tired of the legalese too, the fact of the matter is they were warned 6 times and still did it cause these two franchises think they’re better than the rest of the league. Read what Bill Polian said about this on ESPN. Polian’s opinion holds weigh more weight then some lawyer-turned-blogger.

    I don’t understand why Jerry Jones should have been included in those original meetings if he, by his own actions, thinks he’s not subject to the same rules as everyone else?

  101. jaggedmark says: Mar 27, 2012 2:48 PM

    “pull the pin on the collusion grenade” is a GREAT line.

  102. stanklepoot says: Mar 27, 2012 2:50 PM

    radrntn says: Mar 27, 2012 1:58 PM

    Gotta love Mark Davis….the raiders have their own reason for abstaining…they have known all along the nfl violates all anti-trust laws.

    Glad to see Mark holding the line even after his father has passes. Huge props to you
    _________________________
    Of course the league violates anti-trust laws. That’s why the owners locked out the players rather than continue operating while they finalized a new CBA. With a CBA in place, the owners have an anti-trust exemption that protects them from collusion charges. Had they not locked the players out, they would have had to drastically change their practices or risk handing the players a slam dunk anti-trust lawsuit. Their entire business model is based on the owners working together to maximize their revenue while keeping labor costs in check. People may complain about how much some football players make, but it’s nothing compared to what the stars in the NBA and MLB make, and their money is guaranteed. Not to mention, football players tend to deal with much more severe long term health issues related to their time in the NFL.

  103. gregorysykes says: Mar 27, 2012 2:51 PM

    dpinchot says:
    Mar 27, 2012 1:52 PM
    Mike, how can one sports writer get so much wrong, every time? You miss the point. The Cowboys and Redskins used the uncapped year to resign players with huge bonuses that only counted in the uncapped year. That lead to an uncompetitive advantage and was against what the teams agreed to. The roster bonus was not spread out over the upcoming uncapped years, like a normal signing bonus would. The teams did not collude to pay the players less, they agrees to not abuse the one uncapped year.
    Mike, you are indeed an idiot

    ————————————————-

    How can you get so much wrong? No, the Redskins DID NOT use the uncapped year to resign these players. They used the uncapped year to restructure these contracts so they could dump a large portion of these contracts in order to free up cap space in future seasons. Which is absolutely legal in an uncapped year.

    If doing this practice upsets the spirit of the CBA and leads to a competitive advantage for the Cowboys and Redskins, then what do you think about NOT spending money to satisfy the cap floor in order to have an abundance of cap space in future seasons? It’s the same exact thing, except it’s done the opposite way. If over spending in an uncapped year (which makes no sense) is wrong, then it’s equally wrong to not spend enough.

    The truth is, the league colluded with the teams and verbally warned them not to go crazy in 2010 so in as to keep within the competitive spirit. Yet, it goes against the competitive spirit to penalize two teams for following the rules of an uncapped year, and reward the other teams their cap space. That gives those teams a competitive edge over the ‘boys and ‘skins through illegal means of collusion.

  104. browns627 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:53 PM

    and you wonder why players have bountys…if theres no rules then i guess anything goes..

  105. laserw says: Mar 27, 2012 2:53 PM

    The NFL will rue the day they picked such a petty fight to go against with the Redskins and Cowboys – two of the most profitable franchises.

    Potential ramifications – the Skins and Cowboys will rally other rich market franchises to demand less redistribution of revenues to the small market teams. The result will likely be the loss of teams with little or no value in small markets to larger markets. Don’t under-estimate this – both of these two owners have egos as large as Texas and will want their share of flesh from those who have insulted them.

    NFL could now be sued for collusion and ramifications on anti-trust. The results of the ‘skins-boys decision will fuel this drive.

    A new commissioner will be sought – it is apparent that this mutt rules the NFL like he thinks he is a kingdom in “Game of Thrones”. His reign of terror is now coming to an end.

    With no written text in the previous collective bargaining agreement and the implementation of ex-post facto rules and ruling by decree, the skins and cowboys look to reap the whirlwind of restitution – salary cap and retribution against the mutts who went against them. When the league can approve contracts and then suddenly reinvent the reasons they did so, this doesn’t look good.

    Get the NFL’s butts – danny and jerry. Make the jerks pay dearly!

