Cowboys and Redskins band together

[Duck Fallas 209]

The Cowboys and Redskins have joined forces and filed a grievance against the NFL stemming from the hefty cap penalty enforced by the NFL.

 

JASON LA CANFORA

Cowboys, Redskins file joint grievance against NFL

 

By Jason La Canfora |

Published: March 25th, 2012 | Tags: Jason La Canfora, Dallas Cowboys, Salary cap, Washington Redskins

 

The Cowboys and Redskins have formally objected to the salary cap penalties they faced.

 

It is called a system arbitration case (Article 15 of the CBA). It will be heard by Professor Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania, according to the league.

 

On Friday, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said that his team was planning to take action against the NFL after it docked the Cowboys $10 million in salary-cap space for manipulating contracts in the 2010 uncapped year.

 

The Redskins lost $36 million for similar infractions. Both teams’ lost cap space can be spread through the next two seasons.

 

Jones indicated that he reached out to his longtime NFC East rivals about fighting the league’s ruling.

 

The NFL took away millions in salary cap space from both teams after the two NFC East clubs pushed spending into the uncapped year to save money under the cap in 2011 and ’12.

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

I think that both teams have a case, but I am not sure if it will matter in the long run. All of the big name free agents this season are off the market. It will help next year, though.

[Mathias 394]

Good. 28 other owners and Goodell are about to look like fools for pushing these bogus penalties on us.

[Jayrus 51]

It was a douche move for the league to punish you for contracts they approved, but if you hadn't front loaded contracts in the first place after specifically being told not to this wouldn't be an issue. So it seems to me both sides fucked up.

 

As far as this legal action is concerned, it's is a hell of a gamble. If you lose, which is likely, you'll have just brought the wrath of Goodell down on yourselves even harder.

[Mathias 394]

It was a douche move for the league to punish you for contracts they approved, but if you hadn't front loaded contracts in the first place after specifically being told not to this wouldn't be an issue. So it seems to me both sides fucked up.

 

We dumped one contract into the UNCAPPED YEAR BECAUSE IT WAS AN UNCAPPED YEAR and we took the meaning of "uncapped year" as such. We violated nothing and are being punished for not getting involved in league wide obvious collusion.

 

 

As far as this legal action is concerned, it's is a hell of a gamble. If you lose, which is likely, you'll have just brought the wrath of Goodell down on yourselves even harder.

 

That's dumb, how can you be punished for breaking a rule that didn't exist? Goodell and his band of cronies won't be allowed to do shit to us once this gets reversed. Which it most likely will, because again, how can you be punished for breaking a rule THAT DID NOT EXIST.

 

And it was extremely smart to file this as Redskins/Cowboys vs. NFLPA/NFL, this leaves it out of the hands of Goodell and his band of cronies in a ruling. It'll be a neutral arbiter and any sane human being knows the punishment handed down to us was bullshit and should be reversed.

[Jayrus 51]

We dumped one contract into the UNCAPPED YEAR BECAUSE IT WAS AN UNCAPPED YEAR and we took the meaning of "uncapped year" as such. We violated nothing and are being punished for not getting involved in league wide obvious collusion.

 

All teams were instructed to treat the uncapped year as if it had a cap. The league expected you to honor that instruction. You didn't. The fact that they had to approve the contracts you front-loaded does give you legal grounds to fight this, but you can't sit there and tell me you're totally blameless on this. You were given an instruction and you disobeyed. Let J.J. throw his temper tantrum. It won't get him far.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Jayrus

[Mathias 394]

All teams were instructed to treat the uncapped year as if it had a cap. The league expected you to honor that instruction. You didn't. The fact that they had to approve the contracts you front-loaded does give you legal grounds to fight this, but you can't sit there and tell me you're totally blameless on this. You were given an instruction and you disobeyed. Let J.J. throw his temper tantrum. It won't get him far.

 

We were given an instruction to COLLUDE, which, if you don't know, is ILLEGAL.

 

What we and the Redskins (And Saints and Raiders) did was fair game. Don't be ignorant.

[Duck Fallas 209]

When learning to drive a car, we are told to not run a yellow light...running a yellow light is not illegal (as far as I know from my brother, a police officer). Should the police be allowed to write a ticket because you ran a yellow light? The same basic rule applies here.

