Skip to content

League requests dismissal of Cowboys, Redskins grievance

51123608 Getty Images

On May 10, Special Master Stephen Burbank will consider the grievance filed by the Cowboys and Redskins arising from the $46 million in total cap space stripped from the two franchises because they treated the “uncapped year” a bit too literally.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the NFL has tried to block the hearing by submitting a request to dismiss the grievance.

The NFL contends that, because the NFL Players Association consented to the imposition of cap penalties, the Cowboys and Redskins have no grounds to attack the agreement under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which governs the relationship between the league and the players.

Of course, if that argument prevails, the Cowboys and Redskins could be forced to pursue other avenues of relief.  Ultimately, the Cowboys and Redskins could choose to claim that the sanctions against them arise from an effort by the NFL to engage in collusion during the uncapped year.

Permalink 73 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Dallas Cowboys, Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
73 Responses to “League requests dismissal of Cowboys, Redskins grievance”
  1. jiggy3198 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:14 AM

    I know there is more to it than that. But how can you penalize a team after you signed off on their maneuvers and called it an uncapped year. I am definitely not a fan of the skins or the Cowboys because I can’t stand her owners. But I do not understand how you penalize a team and uncapped year for spending too much Money.

  2. medialovesthecowboys says: Apr 20, 2012 11:15 AM

    Thought collusion was illegal. Which seems to be what happened here. Why is the NFL even allowed to propose a dismissal?

  3. bigjdve says: Apr 20, 2012 11:16 AM

    Wow that takes some balls doesn’t it?

    I wonder if this means that they think that they may actually have a chance at losing.

    It also might be interesting if the Redskins and Cowboys go and talk to the players about how Goodell and Smith did the end around, where they made a side agreement without a vote from either side where they really laid the grease on thick.

  4. mdd913 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:17 AM

    Yeah, never mind that the league approved the contracts. For the first time in my life, I find myself rooting for the Cowboys. Every NFL fan should be very concerned with the unjust practices the league office is pulling these days.

  5. jpeyster says: Apr 20, 2012 11:20 AM

    Doesn’t the rubber meet the road here on the question of whether negotiating these cap penalties represented an amendment to the CBA? If so, technically, doesn’t that have to be submitted to a vote of the entire ownership and all members of the player’s union? If the NFL and the NFLPA brass violated the CBA by making an amendment that had not been properly approved, then the fact that an agreement was reached is largely irrelevant.

  6. cappa662 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:21 AM

    Why did the NFLPA agree to this is beyond me. It provides FEWER dollars to the players!!!!!!!

  7. nineroutsider says: Apr 20, 2012 11:21 AM

    “Ultimately, the Cowboys and Redskins could choose to claim that the sanctions against them arise from an effort by the NFL to engage in collusion during the uncapped year.”
    ————————————————-
    For reasons previously expresed, they won’t take it that far as it would go against their own business interests; they participated in it and benefited directly from it. The league has put them in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t type of situation with the “damned if you do” choice potentially hurting them much more than the loss of cap space.

  8. jbcommonsense says: Apr 20, 2012 11:21 AM

    Hopefully the ”Special Master” will recognize that a dismissal by the league’s own mandatory arbitrator starts to look like naked collusiveness.

  9. dryzzt23 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:22 AM

    Collusion? Ah yes, the same tactic used by the Democrats in Congress to pass ObamaCare

  10. skins1313 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:23 AM

    Thats because the NFLPA was told that if they didn’t comply the cap would have been 113 mil instead of 120. Lol…..see you in May!

  11. braven4evr says: Apr 20, 2012 11:23 AM

    that collusion piece would be vveerryy interesting…

  12. feck12a says: Apr 20, 2012 11:24 AM

    goodell and mara are running away scared now…they know they can’t win this. I’m sure they tried settling but why would skins/boys settle when they can’t lose? I am going to laugh my ass off when the teams demand compensation for this!!!