  106. bobhk says: Mar 27, 2012 2:53 PM

    Will be irrelevant in the long run. No matter how many FA cowboys sign they’ll still be mediocre with a terrible Dec record…

  107. smakhhm says: Mar 27, 2012 2:54 PM

    Well I tell you one thing. This is ONE sure fire way to get a congressman’s attention.

    One will step up to make a name for himself watch it wont be long.

  108. moagecu says: Mar 27, 2012 2:54 PM

    I love reading all these comments from people who have NO IDEA whats going on, you have people that sit at a cubicle all day acting as if they have any understanding of the situation. Keep leaving these comments because you all have become my entertainment for the day.

  109. steelpalace302 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:55 PM

    Captain tell me how they cheated ? You cant because it didnt happen. Everything they did was 100% legal just because they didnt go along with the other owners in screwing the players doesnt mean they are wrong.

  110. laserw says: Mar 27, 2012 2:55 PM

    Is the salary cap redistribution tantamount to a bribe? The teams that got the money voted against the Redskins. Each and every one of them. Was the NFL trying to buy votes?

    hmmmmmm

  111. mungman69 says: Mar 27, 2012 2:57 PM

    Snyder and Jones should stop playing general manager. What was their combined record last year? Jones even had the class (low) to go on the field and tell the head coach what to do in the first quarter. That coach doesn’t have the respect of his players, that’s for sure. These guys are a joke to pro football.

  112. gregorysykes says: Mar 27, 2012 2:58 PM

    captaintriumph says:
    Mar 27, 2012 2:46 PM
    It’s so frustrating how so many people are justifying cheating, just because technically it might have been legal. What ever happened to fairness and integrity? Such warped logic. Jones and Snyder would throw every other owner off a bridge if it would get them a Super Bowl. It would be so disheartening if Jones and Snyder are able to get away with this.

    ————————————————–

    Warped logic? Are you for real?

    It’s not cheating to spend money in an uncapped year lame brain. IT’S AN UNCAPPED YEAR! All 32 teams were free to do exactly what the Redskins and Cowboys did. Instead, they decided to collude with the league, and they’re going to get punished for it.

    Tell me, you speak about fairness and integrity, how do you explain failing to satisfy the cap floor like a lot of teams did during that 2010 UNCAPPED year? They did just THAT to save cap space for future seasons. OK, so the REDSKINS and COWBOYS SPENT money during that year in order to…….. SAVE cap space for future seasons.

    Don’t whine and complain about two teams following the rules and side with at least 28 other teams that did not.

  113. sschmiggles says: Mar 27, 2012 3:00 PM

    This is the equivalent of a bunch of friends agreeing not to do something, even though it’s legal, so they can all benefit equally. Then two of the friends say, “hey screw my friends, I’m just out for myself” and do the thing anyway.

    Now everyone else is ganging up on those two as punishment, since they have no legal recourse to do so.

    Funny how things all boil down to personal vendettas in the end.

  114. bearben25 says: Mar 27, 2012 3:01 PM

    I never respond to these articles, but I felt compelled to this time…

    The NFL is in essence a partnership (the 32 clubs make up one entity). 29 partners voted on a course of action (regardless of nature) AND had it signed off on by the Union representing the employees. The union has no beef, as the wage pool has stayed in tact, so having their signoff is just icing on the cake. Tell me, which laws are they violating?

    For anyone with any business sense to think that this is going to get overturned or challenged in a court is completely blind by their fandom. If the Union hadn’t signed off, you would have an argument for collusion. But that didn’t happen.

    I don’t agree with the ruling (neither a fan of the Cowboys or Redskins), but the owners make their rules for their partnership, and as long as it doesn’t violate the CBA there is nothing that is going to be done.

  115. glen1904 says: Mar 27, 2012 3:03 PM

    anti-trust, collusion NFL, as much as I hate the NCAA and BCS I will be getting my football on saturdays and fishing and golf on sundays. Done being a sucker along with fans of the other 25 teams that have no chance of winning a Superbowl because of their owners.

  116. chuxtah says: Mar 27, 2012 3:09 PM

    So basically these two teams were smart and paid for it. The 29 teams who voted against it know what really happened. They just want to try to keep the top two most profitable teams down.

