Skip to content

Bucs abstained from Redskins, Cowboys vote

Story Getty Images

So when the 30 owners other than Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder voted on whether to follow through on $46 million in cap penalties for the Cowboys and Redskins, one of the 30 chose not to vote.

As Mark Maske of the Washington Post reported on Tuesday, and as we’ve confirmed, the Buccaneers abstained.

So why did the Bucs’ vote neither aye nor nay?  Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the Buccaneers were concerned by the unequal application of the penalties.  Specifically, the Redskins and Cowboys were punished via the removal of $46 million in total cap room, but the Saints and the Raiders were simply prevented from sharing in the $1.6 million per team in redistributed Redskins/Cowboys cap room.

The Buccaneers could end up being a key figure in the coming arbitration.  To the extent that the NFL contends that overspending in 2010 in some way disrupted competitive balance, the Redskins and Cowboys will surely point to the Buccaneers and other teams that grossly underspent in the uncapped year, which presumably would also affect competitive balance.

Permalink 42 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Dallas Cowboys, Home, Rumor Mill, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Washington Redskins
42 Responses to “Bucs abstained from Redskins, Cowboys vote”
  1. sadskinsfan89 says: Mar 28, 2012 2:01 PM

    or because bruce allen still has relationships there

  2. bhester1906 says: Mar 28, 2012 2:05 PM

    The NFL really screwed this up. How do they get away with this garbage?

  3. leeeroooyjeeenkiiins says: Mar 28, 2012 2:05 PM

    When in reality, we all know that the real reason is that the Glazers were busy watching Man U play and didn’t actually realize there was a vote at all.

  4. buccaneersforlife says: Mar 28, 2012 2:09 PM

    They chose not to vote because the Bucs know that it may comeback to bite them when the overspending teams retaliate.

  5. sdisme says: Mar 28, 2012 2:12 PM

    Bucs should be safe now that they over payed for 3 guys to get to the cap floor. – Right

  6. CJ says: Mar 28, 2012 2:15 PM

    The Bucs sure spent this year though. Almost makes you wonder if they got penalized some other (i.e. less publicized) way.

    Obviously, removing cap room for them wouldn’t have been a punishment. Maybe the NFL threatened them with loss of picks or increasing their salary floor?

  7. hrudey says: Mar 28, 2012 2:16 PM

    The competitive balance issue wasn’t the spending. They could spend whatever they wanted to, and did. The problem was that the teams ensured that what they spent was disproportionally applied to the uncapped years — especially the Redskins and their converting money on Haynesworth’s contract to a signing bonus, and then making it voidable so the entire amount applied in 2010. Taking advantage of the uncapped year to spend more than usual in 2010 was absolutely fine, but trying to use that uncapped year to create extra cap space in 2011 and 2012 is definitely a competitive balance issue. The teams went out of their way to take money that should have been applied in subsequent capped years and moved it into the uncapped year, and now the league has moved that money back out where it should have always been.

  8. eagleswin says: Mar 28, 2012 2:17 PM

    The Buccaneers could end up being a key figure in the coming arbitration. To the extent that the NFL contends that overspending in 2010 in some way disrupted competitive balance, the Redskins and Cowboys will surely point to the Buccaneers and other teams that grossly underspent in the uncapped year, which presumably would also affect competitive balance.

    —————————

    How would the Bucaneers underspending in 2010 affect competitive balance in 2011? I think you are throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks.

    The contention is not what effect the moves in 2010 had on 2010. It’s what effect those moves have on 2011 and beyond. The Bucs moves (or nonmoves) in 2010 do not give them a competitive edge going forward. The Cowboys and Redskins did.

    The other owners first point of contention should be that it’s not a labor dispute. The inclusion of the NFLPA in the grievance is the only reason it’s being heard at all. If that point get’s thrown out Jones and Snyder are up a creek without a paddle.

  9. andyb053 says: Mar 28, 2012 2:23 PM

    Thank you, Tampa, for unconfrontationally standing up for what most fans know is a crock of you know what.

  10. gacoltfan says: Mar 28, 2012 2:26 PM

    If a team underspent they should be penalized too. If a team was below the floor that means they have have a lot more cap space available now which puts them at a competitive advantage.

    They should be penalized the amount that would get them to the floor.

  11. cowboyhater says: Mar 28, 2012 2:33 PM

    The last paragraph says it all, and has been my point all along. The teams that had grossly underspent during that time just to have the opportunity to participate in the free agency market is just as a unfair competitive balance issue. There is no difference here.

