• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Press Release: EVP/GM Bruce Allen

I keep reading that the money spent will be pushed back into the league pool and distributed to other clubs as cap space. So not only do we lose $36M, other teams GAIN cap space? Seems way overboard.
 
If this was a broken under-the-table agreement between the owners, the powers that be in the NFL have to be INSANE to publicly lash anyone for breaking it. Good grief. There has to be way to privately punish teams. Make sure they get bad calls. Tell players not to sign with them ... think of something.

Dropping a $36 million bomb on a team in front of the world hours before free agency starts? Are you freaking kidding me?

How dumb do you have to be? Like I said, Goodell should get fired for this. Like yesterday.
 
Well Henry, Jones and Snyder are technically two of his 32 bosses so he might yet. However, it appears that at least a few of the rest of his bosses want this move so my guess is that he is in good shape.
 
Neophyte said:
I am putting this together by reading between the lines on a number of different sites, Goal. I might be completely wrong.

As to the documentation, my guess is that there isn't any and the reason for that is that the union already suspects the teams of colluding over salaries in the uncapped year, something the league denies. If the league were to now produce documentation that indicated the teams were told to hold the line on salaries to right around 2009 levels even though there was no salary cap that would prove the unions suspicions. Again, just me reading between the lines but it does make sense.
Click to expand...

Isn't that, by definition, collusion? As a side note, what really sickens me is the Union laying down like dogs for this whole thing because the NFL gave every other team and extra 1.6 million in cap space (or whatever that number was). Absolutely absurd. If I were the union, I'd be screaming bloody murder. The NFL could expect lawsuits from the Skins, Cowboys AND the union.

I wonder if the NFL thought they could slip this under the radar or something, that it would be overshadowed by free agency? Very strange move, not at all well thought out.

And Henry is right. Someone's head needs to roll for this. Goodell is at the top of the list, he bears the responsibility.
 
If there is a document, then collusion is proven and the anti-trust exemption is at serious risk. If the league creates a document today, tomorrow or at any other time, they admit to collusion. See previous sentences.

Trying to enforce a verbal agreement? Good luck with that one in any court.

GM Allen is a lawyer and you can be sure that the team was very aware of every aspect of business during the uncapped year. Ditto for Jerry's lawyers. If the league wishes to proceed with these threats, the first ammo by the Cowboys and Redskins will be fired today. Court action? An injunction?

Collusion is going to be easy to prove. At that juncture, the feds become involved. Does Goodell want to risk serious jail time? Which owners will be at the same risk? Mara? And why were two teams from the NFC-E solely targeted when multiple "offenders" "circumvented" the unwritten rules as well.

The Redskins and Cowboys are ready for a short term or long term fight. The league and thirty owners are risking a lot and will lose a lot if they don't back down.
 
there is great football (soccer) chant over here that sums it up fully.

Nobody likes us but we don't care.

Honestly this stinks, But i also read there is no right to appeal and that the union are ok with the "penalty".

One other thing that comes to mind. It is being reported we were warned 6 times. 6 times over two contracts, yet they still got ratified. I smell a rat and it stinks like one out of New York via Pittsburgh
 
Neophyte said:
Well Henry, Jones and Snyder are technically two of his 32 bosses so he might yet. However, it appears that at least a few of the rest of his bosses want this move so my guess is that he is in good shape.
Click to expand...

Sure, but it's Goodell's job to carry their wishes out and not have it blow up in the league's face. This has the potential to turn into a huge PR disaster for the NFL, and that's on Goodell. Like I said, if the rest of the league wants to punish Jones and Snyder for not going along with an illegal group decision, going about it in such a public and sloppy fashion is the last thing the NFL should be doing.
 
Fact #1 - We (meaning Cowboys and Redskins) are going to fight this vigorously.

Fact #2 - Both owners are not looking to settle first. They will be looking to get the strongest of assurances at the very least.

Fact #3 - The league risks serious embarrassment, loss of anti-trust exemption, possible jail time (for central figures) for breaking federal laws, and exposure of involvement of key owners.

Fact #4 - Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder have no intention of backing down AT ALL.

Possible outcome. Roger Goodell is ousted. League saves face by letting all player contracts stand and normal business operations resume.

Possible outcome two. DeMaurice's contract with the NFLPA is not re-newed at the end of this month (oh, you didn't know???) and faces federal charges - along with Goodell and other key players.

Yes, Jones and Snyder are more than willing to go this route. If they allow it to stand, then this opens the door for the league to take further advantage of them in the future. Both owners and their lawyers have decided that those days are over and it will end here by any legal means necessary.
 
BB. Are you sure on all those facts? I find it hard to believe this went through with Stephen Jones on the Committee, and the with the Union signing off without Dan and Jerry pulling out the stops to keep it from even getting out. Maybe that's why there hadn't been and official statement before the leak? Which if that is the case, we can bet on 1 or 2 owners who might have been involved with the leak. ;)
 
You are confusing the competition committee and the management council. This stuff came from the management council

Besides, it doesn't matter. This is going to get ugly quickly. The league says we can spread out this $36 mil over two years as we see fit, then decides take unilateral action and chop off $18 mil this year. So now the league is conducting team business?