    Hate, Greed and Envy are three words that describe those 29 other teams.

    Goodell needs to take a permanent vacation with Lucipher.

  117. beelicker says: Mar 27, 2012 3:11 PM

    @timbuttrum (& others) who say:

    >>> What owner is going to vote against this? They got extra cap money from the Skins/Cowboys, why would they vote against anything that they clearly benefit from? <<<

    "They" didn't get more money, although they did get more room to spend more money with the additional cap. Since the whole lockout was about the majority of owners (i.e. not $nyder & Jone$, who are #s 1&2 in NFL revenue) "not making enough money", why would "they" be happy to increase the amount they are able to spend (or justify to their fan bases why they wouldn't)?

    Any increase in the cap means they potentially make less, not more …

  118. bucs13 says: Mar 27, 2012 3:11 PM

    “They used the uncapped year to restructure these contracts so they could dump a large portion of these contracts in order to free up cap space in future seasons. Which is absolutely legal in an uncapped year.”

    *sigh* Yes, for that year. But assume we are talking about multi-year contracts. The CBA isn’t just about the spending in that year. That’s why the math is always so complicated (when you cut players, payments/signing bonuses get accelerated etc.).

    Again, they could spend as much money as they wanted to *that year*. What was problematic was structuring contracts in such a way that multi-year contracts, with years *covered by caps*, were done in such a way as to avoid those years’ caps. At least that’s what the NFL is arguing. They may (or may not) have the correct argument, but it’s at least plausible, and not a slam dunk either way.

  119. jerrod777 says: Mar 27, 2012 3:14 PM

    This makes a whole lot of sense… Penalize the Cowboys and Redskins without a vote of either the players or owners. Then get a vote of the owners to back up that wrong decision. I guess two wrongs make a right.

  120. steelpalace302 says: Mar 27, 2012 3:16 PM

    Why do you people keep saying the ruling ? It wasnt the ruling all this was is the other owners agreeing to take money for themselves. The ruling wont happen until the arbitration case. WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  121. moagecu says: Mar 27, 2012 3:22 PM

    It’s not cheating to spend money in an uncapped year lame brain.

    Did you just use the term lame brain? what are you a 13 year old girl?

  122. jwreck says: Mar 27, 2012 3:22 PM

    moagecu says: Mar 27, 2012 1:51 PM

    Also, if the Redskins knew they were going to face a collusive penalty brought on by jealous owners, they would of just cut Albert Haynesworth reducing this cap penalty by 21 million.
    _____________

    Yea…. because EVERYONE is so jealous of the Redskins, thats like saying the NBA owners are jealous of the Wizards. Sucks that they are both in Washington.
    __________________________

    That’s not the point. No one is saying other NFL teams are jealous of the Redskins as a football team, or jealous of the success they’ve had on the field. The point is that it’s impossible for the thirty franchises less wealthy than Washington’s not to be jealous of the teams financial success and the lush, unencumbered economy of the DC/Maryland/Virginia area.

    Think about the Redskins success on the field, then consider that despite that, the team is in the top five of NFL jersey sales every year. Now tell me what owner wouldn’t gladly trade places.

    On another note, tell me one NBA team that wouldn’t want John Wall.

  123. eagleswin says: Mar 27, 2012 3:25 PM

    steelpalace302 says:Mar 27, 2012 2:41 PM

    This wasnt the ruling this was just the owners who benifited from it agreeing with it. This means nothing the league is going to lose this battle. JJ and Dan did nothing wrong. NOTHING at all. The other owners broke federal law.

    ———————————-

    What federal law did they break? They did not conspire to keep salaries down in the uncapped year, that’s not what this is about. They are not taking money away from the players, the players even signed off on this punishment so the players are out of play.

    They took away a non-monetary benefit from 2 owners. You can’t rent a hotel room with cap space, you can’t even buy a cup of coffee with cap space.

    They had no venue at all for this grievance being that it was owners vs owners and not a labor dispute. That’s why they included the NFLPA, to make it a labor dispute subject to arbitration. Hopefully the arbitrator sees through the charade and throws it out.

  124. desmondclee says: Mar 27, 2012 3:25 PM

    I wonder why there was another vote? My guess: to cure the procedural defect that the grievance is taking issue with. The league will argue the second vote was properly done and the re-vote was a ratification of any improperly done vote in the past. If that’s the point, they’ll argue that the argument targeting procedural defects are now moot.

