Skip to content

Burbank takes motion to dismiss Cowboys-Redskins grievance under advisement

6349348_0 Getty Images

Special Master Stephen Burbank heard arguments Thursday regarding the NFL’s effort to dismiss the grievance filed by the Cowboys and the Redskins regarding $46 million in combined salary cap space for 2012 and 2013.

Per a source with knowledge of the hearing, the NFL argued that the union’s agreement to the cap penalties prevents the grievance.  The NFL also argued that the Commissioner possesses the full and complete ability to adopt any measures aimed at ensuring competitive balance.

As to the latter argument, that’s a strong statement.  And it would be interesting to know how many owners believe that the Commissioner indeed has such broad, sweeping powers.  Especially since those powers, if they exist, can be used against any of the other owners, pretty much at any time.

Burbank has taken the motion to dismiss under advisement.  If it is granted, the grievance will end, subject to the relevant appeal procedures.  If it denied, the grievance will proceed before Burbank.

Permalink 27 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Dallas Cowboys, Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
27 Responses to “Burbank takes motion to dismiss Cowboys-Redskins grievance under advisement”
  1. bigjdve says: May 10, 2012 4:54 PM

    Wow – he now has the ability to do whatever he wants to his bosses. He actually made that argument in court.

    While, I have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with coaching staffs and employees saying that about your bosses. Well doesn’t that reak of arrogance.

    The fact that he decided to try that on 2 of the owners in the league that are all about the money and moving their teams forward, not to mention ornery to boot.

    This might just end up in the courts, I don’t think anything or anyone will get in the way of Synder and Jones and their businesses.

  2. botchedextrapoint says: May 10, 2012 4:59 PM

    Should never have happened in the first place.

  3. gweez76 says: May 10, 2012 4:59 PM

    What a joke Der Komissionar needs to be put in his place.

  4. jagerbmb says: May 10, 2012 5:06 PM

    Recall Goodell!!!

  5. vetdana says: May 10, 2012 5:06 PM

    If… there are no checks and balances in place , what we have left …is…..”Der Führer is alive and well at Gestapo headquarters” willing to do what is best for the Fatherland !

  6. crabboil says: May 10, 2012 5:25 PM

    How does suspending two coaches and a general manager ensure competitive balance?

  7. unitedstateoftexas says: May 10, 2012 5:26 PM

    Where can I obtain Goodell’s definition of “competetive balance”? Because right now it sounds like nothing more than a catch-phrase.

  8. tezz123 says: May 10, 2012 5:34 PM

    That is a very strong argument and I doubt there are no check and balances, in hindsight it could be why the league’s owners held a vote on the cap sanctions.

    The question would be whether there was a competitive advantage instead of why the NFL approved the contracts.

    Interesting, I wonder how this will play out and how the Cowboys/Skins argued against this.

  9. lakermetskins says: May 10, 2012 5:34 PM

    “I’m the Judge, Jury, and the Executioner in all matters pertaining to the State”

    Infamous words uttered by Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.

    Replace the word “State” with the acronym “NFL” and you have Roger Goddell.

  10. bduncanscott says: May 10, 2012 5:41 PM

    CORRUPTION! Burbank works for the NFL and NFLPA of course he would think about dismissing it, that would be a sad sad day for honesty and justice. This needs to end a commissioner it’s GOD on earth, nor should Mara have any office within the NFL office, it’s a conflict of interest. WTF is going on when a person has the UNBRIDLED power to do what he wants with no accountability?? That is too much power and now makes me believe it should be run by a council of outside sources

  11. joeflaccosunibrow says: May 10, 2012 5:43 PM

    Can’t stand Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones, but I side with them on this. If there is no salary cap in place and the commish tells them not to spend money “in excess”, that is the definition of collusion.

    These guy were taking advantage of the rules, and there were no rules. Every fan wants an owner like that!

  12. nnagi says: May 10, 2012 5:50 PM

    the owners are absolutely crazy if they don’t rein in goodell, he’s almost out of control….this whole case reeks of conspiracy, there’s no way the redskins and cowboys should have incurred any penalties when there was no salary cap in place and the contracts in question were approved by the league…especially considering that the buccaneers, jaguars, rams, and bengals didn’t spend any money and were able to push all that unused cap space into a surplus on the cap for the next year..where’s the logic in this?