[Jayrus 51]

I could argue it the other way Duck.

 

Say you have a plate of cookies at a party. We are told the cookies are for everyone. Most people have a couple cookies and spend most of the time chatting, but one fat little pig of a kid just sits there inhaling cookies and eats most of the platter himself. Technically his parents can't punish him as the cookies were for "everyone" which includes him, but he's still a greedy little asshole, and anyone who missed out on cookies because of him is going to be angry with him.

 

Your scenario is how the people on your side see it. Mine is how the people on my side see it. To you we're the cops trying to ticket you for running a yellow light, which isn't illegal. To us you're the greedy little fat kids who wouldn't share the cookies with anyone else. There's nothing we can do about it but we're pissed at you because we didn't get any cookies.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Jayrus

[Duck Fallas 209]

I could argue it the other way Duck.

 

Say you have a plate of cookies at a party. We are told the cookies are for everyone. Most people have a couple cookies and spend most of the time chatting, but one fat little pig of a kid just sits there inhaling cookies and eats most of the platter himself. Technically his parents can't punish him as the cookies were for "everyone" which includes him, but he's still a greedy little asshole, and anyone who missed out on cookies because of him is going to be angry with him.

 

Your scenario is how the people on your side see it. Mine is how the people on my side see it. To you we're the cops trying to ticket you for running a yellow light, which isn't illegal. To us you're the greedy little fat kids who wouldn't share the cookies with anyone else. There's nothing we can do about it but we're pissed at you because we didn't get any cookies.

Excellent counter to my argument.

 

Of course, even in your scenario I would side with the fat kid who ate all of the cookies...

[Guest Phailadelphia]

This article does a good job of explaining why the NFL's salary cap block of the Cowboys and Redskins is illegal:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/redskins-cowboys-file-grievance-against-salary-cap-penalties-015734891.html

The Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys have made it official -- the two teams have filed a grievance against the NFL, the NFL Management Council and the NFL Players Association for the severe salary cap reduction penalties they incurred earlier this month. The Redskins were docked $36 million in cap space to be spread over two seasons for the restructure of contracts given to two disappointing veteran defenders -- defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth and cornerback DeAngelo Hall -- during the NFL's uncapped year of 2010. The Cowboys were hit with a $10 million cap reduction, also to be spread over two years, for the restructure of receiver Miles Austin's contract.

 

Per the new collective bargaining agreement, the grievance will be heard by an arbitration panel, most likely led by Special Master Stephen Burbank, who has heard several NFL grievance cases over the years. In this case, the Cowboys and Redksins have a pretty decent case. While the NFL cited threats to competitive balance and 2010 and beyond in handing out the penalties, the league also approved those restructured contracts at the time. In addition, there was no written agreement between all 32 clubs that teams would restrict contract restructuring during the uncapped year.

 

As we wrote when the penalties were installed, the NFL had two slam-dunk choices if the idea was to maintain competitive balance in that fashion: Extend the league year through the lockout (which the owners didn't want to do, because they'd be legally beholden to give players salary and benefits during that time), or write up an agreement stating that teams were not allowed to re-do contracts beyond a certain standard during the uncapped year (which would have been an open-and-shut collusion case). Instead, the NFL Management Council retroactively punished two teams mightily for alleged violations of a rule that didn't technically exist. The New Orleans Saints and Oakland Raiders were dinged smaller cap amounts for unspecified violations, but neither team is part of the complaint at this time. The Saints have bigger fish to fry right now, and the Raiders are probably just happy to be on the NFL's bad side again.

 

Here's where it gets complicated for the league. The chairman of the NFL Management Council is John Mara, part of the group that owns the New York Giants. When Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder walk into that room to air their grievances, they can first point to the statement made by Mara on Sunday to ESPN.com's Calvin Watkins in which the owner of a division rival gratuitously states that the two teams are lucky their punishments weren't worse.

 

"I thought the penalties imposed were proper. What they did was in violation of the spirit of the salary cap. They attempted to take advantage of a one-year loophole, and quite frankly, I think they're lucky they didn't lose draft picks."