  13. rex1979 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:26 AM

    Two guys you don’t want to be in a financial legal dispute with: Jerah and Danny Boy

  14. wickerskin says: Apr 20, 2012 11:26 AM

    Lawyers for the defendant in any legal action (in this case, the league) always request for the dismissal of the action on any grounds they can imagine.

    The league requesting a dismissal is completely to be expected, and nothing to get in a fuss over.

  15. gweez76 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:27 AM

    If they feel they acted within their rights why hide behind procedural wranglings. Let the Special Master announce it.

    That’s what a righteous, virtuous and PR savvy organization would do.

    Perhaps they aren’t as PR savvy as we think…

    Or perhaps not so righteous and Virtuous as Little boy Mara would have us believe.

    It’s much easier to inherit than run the Giants I guess…

  16. skin94249 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:28 AM

    The Union was also named in the Redskins and Cowboys filing. They are as guilty as the league owners. Not so much the players but their leadership since the players did not get a vote.

  17. luckysunday20 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:29 AM

    So they want to dismiss the grievance because the NFLPA signed off on the punishment… Just like how the NFL signed off on all the contracts the Cowboys and Skins gave out during the “uncapped” year

    Better question is if the Boys and Skins were so blatantly colluding how was that fair to the other 30 teams at the time it was happening seeing as the NFL didn’t step in then.

  18. nfceastfan says: Apr 20, 2012 11:30 AM

    medialovesthecowboys says:Apr 20, 2012 11:15 AM

    Thought collusion was illegal. Which seems to be what happened here. Why is the NFL even allowed to propose a dismissal?

    It is illegal. But Washington, and Dallas, have been colluding for decades with the other owners and now they have this sudden appreciation for player rights after they get caught abusing their own “code of conduct” collusion?

    I think they should sue. Blow everything up. It’s easy to say that with baseball in season!

  19. sadskinsfan89 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:32 AM

    Its like nascar giving speeding tickets

  20. taintedlombardis says: Apr 20, 2012 11:38 AM

    Someone needs to give John Mara a.k.a Billy Madison a hard flick ‘o the sack…this is taking way too long to come to resolution…

    Someone also needs to explain to him that faking injuries to squeek into the playoffs violates the “competitive spirit” of the game….Giants are an incredibly dirty bunch…

    * anyone?

  21. draftazoid says: Apr 20, 2012 11:40 AM

    Haha. You give the teams an avenue, arbitration, so they do not take the league to court and then what do you do? You try to get the arbitrator to throw out the case.

  22. bduncanscott says: Apr 20, 2012 11:41 AM

    Goodell trying to cover his tracks now!! Here in a person who has handed down SEVERE punishments to the Saints as well as other players and teams but he himself along with D Smith engaged in bribing a labor union and colluding with them as well as with Mara to steal money from teams that would cripple them in this years free agency, Ironically benefiting Mara (giants owner) the most. They are well aware if the fact are heard by a non corrupt outside agent they they indeed will look GUILTY AS HELL!! Imagine the effect that will have on all the punishments he just handed down on the Saints organization. The problem here is the League, Goodell, and owners who have the league in their pocket has ABSOLUTELY too much power and no accountability , which slowly leads to corruption! Sometimes it’s obvious corruption and sometime it’s corruption that slowly come on like cancer due to having too much power and slowly but surely feeling entitled and compromising. Goodell needs to remember he WORKS FOR THE GAME OF FOOTBALL he’s not supposed to be Hitlers secret football police

  23. dscol715 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:43 AM

    If the NFL is smart this thing never makes it to May 10. The NFL has too much to lose and nothing to gain by this going to a hearing. I don’t even understand how the NFL would begin to argue this case in front of an independent arbitrator when the league was demanding that its owners participate in illegal collusion that cost the players untold millions of dollars in salaries.

  24. frankiemontana says: Apr 20, 2012 11:43 AM

    somewhere the great Al Davis is smiling

  25. dalfanforever says: Apr 20, 2012 11:44 AM

    Of course, the league wants it dismissed. It’s all for protection of the other 30 teams who colluded to penalize actions the league already approved as legal.