  13. dallas001 says: May 10, 2012 6:03 PM

    Just because the union went along that made it ok ??? Are you kidding me. And these attorneys charge how much by the hour ? Well Danny told Jerry it was ok to pay Miles’ contract because he was gonna do it too. Goodell you lose this one buddy !!!

  14. kokomike says: May 10, 2012 6:06 PM

    The Commissioner has absolute power. This was set in the bylaws more than 25 years ago by the owners in my fantasy football league.

    Many times since then has the Commissioner made idiotic rulings. Some owners have attempted to force change, unsuccessfully.

    The NFL is no different.

  15. jwreck says: May 10, 2012 6:10 PM

    tezz123 says: May 10, 2012 5:34 PM

    That is a very strong argument and I doubt there are no check and balances, in hindsight it could be why the league’s owners held a vote on the cap sanctions.
    _____________________

    The owners’ vote came after the cap space had been stripped and distributed to the other teams. That vote was not a legitimate affirmation of Goodell’s power.

    It seems like you are saying there are checks and balances because the owners voted to approve the cap sanctions after they had reaped the rewards. This situation is akin to a president declaring martial law in a secret cabinet vote, taking all of Bill Gates’ money, sending everyone in America a check for fifty bucks, and then holding a referendum so the people vote on whether or not they want to keep the money. Just because people want fifty bucks doesn’t mean that they think the president was right for taking Bill Gates’ money, or that they support his totalitarian martial law.

  16. deathtoromo says: May 10, 2012 6:16 PM

    A reporter aske Goodell why the same sanctions didn’t apply to the Buccaneers and other teams for under spending while at a press conference at the owners meetings. He completely sidestepped the question and stopped taking questions on the subject. Collusion with Mara is also going on here. Nfl loves their New York teams…

  17. chuxtah says: May 10, 2012 6:23 PM

    So the Patriots and Saints are blamed for cheating but the Giants aren’t? Their owner works in the league office and penalizes innocent teams within his own division of millions of cap space. I’d say this is the most unfair advantage ever in the NFL. Let’s strip the Giants of their last two Super Bowls. Everyone knows they were lucky on the first and the Patriots blew the second anyway. This league is starting to look like our Government. Just a bunch of guys in suits making up rules as they go just to benefit their own pockets. Goodell should be impeached.

  18. hey804 says: May 10, 2012 6:36 PM

    So Goodell started by punishing the players, then worked his way up to coaches, and now owners. I don’t see this ending well for him.

  19. igster1 says: May 10, 2012 6:44 PM

    the commish needs to be done away with now. he is a travestry.

  20. upperdecker19 says: May 10, 2012 6:56 PM

    Burbank? I thought this was another NFL to L.A. story

  21. trollaikman8 says: May 10, 2012 7:52 PM

    I think the fact that the fine money has to redistributed to the rest of the league is what makes this a travesty.
    Mara profits from the outcome and and yet he’s in a position of power here? what a joke.

  22. tezz123 says: May 10, 2012 8:15 PM

    The whole league in an effort to show unity voted on the sanction even though they didn’t need to. Owners didn’t vote just for some meager cap space they were genuinely not happy with what the Skins/Cowboys did.

  23. nfceastfan says: May 10, 2012 8:24 PM

    You guys don’t get it do you?

    It’s not about the Redskins and Cowboys ownership spending lavishly on free agents. It’s about them dumping salaries in the uncapped year to correct their years of woeful mismanagement. Other teams are still suffering from their mistakes because they didn’t use such a tactic in the uncapped year. That gives the Cowboys and the Redskins a competitive advantage with clean books and plenty of salary cap space. The owners agreed not to do that and apparently these two were hard of hearing.

    It’s not about approving contracts. The contracts in question were fine when they were drawn up, and approved? The contracts became an issue when these owners decided to dump them.

    It’s really not that hard to understand to figure out.