 

There are a couple problems with Mara's statement. First, he establishes a serious conflict of interest case against the Management Council -- it could very easily be argued that existing owners should either step down from the council, or that the council should not have the ability to rule against its competitors. That's antitrust at the very least. Second, the "spirit of the salary cap" statement is just plain silly -- if you want something that really goes against the spirit of the salary cap, try the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement in which it was agreed by both sides that such an expiration would make an uncapped year possible. The salary cap had no spirit at that point in time, because it was dead in all possible ways.

 

J.I. Halsell, a noted salary cap expert who used to work in the Redskins' front office, explained exactly what the Redskins did in this 2010 article for Football Outsiders:

 

In his infamous $100 million contract of 2009, Haynesworth had a $21-million option bonus. As part of the deal, the Redskins reserved the right to convert that option bonus to a signing bonus, and that's exactly what they did. But they converted it with a slight twist. Not only did they convert the option bonus to a $21-million signing bonus, but they also added a voidable provision. In the provision, if Haynesworth pays back $26 million of his signing bonuses, then the 2011-2014 contract years void away. From a team salary accounting standpoint -- because the voidable is solely in the player's control -- the proration of the signing bonus does not go into 2011-2014. That means all of the $21 million signing bonus counts in the uncapped year of 2010. As a result, Haynesworth's team salary number in 2010 went from $8.8 million to a whopping $25.6 million. His subsequent team salary numbers are $6.4 million, $8.2 million, $10 million, $10.8 million, and $12.8 million, respectively.

 

Similarly, Hall had a $15 million option bonus in his contract 2009 contract. The Redskins converted this $15 million to a signing bonus and provided Hall with the voidable clause, whereby the entire $15 million, from a team salary accounting standpoint, stays in 2010. As a result of this maneuver, Hall's team salary number went from $6.8 million to $18.3 million in 2010. His subsequent manageable team salary numbers are $5.3 million, $6.8 million, $8.3 million, and $9.5 million, respectively.

 

Every single aspect of those restructures was legal at that time, based on the contract language, and the unique circumstances of the uncapped year.

 

Now, if the NFL wishes to retroactively argue that the deals were unethical, or violated some "Gentleman's Agreement" in which all 32 owners promised to play nice ... that's something best done in a discussion forum, such as the NFL's owners meetings, which start on Monday. Instead, the grievance brought by Jones and Snyder will be a primary topic of conversation, because Mara and his cohorts chose to break away from their supposed tie to the ownership cabal and act as a higher authority.

 

"The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement's early years," the league said in a the statement explaining the penalties. "To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons.

 

"These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis."

 

Again, a major logic problem here. The supposed verbal agreement between owners not to flout the uncapped year was based on projections, not real numbers. None of those numbers were locked in until a new CBA was signed. The uncapped year was just that -- not a quasi- or semi-uncapped year, or an uncapped year whenever a certain privileged few choose to avail themselves of its benefits. The league and the Management Council chose to close up shop and leave this hanging in the air, when it could have been a cinch to extend the league year, precisely because they didn't want to pay the players. Perhaps Mara will be forced to explain how he also benefited from that little exercise.

 

If the Management Council is smart, or if Roger Goodell is smart enough to advise them strongly, there will be a settlement that favors both sides in this case. Not only could Jones and Snyder take this to an appeals panel if they don't like what they hear, but if an original negative ruling is overturned, the NFL can then, in effect, sue itself if it so chooses.

 

In addition, while the NFLPA agreed to the penalties because it facilitated a higher cap number for 2012, the collusion cases that were settled in batch processing form at the signing of the new CBA could be re-filed. And it's possible that the current power structure of the NFL Management Council could be seen to violate antitrust law. The Federal Trade Commission defines monopolization as follows:

 

The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market ... Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications.

 

Mara was given leading position by appointment, but that doesn't absolve him, or any member of the Management Council, from acting to achieve these punishments "by exclusionary or predatory acts," as the FTC puts it.

 

The NFL could argue business justification as a defense, but without a written agreement, that's a pretty tough sell. To say that the Cowboys and Redskins acted in bad faith is like saying that those who steal in a society without written laws are acting in bad faith -- easy to say in a general sense, but where's the actual violation? Not the ethical violation, but the legal violation. The NFL is arguing ethics, but the Cowboys and Redskins have the law on their side, and this case could be an enormously far-reaching embarrassment for the league if it's pursued to its illogical end.