    This is getting uglier for the league. And will get uglier when the grievance goes forward.

    GET EM Jerrah! GET EM Danny!

  26. dabkg says: Apr 20, 2012 11:46 AM

    I’m not familiar with all the legal implications on this issue, but I think I recall that the NFL warned the owners prior to entering the uncapped season not to take advantage of the situation else it could hurt them later. The Cowboys and Redskins knowingly chose to ignore that warning.

  27. therealsmiley says: Apr 20, 2012 11:47 AM

    Once the Skins & Cowboys win on this one I hope they sue the NFL for damages (free agency was affected for both teams). Sue em’ and make sure you include that traitor Mara! Hail!

  28. bigredscouting says: Apr 20, 2012 11:49 AM

    Sadly, the entire argument the NFL has given for dismissal stems from strong arming the NFLPA. They told the NFLPA that if they didn’t sign the agreement to penalize the Redskins and Cowboys, that the cap number would be lower. Not to mention, the lack of penalties to teams who didn’t spend enough is another hole in the sail for the NFL. You can’t OK deals and then say well we warned you. Here’s a great way to warn them, don’t OK the deal. Roger Goodell trapped these teams into there circumstance. It’s like chess. You can’t move your king into check on purpose. That is unless, someone has blindfolded you from the rule book, or the rule book is made up as you go. In summation, why is Roger Goodell still the commissioner?

  29. weneedlinemen42 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:52 AM

    The NFLPA agreed to it, after the league threatened to reduce the total amount available to be paid to the players.

    Using the agreement of a body that you effectively blackmailed/bribed isn’t exactly the best way to support your case. Especially when it’s no secret that the NFLPA don’t think the Redskins and Cowboys did anything wrong.

  30. jackericsson says: Apr 20, 2012 12:00 PM

    if Jerry and the boy billionaire want to pursue collusion- insert rock meeting hard place- their influence on future league matters will be destroyed. 30 other owners will make these two the new Al Davis. Jerry can start voting abstain. Even if they win, they lose.

  31. goodolebaghead says: Apr 20, 2012 12:03 PM

    The NFL should be suspended for a year, fined $500,000, and stripped of two draft picks.

  32. skinfangray says: Apr 20, 2012 12:07 PM

    The longer this drags on, and the more that gets reported, the more the league is starting to look like an organized crime syndicate.

    My guess is that sometime in the next 2 weeks, the league will try to offer a settlement to get this out of the press. The only question will be whether the Skins and Cowboys decide to accept the settlement or push for further compensation.

  33. jm91rs says: Apr 20, 2012 12:11 PM

    Easy solution to the problem…Spread the penalty out over 15 years. The NFL will feel like it won the argument, the Cowboys and Redskins will be able to take a very minor hit every year no problem.

    I can’t stand either of these teams and it seems crazy that they’re complaining now when they were warned not to do it last year. Mike Brown WISHES someone would tell him his cap numbers are being lowered for the next few years.

  34. gixrider says: Apr 20, 2012 12:11 PM

    Collusion? Ah yes, the same tactic used by the Democrats in Congress to pass ObamaCare
    —————————————————–
    Can we leave the political commentary posts for Politico.com? I read it all the time, it’s a wonderful site and far more appropiate for this. One of the many reasons most of us love sports is that while we’re watching/reading/talking about it we can leave (at least for a moment) all the Rep. vs Dem / Conservative vs. Liberal / White vs. Black vs. Hispanic vs. Asian vs. whoever out of the room and have a good time with sports (the greatest of which is football of course! LOL!). When we come to PFT we want the “my guy is better than your guy” debates to revolve around coaches, quarterbacks, and team owners…not Presidents, congressmen, and candidates.

  35. daysend564 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:11 PM

    goodolebaghead says:
    Replace NFL with Mara

  36. bostongiant says: Apr 20, 2012 12:14 PM

    “cappa662 says: Why did the NFLPA agree to this is beyond me. It provides FEWER dollars to the players!!!!!!!”