  125. stanklepoot says: Mar 27, 2012 3:26 PM

    tominma says: Mar 27, 2012 2:19 PM

    Pardon my stupidity, but there is something I truly do NOT understand!! 2010 was an UNCAPPED year right? That means there was NO cap, no floor, no ceiling. So how do 2 teams get penalized for violating cap rules??? THERE WAS NO CAP!! Therefore there WERE no cap rules. Of course, these 2 teams, and any other team would be subject to cap rules this past season, including whatever they did in 2010! the NFL approved the contracts, there was NO cap— what am I missing??? Somebody explain it to this old man who remembers Alan Ameche pounding the ball over the goal line to beat the Giants in the NFL Championship. PLEASE??? Id like to think Im not going senile!!
    _______________________________
    You’re not senile. You’re just confused because a whole bunch of people keep saying the Redskins and Cowboys are being punished for spending too much money in the uncapped year. The problem is, that’s not why they’re being punished. They’re being punished for restructuring contracts of players they already had on their team so that their huge bonuses would be paid in the uncapped year rather than later.

    Why does that matter? Say you sign a huge superstar, and his 5 year contract comes with a $30 million bonus. Now, you pay him the $30 million right away, but it doesn’t all count against the cap right away. In fact, that bonus money is split up evenly and spread over the life of the contract. In this case, it means instead of taking a $30 million hit in the year you signed him, your team takes a $6 million cap hit every year for 5 years. (unless you cut or trade him. if you do that, then the remaining bonus money hits all at once against the next year’s cap. that’s what is referred to as a cap penalty)

    What the Redskins (and to a lesser extent the Cowboys) did was structure contracts so that those huge bonuses would be paid out during the uncapped year. Specifically, $21 million for Haynesworth and $15 million for Hall (which is where they get the $36 million penalty). Because it was an uncapped year, not only was all of the money paid in that year, but there was no cap hit to spread over the life of the contract. So, where Haynesworth’s cap hit would have been his base salary plus $21 million divided how ever many years were on that contract, all he counted against the cap was his base salary…and that’s only a fraction of his real earnings. For the sake of argument, let’s say this was a 5 year contract. That means that the Redskins set things up so that they’d get a little over $4 million a year in cap breaks. That’s why the other owners are punishing the Redskins and Cowboys. It’s not about how much money they spent in the uncapped year. It’s because they restructured money that they were already going to spend so that big money players would have the same cap hit as middle of the road backup players once the cap was reinstated. Whether you agree or disagree with the league’s actions, I hope this helped clear up any questions you had.

  126. jbcommonsense says: Mar 27, 2012 3:27 PM

    Hey, NFL, look out cuz karma will be a serious bitch!

  127. glac1 says: Mar 27, 2012 3:35 PM

    union loving website!!!! No owners…, no league… no jobs and these spoiled brats would have to work for a living. They couldn’t handle it..

  128. thraiderskin says: Mar 27, 2012 3:36 PM

    yeah… I’m still waiting to find out how the Skins and Boys cheated… still waiting… Perhaps Jenniferxxx can explain it… since she is such a genius.

  129. pacificamjr says: Mar 27, 2012 3:38 PM

    they were gonna allow jerry jones to sit in the back during the vote, but there wasnt enough seats… tiki is not surprised

  130. steelpalace302 says: Mar 27, 2012 3:44 PM

    Other than Dallas and Washington, no club voted Tuesday to oppose the agreement, which raised the salary cap for 2012 from about $113 million to $120.6 million. The Cowboys and Redskins have sought arbitration, which will be conducted by University of Pennsylvania professor Stephen Burbank
    Of course they agreed to it. Teams like the steelers had already started waiving players to get under the cap and if it wasnt for this they would have lost Mike Wallace to.

  131. skinsfaninnebraska says: Mar 27, 2012 3:48 PM

    I really can’t believe they’re doing this to the Redskins, whose GM is Bruce Allen, brother of George Allen, the former governor of Virginia who is currently running for US Senate. If those guys don’t have friends on Capitol Hill, then nobody does.

    I’d be surprised if Congressional hearings on this matter were not already being discussed in DC.