 

To whatever degree Roger Goodell is responsible for protecting the NFL against itself, he'd better step up ... and he'd better do it soon.

[NYGIANTSFLYHIGH 1]

 

That's dumb, how can you be punished for breaking a rule that didn't exist? Goodell and his band of cronies won't be allowed to do shit to us once this gets reversed. Which it most likely will, because again, how can you be punished for breaking a rule THAT DID NOT EXIST.

 

And it was extremely smart to file this as Redskins/Cowboys vs. NFLPA/NFL, this leaves it out of the hands of Goodell and his band of cronies in a ruling. It'll be a neutral arbiter and any sane human being knows the punishment handed down to us was bullshit and should be reversed.

 

You keep harping on a rule that "DID NOT EXIST" because it was written on a piece of paper. The point is Jerry and Snyder agreed not to do something along with 30 other men....than said fuck you guys and did it anyway. The likelihood of getting this reversed is slim. However I'll be happy either way. Should Snyder and Jerry get over on Goodell and his punishment and actually have it reversed somehow do you think Goodell will take looking emasculated lightly? Do you think the refeeres wont be instructed to be a little fast and loose with their flags? Do you think they will be instructed to turn a blind eye after tony romo gets whacked after releasing a throw? Do you think you wont see an increase in fines for on the field hits for Dallas/Skin players? If you do than take off those cowboy colored glasses because quite frankly, especially in the Cowboys case since it wasnt too much of a hit to the cap, they should have taken their punishment and been done with it. Because win or lose this "case" the NFL will have the last laugh, and quite frankly I'd prefer they win because the hatred toward them, from a league standpoint, would increase exponentially

[Maverick 791]

You keep harping on a rule that "DID NOT EXIST" because it was written on a piece of paper. The point is Jerry and Snyder agreed not to do something along with 30 other men....than said fuck you guys and did it anyway. The likelihood of getting this reversed is slim. However I'll be happy either way. Should Snyder and Jerry get over on Goodell and his punishment and actually have it reversed somehow do you think Goodell will take looking emasculated lightly? Do you think the refeeres wont be instructed to be a little fast and loose with their flags? Do you think they will be instructed to turn a blind eye after tony romo gets whacked after releasing a throw? Do you think you wont see an increase in fines for on the field hits for Dallas/Skin players? If you do than take off those cowboy colored glasses because quite frankly, especially in the Cowboys case since it wasnt too much of a hit to the cap, they should have taken their punishment and been done with it. Because win or lose this "case" the NFL will have the last laugh, and quite frankly I'd prefer they win because the hatred toward them, from a league standpoint, would increase exponentially

 

Surely if this were the Giants somehow I don't think I'd be reading the same post.

 

[NYGIANTSFLYHIGH 1]

Surely if this were the Giants somehow I don't think I'd be reading the same post.

 

The facts wouldnt change. And if you notice, its primarily Cowboys/Skins fans arguing one way and everyone else the other...for the most part. If I was on the other side of things, the worst part of all of it would be knowing that win or lose this case, just for challenging the almighty shield of the NFL, whether they pay for it out of pocket or not they are undoubtedly going to pay for it on the field as I referenced in the first post

[Guest Phailadelphia]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/37436/cowboys-skins-must-think-they-can-win

 

But arbitrator Stephen Burbank isn't going to be beholden to what Mara and the majority of the NFL's owners believe is in their best interest. He's most likely to rule in favor of common sense. And common sense is on the side of the Cowboys and Redskins here.

 

If this penalty was rooted in common sense, the NFL's owners would be mad at teams like the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who spent well below the level where the salary floor would have been. If this were really an issue of future competitive balance, as the ruling establishing the punishments claims it is, then teams that didn't spend enough in 2010 would be punished as well. But the fact that they're only going after the two teams that overspent in 2010 -- or restructured contracts to take short-term hits in an effort to allow them to spend more down the road -- indicates that this is not a competitive balance issue. It's a salary restriction issue.