    —————————————————————-
    cappa, DeMaurice Smith agreed to this to save his skin. The salary cap for this year was going to go down, which would have been a death knell for his reelection campaign. So Goodell offered to raise the cap if Smith agreed to these sanctions against the Cowboys and Redskins.

    The other 30 teams get more cap space, players get a higher salary cap (this year), D. Smith gets reelected, Goodell gets to wave his big stick. Everyone colludes, everyone wins, except Dallas and Washington.

  37. cowboyscanada says: Apr 20, 2012 12:20 PM

    Nice to see the NFL HEAD OFFICE in trouble! Go get’em Jerry!

  38. chawk12thman says: Apr 20, 2012 12:31 PM

    Too much money at stake in the big picture…..no way it gets past this step.

  39. mooisme says: Apr 20, 2012 12:32 PM

    I certainly hope the Skins & Boys have pulled every contract submitted to the league in 2010 and see how many other front loaded deals there are that are “OK”. The league approved them once, at the time they were submitted.
    Next, there is the fact the Miles Austin contract was 17 million paid in 2010, and 7 million was allowed resulting in a $10m penalty, but the $15m for D.Hall and $21m for Fat F-ing Albert add up to the entire $36m the Skins were penalized. Sooooooo, I guess that’s fair.
    When they speak about competitive advantage, hoarding $50m in Cincy for this year is ok, purging the Colts squad is ok.
    I hope no-Goodell falls flat on his you-know what.
    F-U Roger!

  40. darkmatter599 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:34 PM

    Both the skins and the cowboys should recieve proper compensation this crap,they should high draft picks for this Collusion bull and our cap space restored,i hope him and mara get burned for this

  41. PriorKnowledge says: Apr 20, 2012 12:35 PM

    Warnings are worth anything if they are illegal. If I warn you that treaspassers will be shot on sight and I shoot a treaspasser, I am still liable.

  42. lonespeed says: Apr 20, 2012 12:40 PM

    If I were the NFL, I would tread lightly here.

    If Jones and Snyder prove, which they very likely can, that the other NFL owners had no right to impose those sanctions and they can prove that those sanctions caused loss potential for future revenues, a judge could royally screw the other 30 owners.

    However far fetched, you could argue that money would have been used to sign a new face of the franchise, that face of the franchise would have led to additional ticket and merchandise sales and playoff appearances, and so on…

    You could calculate an enormous amount of loss.

  43. nfceastfan says: Apr 20, 2012 12:41 PM

    I think what’s lost in this whole mess is the fact that 2 owners went against the leagues wishes to gain an advantage over 30 other teams, and yet they still stunk. That’s just a testament to how bad these 2 front offices are. At least the patriots won something when they cheated.

  44. godofwine330 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:42 PM

    Of course they seek a dismissal the way a husband seeks a dismissal of the financial liability from his soon-to-be-ex-wife.

    They shouldn’t get it. The NFL approved the contracts. If they were illegal then it should have been pointed out then. Since it wasn’t the league is being bullheaded about letting it fly and in many ways admitting to collusion.

  45. cliffordc05 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:43 PM

    The NFL did in fact attempt to force the Cowboys and Redskins to engage in collusion and it is the weakness of their argument from a legal standpoint. Welcome to the big boys world.

  46. bigbluecrew420 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:47 PM

    The league approved those deals on an individual basis. Its not the leagues responsibility to hold the hand of those teams. Cowboys and skins KNEW exactly what they were doing they got caught and now there’s a penalty.

  47. denverscott says: Apr 20, 2012 12:53 PM

    dabkg says: Apr 20, 2012 11:46 AM

    I’m not familiar with all the legal implications on this issue, but I think I recall that the NFL warned the owners prior to entering the uncapped season not to take advantage of the situation else it could hurt them later. The Cowboys and Redskins knowingly chose to ignore that warning.

    That’s about the only smart comment I’ve read. ost of these mouth breathers never heard the word collusion before this. Uncapped year because no CBA was in place meaning that the owners can make agreements between themselves without consulting the employees. That’s what happened and 2 teams were stupid enough to think that they could ignore what they agreed to. They were wrong, now they pay for their arrogance.