    The Redskins and Cowboys will eat their penalty and there isn’t much they can do about it.

  24. skinsfaninphilly says: May 11, 2012 10:44 AM

    Regardless of what you feel about the teams & the situation..GODdell has to go!! My only thought is that if you make rules..live by and enforce them all the time! No team can engage in “cap dumping” during the uncapped year..cool..so why turn around and approve their request when they file the paperwork in your office?? That’s like me telling my kids they can’t have any candy, then later on they bring it to me and ask for it..I say yes; but when their mom (Mara) gets upset that I gave it to them..I beat their a$$es & put them on punishment..#wheretheydothatat

  25. lakermetskins says: May 11, 2012 4:37 PM

    nfceastfan says:
    May 10, 2012 8:24 PM
    You guys don’t get it do you?

    It’s not about the Redskins and Cowboys ownership spending lavishly on free agents. It’s about them dumping salaries in the uncapped year to correct their years of woeful mismanagement. Other teams are still suffering from their mistakes because they didn’t use such a tactic in the uncapped year. That gives the Cowboys and the Redskins a competitive advantage with clean books and plenty of salary cap space. The owners agreed not to do that and apparently these two were hard of hearing.

    It’s not about approving contracts. The contracts in question were fine when they were drawn up, and approved? The contracts became an issue when these owners decided to dump them.

    It’s really not that hard to understand to figure out.

    The Redskins and Cowboys will eat their penalty and there isn’t much they can do about it.
    ___________________________________

    nfceastfan I hear you, and what you’re saying is not hard to understand. But the NFL is ran by sets of rules and contracts. Not by the spirit of competition or gentlemen’s handshakes. No legit business should be ran this way.
    1. The order was given to not abuse the uncapped year….
    -What rule or contract is this order or warning based on? It’s based on the spirit of “level competition”. That’s it! A gentlemen’s agreement! How can you SEVERELY PUNISH the skins and boys based on a gentlemen’s agreement? The best analogy i saw is if a state decided to no longer enforce speeding laws for driving over 75 mph, but the police recommends not doing so “in the interest of safety”. Can that state now give you a $500 ticket for speeding at 90 mph?I say no! Well Danny boy and Jerry decided to do 90 mph to get where they were going fast!

    2. The fact is most owners did not take advantage of the uncapped year because all of them are CHEAP!! Danny Boy and Jerrah are not cheap, and figured they broke NO contracts or rules to get a competitive advantage in future years. They had to spend money to do that. The other cheap-ass owners wouldn’t consider this based on the cash that had to be spent in 2010.

    I think if Goodell’s penalty wasn’t so stiff, the skins and boys wouldn’t take this to arbitration. All Goodell had to do was levy a $3-5 million penalty and everything would have been fine. Goodell is way too heavy-handed with his punishments. It’s like he is telling the NFL “I don’t care who you are, Don’t disobey me or I’ll bury you!”.

  26. nfceastfan says: May 11, 2012 9:24 PM

    The NFL is not run by or like the US government. It governs itself with its own rules and regulations. It’s closer to a Cartel than a Democratic Governing Council. Every single owner fights for that right every time collective bargaining time comes around. That’s why said owners won’t take it beyond the NFL court system.

    It’s not that unfair what happened. Not all the other owners are cheap, in fact I’d say most would have done the same thing these owners did if it was allowed. Sure, there’s a few low revenue teams like Tampa, Buffalo, and Cincinnati that tend to be frugal, but they are more the exception than the rule. The Redskins and the Cowboys weren’t paralyzed by the penalty, the league just lowered their cap numbers and raised the other teams to even things out. They are no more hand-tied than anyone else.

    They didn’t take cash from these owners, and they didn’t give cash to the other owners. By raising other teams cap it allows them to lower the fines given to Jones, and Snyder.

    I thought it was brilliant how they corrected the imbalance created by this unfortunate happening without crippling “said teams”and the competitive balance.

  27. dikshuttle says: May 14, 2012 12:40 PM

    Is any of this going to matter once the concussion settlements start?

Leave a Reply

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