  12. redskinsfreak91 says: Mar 28, 2012 2:37 PM

    Just goes to show that the league used the redskins and cowboys “overspending” (I don’t know how you overspend in an uncapped year.) To save their butts and forced the NFLPA to do it to save Demaurice Smith’s job. I don’t understand how its an unfair competitive advantage to “overspend” but not a unfair competitive to grossly underspend as most teams did do ( ie. TB, Cin, Chi, Den). I hope the that the two most powerful owners in the league and arguably the country teach Goodell and the rest of the league to watch who you pick on. The NFL picking on Jerry and Dan is like an amature heavyweight boxer trying to go up against mike tyson in his prime.

  13. bunjy96 says: Mar 28, 2012 2:40 PM

    The Bucs rarely spend any more than they have to. They can show a pattern of doing so for about 10 years.

  14. bucrightoff says: Mar 28, 2012 2:43 PM

    I think the Bucs just wanted to keep the tradition Al Davis started of at least one team abstaining from every vote.

  15. dikshuttle says: Mar 28, 2012 2:45 PM

    So it’ll probably boil down to reduced fines & awards…

    …and that should be ok.

  16. jahbird says: Mar 28, 2012 2:48 PM

    @eagleswin

    “How would the Bucaneers underspending in 2010 affect competitive balance in 2011?”

    Given the offseason the Bucs have had, this question is moronic beyond reproach. Good day sir.

  17. bigjdve says: Mar 28, 2012 2:49 PM

    @eagleswin – The other owners first point of contention should be that it’s not a labor dispute. The inclusion of the NFLPA in the grievance is the only reason it’s being heard at all. If that point get’s thrown out Jones and Snyder are up a creek without a paddle.

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

    Actually, the opposite is true. If that point gets thrown out, it would mean that instead of an arbitrator that it would move to a judge. The last thing that any of the owners want is that, as it would then get a lot worse quick as the public would get to actually see what happened with all the details. That means the players as well, that would be bad for the PA that caved to the pressure from the NFL as well.

  18. eagleswin says: Mar 28, 2012 2:49 PM

    gacoltfan says:Mar 28, 2012 2:26 PM

    If a team underspent they should be penalized too. If a team was below the floor that means they have have a lot more cap space available now which puts them at a competitive advantage.

    They should be penalized the amount that would get them to the floor.
    ———————————–

    That’s a false assumption. They could’ve spent $500 million or $50 million as long as they spent it on expiring contracts (contracts that ended in 2010). It’s all the same in regards to 2011 or going forward.

    The point that keeps getting lost is that it’s not how much they spent that’s the issue, it’s how they spent it.

  19. youngry says: Mar 28, 2012 2:51 PM

    Beyond Bruce Allen there are close ties between Buccaneer and Redskins ownership. The Redskins’ minority owner lives in Tampa and is close with the Glazer family and was a Bucs fan & suite owner long before buying into the Redskins.

  20. erod22 says: Mar 28, 2012 2:51 PM

    They did this because, while Dallas and Washington looked for creative ways to spend their allotted TV and league revenue, others like Tampa Bay and Cincinnati just kept the cash in their personal accounts and played as cheaply as possible.

  21. 69firebird says: Mar 28, 2012 2:58 PM

    c-c-can’t we all just get along?

  22. ahsinnyc says: Mar 28, 2012 3:00 PM

    Or a team like Chicago, who paid Peppers $30M guaranteed money in the uncapped year. Normally, they would spread that money through the course of the contract. Now, they have more cash to spend in free agency, hence unfair to competitive balance. I’m certain many teams did clever contract structures.

    This entire thing reeks from head to toe. A few of the other owners, and probably NOT the small market teams like Buffalo, TB, KC, etc., wanted to go after JJ and Snyder for the many years of aggressive FA spending, taking salaries higher and higher. Other owners had to spend more to retain their own talent or sign FAs, and rich men can be very cheap. They saw a chance to take a shot – and they did.

    The small market team probably are not the ones complaining because of revenue sharing. Clubs like Dallas and Wash make so much cash outside of the TV contracts that they add it to a pool for smaller revenue markets.

    If the arbitration outcome goes against JJ and Snyder, then you can expect major litigation.

  23. tezz123 says: Mar 28, 2012 3:05 PM

    I’m not sure why underspending by the Bucs is being brought up there is still no salary cap floor until 2013. The Bucs didn’t get a competitive advantage because teams still don’t need to spend until next year.