  48. jluns275 says: Apr 20, 2012 12:57 PM

    One way or another, this is going to get swept under the rug & all of us fans had better be praying or otherwise pulling for it to.
    Generally speaking, you don’t get to be rich & powerful enough to own an NFL franchise without doing some fairly shady or questionable deals with other owners, &/or the commissioner, &/or the NFLPA. Consider it the price of doing business.
    What exactly is the desired endgame here?
    Congressional investigations? Why bother demanding that crooks investigate crooks?
    Blow it all up? Do you really want to be awaiting the start of the CFL or Arena League with baited breath? I know I don’t.
    The Cowboys & Redskins should just shut up & take their medicine. Owners for both teams are otherwise more than willing to throw away many times more than their share of $46 million on bad free agent signings on a yearly basis. If it was up to Jerry Jones or Dam Snyder the NFL would follow MLB by allowing 6 to 8 teams have all the premium talent due to having the richest owners.
    MLB has extremely lopsided competition, for example: a $50 million payroll playing a $150 to $200 million payroll. That’s like racing a Yugo against a Porsche. Gee, wonder how that’ll turn out more times than not. That’s why TV ratings for a MNF or SNF NFL game between 2 losing teams in October can soundly beat out a World Series game’s TV ratings.
    Keep it simple, stupid. Don’t rock the boat.

  49. skinsfaninnebraska says: Apr 20, 2012 12:57 PM

    The NFL just needs to admit they screwed up, restore the stolen cap space, and let this go before it gets really ugly for them. If Congress or the Courts get involved in this there could be some really bad long term effects for the league.

  50. boilerup1869 says: Apr 20, 2012 1:07 PM

    Man how do I go about getting a title like “Special Master”?

    You know what kind of tail I could pull with people around town addressing me like that?

  51. thekiddone says: Apr 20, 2012 1:08 PM

    This is a precursor to a settlement before the hearing. As strange as it seems for Snyder and Jones to be working together, the league and the union on the same side is stranger. No way the league wants to go into a hearing to reveal their strategy on keeping player salaries down. Both teams get the cap back, Dallas gets a 5 round comp pick, Wash gets a 4 and 7th rounder.
    And a public rebuke of the Mara mgmt council. LOL.

  52. rubbernilly says: Apr 20, 2012 1:11 PM

    Why hasn’t anyone pressed Smith and the NFLPA for their take on why they agreed to this?

    dabkg says:

    I’m not familiar with all the legal implications on this issue, but I think I recall that the NFL warned the owners prior to entering the uncapped season not to take advantage of the situation else it could hurt them later. The Cowboys and Redskins knowingly chose to ignore that warning.

    The point is the warning was illegal. The Skins and Cowboys would have been guilty of collusion if they’d gone along with what the league was saying. That is, in fact, the basis of how/why the NFL is trying to get the grievance tossed out… by saying that the NFLPA signed off on the punishment (which means, effectively, that there is no one left to claim that it was collusion).

    I still think that the two clubs have a foundation for their grievance even if you accept that the NFLPA sign-off renders CBA concerns moot. The NFL is hurting the clubs’ abilities to compete and take a profit. The more successful the clubs can be, the more money they can expect to take in — in both merchandise and stadium ticket sales. Not having the money to spend means more than just the players not getting the money (which is the part the NFLPA sign-off would have affected); it also means that the clubs aren’t able to invest in their product as much as they might like to make a stronger profit.

    If I were the Cowboys or the Redskins, I wouldn’t settle for anything but a full redress of the penalty *and* compensation in the form of draft picks and/or money. They are so clearly in the right.

    Though, if I were Snyder, I’d be worried about the Cowboys. The ‘Boys have the smaller penalty, and thus the easier to make go away with a bit of settlement. You know the NFL lawyers are in their war room going over strategy and trying to find some way to wedge these two (normally antagonistic) clubs away from one another. If they can get the Cowboys to step away from the grievance process (by some small settlement), they weaken the Redskins’ case… And if they did that, the NFL comes out looking a bit more reasonable in the court of Public Opinion, and now suddenly it’s harder for the Skins’ grievance to stay in the news.