 

The NFL's owners don't care as much about competitive balance as they do about making sure to keep player salaries at as reasonable a level as possible. Every team in the league could have behaved exactly as the Cowboys and Redskins did in 2010, but they'd all agreed not to. There was no rule prohibiting them from doing so -- they just all agreed. It was a sketchy arrangement that I'm frankly surprised Mara is so aggressively willing to defend. And the fact that he's the one talking freely about this while the Cowboys and Redskins are keeping mum indicates to me that they know they're right and he knows he's wrong and that everybody knows the ultimate decision may end up reflecting just that.

[Mathias 394]

You keep harping on a rule that "DID NOT EXIST" because it was written on a piece of paper. The point is Jerry and Snyder agreed not to do something along with 30 other men....than said fuck you guys and did it anyway. The likelihood of getting this reversed is slim.

 

But arbitrator Stephen Burbank isn't going to be beholden to what Mara and the majority of the NFL's owners believe is in their best interest. He's most likely to rule in favor of common sense. And common sense is on the side of the Cowboys and Redskins here.

[NYGIANTSFLYHIGH 1]

 

 

Cowboys/Skin fans and the fans of all the other teams are never gona see eye to eye on this, so repeating yourself 65,000 times is getting you no where...

 

Fact of the matter is, win or lose this case, both teams are gona pay for it on the field

[Mathias 394]

Cowboys/Skin fans and the fans of all the other teams are never gona see eye to eye on this, so repeating yourself 65,000 times is getting you no where...

 

Fact of the matter is, win or lose this case, both teams are gona pay for it on the field

 

I doubt it.

[NYGIANTSFLYHIGH 1]

I doubt it.

 

Doubt it all you want, but if you dont think Goodell and the NFL will have the last laugh on this your crazy....Either A. The penalty will be imposed, or B. JJ and Snyder get over on him and he penalizes them between the lines. Like I said, frankly I would have just taken my spanking and moved on

[Mathias 394]

Doubt it all you want, but if you dont think Goodell and the NFL will have the last laugh on this your crazy....Either A. The penalty will be imposed, or B. JJ and Snyder get over on him and he penalizes them between the lines. Like I said, frankly I would have just taken my spanking and moved on

 

Sure you would.

[NYGIANTSFLYHIGH 1]

Sure you would.

 

Got it. Resorts to childish one liners when has no response....noted

[Mathias 394]

Got it. Resorts to childish one liners when has no response....noted

 

Duly noted.

[Vin+ 3,121]

NFL.com's Albert Breer reports league owners voted 29-0 Tuesday to uphold Washington and Dallas' salary-cap penalties.

 

It's not the end of the Cowboys and Redskins' efforts to get their combined $46 million in cap space restored, but a clear sign commissioner Roger Goodell acted with broad support when he handed down his stunningly harsh punishment for dumping salary into the uncapped year of 2010. The saga could be headed to federal court.

 

Source: Albert Breer on Twitter

[Duck Fallas 209]

The 29 other owners approved the punishment to begin with, so of course they are going to vote to uphold said penalty. I am kind of wondering why they even voted on this, they have approximately zero sway in whether or not the Redskins and Cowboys choose to drop the suit (they won't).

 

The penalty is nothing more than backlash toward the teams for reneging on a "handshake" agreement. Goodell may have been right to mete out the punishment, but it will likely wind up as nothing more than a puffing of his chest. There is no way that the penalty can be upheld, since no rules were violated, Goodell and the other owners just got their feelings hurt.

[Jayrus 51]

I have to agree. That vote was entirely pointless. There's still going to be an appeal and it will likely find in your favor. However I still feel like Goodell and the other 30 owners will find a way to have the last laugh even if you get this cap reduction lifted. Goodell doesn't like to be embarrassed, case in point the Saints, and the other team owners have definately made their feelings known with this vote. They obviously want you punished, and if they can't get you with this fine you better believe they'll jump down your throat the next time your respective teams put a toe out of line. I advise you to keep your proverbial noses clean and not give them the chance.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Jayrus

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I couldn't find the old thread and I can't be arsed to adjust time and date settings in order to do so. But here's an update from the hearings today:

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/10/burbank-takes-motion-to-dismiss-cowboys-redskins-grievance-under-advisement/

 

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.

 

Translation of bold text: The commissioner can do whatever he wants, however he wants to do it.

 

Seriously. That was their actual argument. "We're right because we can do whatever we want." Kind of mind-blowing, isn't it?