    Since this is a question of competitive advantage and not collusion since the NFLPA signed off on it I doubt this ruling will be overturned.

  24. nflfollower says: Mar 28, 2012 3:09 PM

    Funny, I coulda swore you guys pinned that vote on the raiders at the time. Speculative journalism is scarcely journalism.

  25. cooklynn17 says: Mar 28, 2012 3:11 PM

    The Bucs also abstained from playing football last year too.

    Grow a pair and vote…losers.

  26. eagleswin says: Mar 28, 2012 3:18 PM

    jahbird says:Mar 28, 2012 2:48 PM

    Given the offseason the Bucs have had, this question is moronic beyond reproach. Good day sir.

    —————————–

    I don’t think you really understand what happened and are just upset that the Bucaneers ended their penny pinching ways.

    There’s never been a requirement that teams spend their money on longterm contracts. The buc’s (or Redskins or Cowboys) could’ve spent $1 billion dollars on salaries and as long as they were only one year contracts, it would not have affected their salary cap space in 2011 or 2012.

    I don’t know how to make it any more simple for you. The Bucs cap space in 2012 is simply the result of not having as many bloated longterm contracts as some of the other teams.

    The issue isn’t how much they spent, it’s how they spent it.

  27. tbf22 says: Mar 28, 2012 3:21 PM

    jahbird says: Mar 28, 2012 2:48 PM

    @eagleswin

    “How would the Bucaneers underspending in 2010 affect competitive balance in 2011?”

    Given the offseason the Bucs have had, this question is moronic beyond reproach. Good day sir.

    ————————————————-
    Actually the Bucs spending (or lack there of) in 2011 is what gave them the ability to buy FA’s in 2012. 2010 had nothing to do with the cap figure the Buc’s currently have. The carry over came from 2011 not 2010.

  28. gotampabay52 says: Mar 28, 2012 3:24 PM

    Cooklynn17 whos your team. Go put your two cents on your teams blog. Love to know your want beat us this year. Hope your mommy and daddy know your using the internet. Grow up

  29. eagleswin says: Mar 28, 2012 3:24 PM

    bigjdve says:Mar 28, 2012 2:49 PM

    Actually, the opposite is true. If that point gets thrown out, it would mean that instead of an arbitrator that it would move to a judge. The last thing that any of the owners want is that, as it would then get a lot worse quick as the public would get to actually see what happened with all the details. That means the players as well, that would be bad for the PA that caved to the pressure from the NFL as well.

    ————————————–

    Beyond the threat of a lawsuit by the two blowhard owners, on what do you base that statement? Jones and Snyder do not want the courts involved. It does not automatically move to a judge.

  30. jwreck says: Mar 28, 2012 3:28 PM

    As a DMV resident and an intelligent person, I’ve been completely opposed to the League on this issue from the get-go, but seeing the Buccaneers and Albert Haynesworth in the same paragraph just made me think of a new aspect of this discussion. So just follow my train of thought here, if you would.

    So Goodell’s argument is that he warned teams not to overspend in the uncapped year, but there was no actual rule about it, so he had to approve contracts sent in by Dallas and Washington. In Goodell’s view, his warnings gave him the right to retroactively punish the Boys and Skins for actions that were not illegal at the time, that he had approved.

    However, the restructuring of Albert Haynesworth’s contract allowed Washington to trade him to New England the following season. The Patriots would not have even considered trading for fat Al at his original price. If the Redskins price dumping was illegal and Haynesworth’s contract ex post facto invalid, shouldn’t the Patriots and subsequently the Buccaneers also lose cap space because of Haynesworth’s original contract?

    Honestly, I don’t think they can, which just further invalidates the punishments against the Skins and Boys and shows the whole situation as the clusterF it really is.

    Not a point of view, a statement, or an indictment, just a thought. if anyone has an answer o rany thoughts on the undiscussed ramifications of Goodell and Mara’s cap sanction on Dallas and Washington, post it below.

  31. bhester1906 says: Mar 28, 2012 3:29 PM

    Doesn’t spending under the salary floor make as much a difference as spending over the cap? I mean initially the Redskins were set up with a great deal of cap space because they paid out their contracts in an uncapped year. But on the other hand, the Bucs were set up to spend a great deal of money on players like Vincent Jackson & Carl Nicks because they didn’t spend in an uncapped year. Who does Goddell think he is to be able to penalize one but not the other? I can’t wait until the appeals process runs its course. The league is in for it and they should give the teams their money back and compensatory picks.