    Stick to your guns, Jerruh and Danny!

  53. whatevnfl says: Apr 20, 2012 1:19 PM

    “because they treated the “uncapped year” a bit too literally.”

    Except the “uncapped year” was not something that was in quotes. Wasn’t it an uncapped year?? So the League didn’t want them to take that “literally” ? Unreal.

  54. mjkelly77 says: Apr 20, 2012 1:20 PM

    mdd913 says:Apr 20, 2012 11:17 AM

    … Every NFL fan should be very concerned with the unjust practices the league office is pulling these days.
    ________________

    You’re right. Let’s do away with the anti-trust exemption and see the league implode to a 6 or 7 team league. You know, teams in the big market areas. Then we can cheer on the Florida/Georgia/Alabama/South Carolina Heaters and the Illinois/Indiana/Missouri/Iowa Bearcats. So many of these comments are ludicrously short-sighted and myopic.

    The Cowboys and Redskins cheated and got caught. They were warned beforehand. They should have signed every good free agent available and written off $400 milion in salaries in the “uncapped year” for a Super Bowl run. That would have taken some real ‘nads. If you cheat, cheat big. That effort I could at least respect.

  55. starfan79 says: Apr 20, 2012 1:59 PM

    Doesn’t the fact that the NFL is trying to block this hearing show that they know they are wrong for it? That’s like when I punch my brother and then won’t let him tell on me by locking him outside the house. It’s eventually going to get handled and the NFL has to know that right?

  56. eagleswin says: Apr 20, 2012 3:33 PM

    starfan79 says:Apr 20, 2012 1:59 PM

    Doesn’t the fact that the NFL is trying to block this hearing show that they know they are wrong for it? That’s like when I punch my brother and then won’t let him tell on me by locking him outside the house. It’s eventually going to get handled and the NFL has to know that right?

    —————————

    Asking for the charges to be dismissed is a standard legal tactic which is indicitive of nothing. It is available to and used by both the guilty and the innocent.

  57. andyb02 says: Apr 20, 2012 3:41 PM

    Just take the cap penalty like a man and forget about it. It would have been nice if my team put a bulk of their stars salaries into the uncapped year so they would have $40,000,000 in cap space now but that would be an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.

  58. renhoekk2 says: Apr 20, 2012 3:51 PM

    The fact that the NFL had the NFLPA sign off on these penalties made it a CBA issue. The problem the NFL has is that no CBA rules were violated. That is the whole argument that can not be forgotten. So the fact that the NFLPA “agreed” to these punishments is irrelevant. That the NFL and the NFLPA agreed to punish two teams that did not break any CBA rules is an argument that can not be won. That’s were this dismissal falls flat. If the two teams had actually broken a CBA rule and the NFLPA agreed to the NFL’s punishment then indeed the two teams would have no case. The NFL and the NFLPA cannot punish teams that did not violate the CBA. This is no different that if there were a cap in place, of say 120m. And the other owners didn’t like the way the two teams crafted a few contracts and decided to punish them for salary cap penalties even though they did not actually go over and violate the salary cap. They fact that the NFLPA would sign off on the penalties would not mean that the two teams would not be allowed to go before the arbitrator. If they are being accused of and punished for breaking a CBA agreed rule then they are allowed to go before the arbitrator to state their case.

  59. shootahcowboy says: Apr 20, 2012 4:14 PM

    I saw a NASCAR reference earlier.

    Would this be akin to having no restrictions on cars for one year, but then when placing the restrictions going forward, going back and black-flagging cars?

    This is a joke, plain and simple. That being said, I’ve got to wonder what is really going on. GODdell and Mara would HAVE to know that Danny and Jerry would not take this laying down….