    The NFL and the union have really stepped in it this time, and it’s gonna be very hard to clean this off their shoes.

  132. steelpalace302 says: Mar 27, 2012 3:48 PM

    eagleswin its called collusion and it breaks anti trust laws.

  133. stanklepoot says: Mar 27, 2012 3:58 PM

    laserw says: Mar 27, 2012 2:53 PM

    The NFL will rue the day they picked such a petty fight to go against with the Redskins and Cowboys – two of the most profitable franchises.

    Potential ramifications – the Skins and Cowboys will rally other rich market franchises to demand less redistribution of revenues to the small market teams. The result will likely be the loss of teams with little or no value in small markets to larger markets. Don’t under-estimate this – both of these two owners have egos as large as Texas and will want their share of flesh from those who have insulted them.

    NFL could now be sued for collusion and ramifications on anti-trust. The results of the ‘skins-boys decision will fuel this drive.

    A new commissioner will be sought – it is apparent that this mutt rules the NFL like he thinks he is a kingdom in “Game of Thrones”. His reign of terror is now coming to an end.

    With no written text in the previous collective bargaining agreement and the implementation of ex-post facto rules and ruling by decree, the skins and cowboys look to reap the whirlwind of restitution – salary cap and retribution against the mutts who went against them. When the league can approve contracts and then suddenly reinvent the reasons they did so, this doesn’t look good.

    Get the NFL’s butts – danny and jerry. Make the jerks pay dearly!
    _________________________________
    Really, they’ll rue the day? JJ is influential in the league, but while Snyder owns one of the most valuable teams, he’s not really well thought of by the other owners. Either way, it’s 2 owners vs. 29 of the reaming 30 (and at best, the remaining owner just doesn’t want to be involved). At the end of the day, each owner gets exactly one vote, and these two upset the rest quite a bit for this to happen.

    Jones and Snyder aren’t going to get the other “rich market franchise” owners to blow up the current system. To begin with, it was the Wellington Mara (late owner of the Giants) who came up with the system, and the Giants aren’t exactly a small market team. Additionally, the other owners realize that the popularity of their sport (and hence it’s remarkable profitability) lies in the fact that fans of both large and small market teams know that their team can compete on an equal footing. Parity keeps the NFL a truly national obsession, rather than something enjoyed primarily in just the larger areas where the big market teams are located. Furthermore, to get such a momentous change passed, they’d need the votes of a lot more than just the owners of large market teams. Finally, 29 of the remaining 30 owners voted to punish these two teams. why would they then choose to side with them in something that was clearly meant as revenge because they were punished?

    How would the league be sued for collusion? Jones and Snyder are ownership, not labor. Only labor can file an anti-trust lawsuit claiming collusion (well, the gov’t can do it in the name of labor, but only if certain conditions that aren’t present here are in effect). In this case, even the players can’t sue and claim collusion. With a CBA in effect, the NFL has anti-trust exemptions that protect them from this eventuality. The players could have sued for what happened during the uncapped year and the lockout, but they already filed and settled an anti-trust lawsuit with the league. that means any actions taken during that time are covered by the settlement. So, Snyder and Jones have no standing to file an anti-trust suit, and since they’ve already settled one the players have no cause.

    They’re not going to replace Goodell. They just gave this guy a five year extension on his contract. The owners love the guy. Oh, and again, 29 out of 30 owners voted to continue with this punishment. this was never Goodell’s play. This was the owners determined to punish Snyder and Jones all along. They’re not going to fire Goodell for faithfully doing their bidding, and it will take a lot more than two votes to remove him from office.

    Seriously, you seem to be under some delusion that these guys run the NFL. they don’t. all of the owners working together do. In this case, two of them really upset the others and are paying for it. They’re not going to court. they’re not going to congress (not willingly anyway). They’re not going to do anything that would risk damaging the league. Why? You said it yourself. They own two of the most valuable franchises in the league. that being the case, anything that hurts the league, hurts them more proportionally. Jones and Snyder found a loophole that will allow them to have their grievance heard by the arbitrator. that’s the furthest things will go. Besides, if JJ wants another SB in his palace, he might want to think about how much noise he makes. It’s not like things went perfectly last time. There are more than enough excuses the other owners could find for not giving him another one.