  32. tpa43 says: Mar 28, 2012 3:35 PM

    Maybe they were all listening to the audio books for business 101 and football for dummies

  33. yssupasigninnamnotyep says: Mar 28, 2012 3:37 PM

    Yep…like the Donkeys underspent so much they had all that cap room to meet MegaHead’s ridiculous salary demands.

    Which, let’s face it, is the REAL reason he went to Donkeyville…not some stupid excuse such as getting to work with Horseface and the Fox.

    I still can’t figure out how that team was some $40 million under the cap…there should be penalties for that too.

  34. daysend564 says: Mar 28, 2012 3:39 PM

    eagleswin says:
    Mar 28, 2012 3:18 PM
    =============================
    Not true. Beginning in 2011, the money that was not spent to the cap was able to roll into 2012. The Bucs so grossly underspent in 2011 that they were able to have 50-60M in cap space to start this year. They thought they had a competitive team so kept costs as low as they could in order to reap the benefits later.

    This is why they have so much money this year. Some would say it creates a competitive disadvantage to teams this year, and probably forward until cap space can’t be rolled (when the floor is instituted – I believe)

  35. andyreiddoublecheeseburger says: Mar 28, 2012 3:49 PM

    The Glazers are poison. Why don’t they just buy another soccer team or Australian Rules Football team and leave the NFL to the big boys

  36. hailer21 says: Mar 28, 2012 4:00 PM

    Why would restructuring a bad contract to front load most of it during an uncapped year be any different from the lesser restructuring GM’s do every other year?

    Why would a business operate as if there is a cap in an uncapped year? It was an uncapped year after all.

    Oh wait, Goodell must have given a warning to all teams that they must participate in collusion or else they will be retroactively punished a day before FA.

    @eagles, I understand your logic, I just don’t understand what rule was broken. There is no such thing as competitive balance in an uncapped salary system. So why would Goodell n’ friends expect everyone to play along with their collusion if there is an easy way to get out from under Fat Albert’s contract within the agreed upon rules? The contracts were approved because they were within the rules. Riddle me that.

  37. deathtoromo says: Mar 28, 2012 4:06 PM

    @eagleswin:

    Eagles win what?

  38. kingjeremi84 says: Mar 28, 2012 4:16 PM

    Mar 28, 2012 2:17 PM

    The Buccaneers could end up being a key figure in the coming arbitration. To the extent that the NFL contends that overspending in 2010 in some way disrupted competitive balance, the Redskins and Cowboys will surely point to the Buccaneers and other teams that grossly underspent in the uncapped year, which presumably would also affect competitive balance.

    —————————

    How would the Bucaneers underspending in 2010 affect competitive balance in 2011? I think you are throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks.

    The contention is not what effect the moves in 2010 had on 2010. It’s what effect those moves have on 2011 and beyond. The Bucs moves (or nonmoves) in 2010 do not give them a competitive edge going forward. The Cowboys and Redskins did.

    The other owners first point of contention should be that it’s not a labor dispute. The inclusion of the NFLPA in the grievance is the only reason it’s being heard at all. If that point get’s thrown out Jones and Snyder are up a creek without a paddle.
    —————————————yeah under spending in 2010 does give you more room in 2011 idiot there for you have more mone y for free agents. what the nfl did is wrong,but i forgot ur an eagles fan so it seems right to u idiot

  39. botchedextrapoint says: Mar 28, 2012 4:47 PM

    andyreiddoublecheeseburger says…
    The Glazers are poison. Why don’t they just buy another soccer team or Australian Rules Football team and leave the NFL to the big boys

    Um you can’t own an Australian Rules team. They are all not for profit clubs run by a board elected by season ticket holders. Fans can push for a new board and fire the coach if they stink enough.

  40. tampabay4life says: Mar 28, 2012 5:01 PM

    It’s also worth mentioning that the Bucs were one of two teams who refused the additional 1.6m in cap space offered via this decision.

  41. tpa43 says: Mar 28, 2012 5:51 PM

    There should be a vote to take the Bucs away from the Glazer children.

  42. ctom32 says: Mar 30, 2012 10:07 PM

    deathtoromo says:Mar 28, 2012 4:06 PM

    @eagleswin:

    Eagles win what?
    ———————————————————-

    HAHA!!!

Leave a Reply

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