  60. gregorysykes says: Apr 20, 2012 4:18 PM

    dabkg says:
    Apr 20, 2012 11:46 AM
    I’m not familiar with all the legal implications on this issue, but I think I recall that the NFL warned the owners prior to entering the uncapped season not to take advantage of the situation else it could hurt them later. The Cowboys and Redskins knowingly chose to ignore that warning.

    —————————————————

    That means diddly squat. The league can “warn” until the cows come home and it still won’t change the fact that the league cannot cap and UNCAPPED year.

  61. xjbellx says: Apr 20, 2012 4:32 PM

    It seems there maybe several misinformed individuals posting on this subject. The Cowboys and Redskins did not cheat. They broke an unwritten rule, which “violated the competitive balance”. The year was uncapped, it’s just that simple. There were several other teams that made similar deals to that of the Cowboys and the Redskins which is what I believe the issue is for Jerry and Dan.

    The Chicago Bears dumped 20 million dollars of Julius Peppers deal into 2010, while paying him 11.5 million in 2011 and 9 million in 2012. The Philadelphia Eagles dumped 4 million dollars into Leonard Weaver’s 3 year contract in 2010, for those of you who don’t see that being a big deal keep in mind Leonard Weaver is a fullback. There are several other contracts like this if want to find them start with the Saints and Vikings.

    Another point to consider is there were 3 teams that spent less than 90 million in salaries in 2010 Jaguars, Chiefs, and Buccaneers. In 2009 the final “capped” year under the CBA the cap floor was approx. 112 million, there were several more teams other than those listed above that spent below this number. My point with this being that you can “warn” a team against spending more than allowed yet there is no issue with spending well below the “cap floor” total??

    This grievance will be settled before they get in front of the “special master”.

  62. gurnblanstonreturns says: Apr 20, 2012 4:34 PM

    As noted above – somewhere the late, great Al Davis smiles and smiles!!! If the league’s arbitrator grants the league’s dismissal motion, the Cowboys and Redskins should proceed directly to the D.C. District Court and file antitrust suits against the league, then stop in on their friendly elected Senators on Capitol Hill to discuss collusion hearings. (Someone said above that the Cowboys and Redskins won’t risk the fallout of antitrust litigation – why not? No teams are better situated to become the Yankees and Red Sox of pro football.)
    Can you say treble damages, Roger? I think you can.
    Hail!

  63. granadafan says: Apr 20, 2012 5:06 PM

    I’m as big a Cowgirl a hater as the rest of the football fans, but what Goodell did to Dallas and DC just seems wrong and unduly harsh without raising collusion questions.

  64. sharkinva says: Apr 20, 2012 6:21 PM

    So basically the NFL is saying the Skins should not have a case because the other defendant in the case (the NFLPA) agreed with the sanctions.

    Remember guys, next time you get caught doing something wrong, your defense should be, it was ok because the guy I was doing it with said it was ok.

  65. deathmonkey41 says: Apr 20, 2012 6:30 PM

    Goodall said, “Who the hell do these teams think they are? The (expletive) Patriots??? They can’t get away with this stuff. Now, that will be my final statement on the matter, I have to go wax Robert Kraft’s limo. “

  66. bigchris757 says: Apr 20, 2012 6:53 PM

    Niether team went crazy in the free agent market Skins restructured two contracts Cowboys gave Austin a new cpntract. Each contract was structured so a big portion was in the uncapped year. Austins first year got 17 million, Haynesworth got 32 mill as a roster bonus had he not restructured Skins more and likely would have cut him. He agreed then sat on his ass collecting a check. The Bucs are doing the same thing that Boys & Skins did this year, but in free agent signings front loading contracts to tale advantage of the massive cap space they have this year, it would not carry over for next season. Either way in both cases the league said okay to all contracts. If I say yes, how in the hell can I two years later say what you did was wrong and penalize you after the fact.

  67. mjkelly77 says: Apr 20, 2012 7:21 PM

    No matter how much bravado demonstrated by convoluted comments, and how many “thumbs down” the Cowboy and Redskin slappies give, they’re still wrong.