  134. macwomack says: Mar 27, 2012 3:59 PM

    @jenniferxxx

    Just shoot us a link to the documented rule that was violated – once you do this we will all believe your claim that they cheated.

    However since this is impossible for you to do we will continue to know that comments like the ones you have made have no basis in any kind of fact whatsoever.

    Next time just read the article before posting and you won’t look so foolish.

  135. stanklepoot says: Mar 27, 2012 4:16 PM

    glac1 says: Mar 27, 2012 3:35 PM

    union loving website!!!! No owners…, no league… no jobs and these spoiled brats would have to work for a living. They couldn’t handle it..
    _______________________________
    You apparently weren’t here during the lockout. Many of the people complaining about collusion now because it’s hurting two of the teams attacked any claim of collusion when it was made by the players. By the way, what does the union have to do with this? the owners are punishing two of their own. Oh, and if you don’t think what they do is work, or that they don’t make a whole lot more money for the owners than what they’re paid, you’re delusional. The NFL isn’t exactly a charitable organization.

  136. mrslay1 says: Mar 27, 2012 4:19 PM

    I am one who is a union hater. Unions have destroyed this country. They were needed in the Hoffa days, however it’s only becaused they they quickly became as, or more corrupt than the owners were before it. That being said, this is not so much a union thing but an attack of rich by rich. One might say it serves them all right but not true here. Like it or not the law stands for what it stands for and right is right and wrong is wrong, Rich or poor. Jones and Synder are right here and it also effected the players union as well. This has no choice but to go to BIG trial and there is little doubt who will win.

  137. jdawg111 says: Mar 27, 2012 4:27 PM

    These two teams are going to stink regardless if they lose 36 million on their cap or gain 36 million on their cap. Bottom line is they were warned 6 times not to do what they did. Yes the NFL let it through, with warnings that they will be punished if they went through with it.

    These teams went through with it anyways, circumvented the cap in a non-cap year and got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. So sad. Get over it and learn from your mistakes.

    Couldn’t happen to two better owners.

    Moving on….

  138. cowboyhater says: Mar 27, 2012 4:30 PM

    Has anyone realized that if this was a competitive balance issue, we would be seeing the skins and cowboys in the NFC championship every year? Last time I checked, neither made the playoffs, or was even close to competing for a championship. Get real. The irony would be if both teams made the playoffs this year, and give the rest of the owners a big f-u! By the way, the cowboys are only missing 5 million off their cap this year, and next. The real issue is penalizing the skins 18 million for the next 2 years. That is absolute bs, and I hope when the giants come to fedex, that the fans boo Mara right out of the building, and another sweep would be the icing on the cake. HTTR!!

  139. bbeaman78 says: Mar 27, 2012 4:38 PM

    I still want to see the written rule, or the “Gentlemen’s Salary Cap” for the “Uncapped Year”

    If it exists, doesn’t that prove collusion? Pretty sure all the Cowboys and Skins haters are living it up. I can’t blame them or the owners. They are terrified of Jerry and Dan. They are 2 of the most aggressive owners. Too bad that Jerry can’t get out of his own way and hire a real GM.

    Being a Cowboys fan I am used to the haters and detractors. Doesn’t excuse the fact this was wrong. Especially since the Raiders and Saints did the same thing. The Boys and Skins are being penalized out of spite and jealousy.

    What a joke. To add to it, pretty sure the 2 teams being penalized are in the same division as the person imposing these penalties.

    To those of you who are cheering and love to hate both teams. I pretty sure this will either be overturned completely or reduced greatly. Goodell is the biggest d-bag commissioner ever. I have never seen a guy who just doesn’t get it or who is more full of himself. Pretty sure he just pissed off the 2 most powerful owners. The same owners that backed him on several occasions.

    This is nothing but a black eye for the NFL.

    Hey Roger…..Isn’t that you signature on Miles Austin’s contract? Isn’t that your contract on Albert Haynesworth’s contract…..Oh…oh…it is?

    So why are these 2 teams being penalized? Oh they violated an illegal and non-existent rule…

    Who brought this to your attention….Oh Mr. Mara….Isn’t he in the same division as these 2 clubs? Um Yes….

    Isn’t this a conflict of interest?

    Um, I plead the 5th. And De Smith made me do it.