  68. sharkinva says: Apr 20, 2012 8:23 PM

    mjkelly77 said

    No matter how much bravado demonstrated by convoluted comments, and how many “thumbs down” the Cowboy and Redskin slappies give, they’re still wrong.

    OK how do you figure?? The league approved the deals. The Redskins and Cowboys broke no rules. Other teams who did the same thing didnt get sanctioned even in cases where it was blatantly obvious what they were doing (See Contract/Peppers,Julius, Chicago Bears 2010). So aside from not going along with the other owners back room “agreement” exactly what did the offending teams do wrong??

    This is about two things, money and abuse of power.

    Money in that the Old Schools owners are mad as hell that these two New School owners make more cake and spend more cake in a BAD year than some of the good old boys make and or spend even after their respective teams win a Super Bowl.

    Abuse of Power in that one John Mara realized that if he set the cap at the $116 million the management council proposed, his beloved Giants would be $3 million over the cap. So he abused his position as management council President to come up with a way to both fix his own cap issues AND stick it to two division rivals. And he basically admitted it was personal and had exactly DICK to do with competitive balance when he went on a national broadcast and stated that he felt the Skins and Dallas should have lost not only cap space but draft picks.

  69. rickc402 says: Apr 20, 2012 11:58 PM

    Snyder and Jones are fools for asking permission from Goodell, they should operate as if they didn’t hear him, spend the money and show up to play. In the words of President Andrew Jackson to the Supreme Court “F**K You, what you gonna do?”

  70. rg3ndc says: Apr 21, 2012 12:21 AM

    Lets not forget about the penalty money being distributed to the other 30 teams, who wouldn’t vote for a plan like that. This is that big “C” word any way you look at it.

  71. sharkinva says: Apr 21, 2012 1:04 PM

    Rick… problem there is that the League office has to approve all contracts. So if we had simply ignored the cap penalty, all Goddell would have done is NOT approved any and all contracts that would have put us over the cap.

    rg3ndc…. its not actual money the teams got, its cap space. Difference between the two is this. Cap Space is your actual budget. Had they simply taken $46 million and redistributed it amongst he other 28 teams, I doubt Dan or Jerry would care because lets face it, they have blown that much in recent years on the likes of Haynesworth, Roy Williams etc.

    But by taking cap space, in effect the league was saying we dont care how much money you HAVE, we are only going to allow you to spend this much. So in effect our cap was slashed to $102 million where as the rest of the league has $120.6 million.

  72. kyedh3 says: Apr 21, 2012 10:55 PM

    dabkg says: Apr 20, 2012 11:46 AM

    I’m not familiar with all the legal implications on this issue, but I think I recall that the NFL warned the owners prior to entering the uncapped season not to take advantage of the situation else it could hurt them later. The Cowboys and Redskins knowingly chose to ignore that warning.

    And the LEAGUE KNOWINGLY SIGNED OFF ON THOSE CONTRACTS, LEAVING THEM NO LEGAL LEG TO STAND ON IN ANY COURT OF LAW.

    YOU CANNOT SAY WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT IN A BUSINESS OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS “YOU CAN’T DO THIS OR YOU’RE NAUGHTY-NAUGHTY” AND THEN SIGN OFF ON “NAUGHTY-NAUGHTY” AND THEN DOLE OUT PUNISHMENT FOR “NAUGHTY-NAUGHTY”. THE LEAGUE HAS TO SIGN OFF ON ALL PLAYER CONTRACTS. IS IT ANY PLAINER THAN THAT?

    They got no gripe because in the uncapped year of no CBA they said to Jerruh & Little Danny “These contracts are OK” and now they see their error. There is no official document to give guidance in that direction so the arbiter must go the other way or risk a lawsuit of incredible proportions. And I’m willing to be Jerry’s got a better lawyer than Goodell. Jerry’s a businessman. Goodell’s an idiot with a title.

  73. gregmorris78 says: Apr 22, 2012 11:23 PM

    And don’t forget about the timing of the “punishments”. Waiting until the eve of the free agency was a deliberate attack by big brother.

    For me, the NFL shield is forever tarnished because of this

Leave a Reply

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