    YOU SUCK GOODELL!

  140. kingjeremi84 says: Mar 27, 2012 4:44 PM

    jeniferxxx how did they cheat?,come on say it with me uncapped year.since you cant comprehend that uncapped means uncapped meaning no limit on salary for that year.if the nfl believes it created an un fair competive balance were r the teams that were way under the cap floor,ie the bucs.getem danny boy and jj

  141. mjkelly77 says: Mar 27, 2012 4:51 PM

    Slap their peepees good.

  142. steelpalace302 says: Mar 27, 2012 4:59 PM

    bbeamman I think thats his on Julius Peppers contract also.

    And stanklepoot as they explained on here the other day. The further this goes on the more info will come out it gives the players new evidence and they CAN sue the owners. also I dont know if you have been watching JJ since he bought the Cowboys or not but he has shown he isnt afraid to sue the NFL. He is 3-0 so far. and this time he has Dan with him.

  143. mjkelly77 says: Mar 27, 2012 5:05 PM

    … the NFL is more than smart enough to conduct a second clean-up vote that creates the impression of unanimity …
    ______________

    Uhhhh … 29 out of 30 votes with none against seems like unanimity to me.

  144. steelpalace302 says: Mar 27, 2012 5:08 PM

    lol what does the players union have to do with this lol Its collusion against the players. Stanklepoot are you serious? Have you read anything on this matter before today because you my friend do not have a clue.

  145. yevrag3535 says: Mar 27, 2012 5:47 PM

    What? Both of these teams stink. All of the things they have done and always continue to do come up a big ZERO. They SUCK!!!!

  146. mjkelly77 says: Mar 27, 2012 5:50 PM

    radrntn says:Mar 27, 2012 1:58 PM

    Gotta love Mark Davis….the raiders have their own reason for abstaining…they have known all along the nfl violates all anti-trust laws.

    Glad to see Mark holding the line even after his father has passes. Huge props to you
    _________________

    Huh? “the nfl viloates all anti-trust laws”? Who do you think the NFL is? It’s the team owners and by extension, Mark Davis himself.

  147. brazo4u says: Mar 27, 2012 5:52 PM

    Once again how do you violate what is said to be cap rules & regulations when as far as the world knew there was no cap…therefor no cap rules….? All the Redskins & Cowboys need to is keep this issue in the open. The league does not want what really going on made public

  148. LoCoSu@%s says: Mar 27, 2012 6:05 PM

    benh999 says:
    Mar 27, 2012 1:42 PM
    “Business owners often have a warped view of reality, convinced that their position is correct and any opposing view is wrong and any external body that would disagree is corrupt.”

    Sounds like the people that runs sports blogs.

    ———————

    Or talk show hosts like Jim Rome or Colin “Blowhard” Cowherd

  149. jameslongstaffe says: Mar 27, 2012 6:07 PM

    The only thing the Redskins & Cowboys are guilty of, is running their respective teams like a toilet bowl. I still say that stinks lol. They are being penalized because they are irresponsible. Collusion perhaps, but they are still just a team in a league of other teams. The last thing anyone needs is another lawsuit that nobody wins. Holy Shnikeys:)

  150. armorgan67 says: Mar 27, 2012 7:31 PM

    If this stands as it does now with now changes I hope in the future none of the 29 owners have to go privately to Snyder and Jones and ask for their help financial wise or for that matter anything else. We all know that some of these teams because of a variety of reasons don’t do as well as these 2 teams. I would bet Jones more than Snyder wouldn’t hesitate to make something like that public. If none of them don’t ever have to then fine but if just one of them have to?

  151. rickc402 says: Mar 27, 2012 10:46 PM

    This means nothing, wait for the ruling by the arbitrator. This is a non-story.
    Hail to the Redskins!

  152. radrntn says: Mar 28, 2012 11:38 AM

    mjkelly77 says:

    Huh? “the nfl viloates all anti-trust laws”? Who do you think the NFL is? It’s the team owners and by extension, Mark Davis himself.
    ______________________________

    When the upstart United States Football League filed its antitrust suit in 1986, Davis was the only NFL owner who sided with the USFL.

    As I said nothing but props to Mark Davis.
    One Nation…RAIDER NATION!

Leave a Reply

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