But yes, those thing are a certainty. I was thinking that the league was going to try and save face in some way, but today's actions indicate otherwise. Going to be an interesting day.
 
It's funny to see all of the ESPN talking heads and other media types saying that the Redskins and Cowboys are in the right - 100%. They know. And they know what could be coming.

Edited to add...

The league has not notified the Redskins in writing of the $18 mil decision overnight.
 
Hopefully the Redskins & Cowboys file an injunction to stop Free Agency from happening until this whole thing is sorted out. If not, this will be the most blatant competition-rigging since Sidney Crosby to the Penguins.
 
Why are you so sure the league set that value and not us? The league can fade the heat a lot better than Dan and Jerry if it comes out they blatantly did an end around on an agreement the owners had. Right now the heat is pointed at the league, and Dan and Jerry, both not high on thier respective fans A lists, are coming out unscathed.
 
Say what you want about PFT, they're always on the story.

PFT rewind: Cowboys, Redskins issue was obvious in 2010

Posted by Mike Florio on March 13, 2012, 7:45 AM EDT

Getty ImagesI remembered enough about the uncapped year to remember, once hearing about rumors of cap maneuverings on Monday, that the Cowboys and Redskins were the most likely targets of any effort to rob from the rich and give to the poor. Along with pretty much everyone else.

I’d forgotten some of the details. Fortunately, a few of you have better memories than me.

On September 18, 2010, we explained that, in the absence of the salary cap, Dallas owner Jerry Jones and Washington owner Daniel Snyder had dumped millions into the uncapped year. For the Cowboys, the number was $166.5 million. For the Redskins, it was $178.2 million.

“Both teams run the risk that the new CBA will include some type of reallocation provision aimed at reversing the effects of contracts engineered to take full advantage of the uncapped year,” we wrote at the time. “Though Jones and Snyder may regard such an outcome as unfair, two votes wouldn’t be enough to block the move.”

The problem is that the new CBA didn’t attempt to reallocate cap dollars, most likely because any effort to ding the Redskins and Cowboys for taking advantage of the rules of the uncapped year would have made the NFLPA even more convinced that the teams were indeed colluding in 2010 to hold down spending in the uncapped year. (Indeed, the league said nothing at all about the Cowboys/Redskins issue during the uncapped year, or during the CBA discussions.)

So instead the NFL waited until 2012, when the NFLPA was “scrambling” to find a way to prevent the team-by-team salary cap from shrinking for the first time ever. So instead of regarding the league’s proposal as the “Eureka!” moment that confirmed the existence of collusion prior to the lockout, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith apparently embraced the opportunity to avoid the challenge of explaining to the Executive Committee and the Board of Player Representatives at the upcoming annual meeting how and why the new CBA resulted in a salary cap that somehow dropped.

At the other extreme in 2010 were four teams who remained under $100 million: the Cardinals, Jaguars, Chiefs, and Buccaneers. If the league is so concerned that the Redskins and Cowboys skewed competitive balance by forcing too many dollars into the uncapped year, why isn’t the league equally concerned that the teams that didn’t spend contributed to any actual or perceived issues of competitive balance?
Click to expand...
 
Lanky, an injunction could be - stress, could be in the works.

About the $18 mil - That was done by the league overnight and that story broke early this morning.

Whoever is leaking this stuff from the league, they risk a lot as well. Federal judges do not take kindly to leaks and coverups. It is as bad as the crime and sometimes worse.
 
Thanks BB. I'm at work and haven't had a chance to peruse for info other than here. Keep up the work. :)
 
"Indeed, the league said nothing at all about the Cowboys/Redskins issue during the uncapped year, or during the CBA discussions."

This somewhat mirrors what a team official (Allen?) said this morning. (Paraphrasing) "We had no 'six warnings' or any other warning".
 
stevenaa said:
Thanks BB. I'm at work and haven't had a chance to peruse for info other than here. Keep up the work. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Steven. I can't guarantee accuracy 100% of the time - mostly due to rapidly changing events - but one tries. :)

With that in mind - don't put me on the barbeque rack if something is reported and it turns out to be wrong. Either way, we'll get it right. Nothing like mixing in some free agency with collusion. :policeman:

For those who are following things on twitter or other sports sites, post 'em when you get 'em.
 
So instead the NFL waited until 2012, when the NFLPA was “scrambling” to find a way to prevent the team-by-team salary cap from shrinking for the first time ever. So instead of regarding the league’s proposal as the “Eureka!” moment that confirmed the existence of collusion prior to the lockout, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith apparently embraced the opportunity to avoid the challenge of explaining to the Executive Committee and the Board of Player Representatives at the upcoming annual meeting how and why the new CBA resulted in a salary cap that somehow dropped.
Click to expand...

So, if I'm reading this right, DeMaurice Smith used this nonsense as a way to not drop the salary cap? Another useless buffoon.

Another angle: maybe the Redskins & Cowboys were in with the effort to bring down league spending, and offered to be the fall guys? I don't know. Its all so fishy. I can't believe the NFL went ahead with this - did they think fans just wouldn't pay attention???
 
Interesting angle. Could be. Guessing that is not the case when you look at what is going on at the moment. Interesting theory though - didn't really think about that being a possibility. Hey, you never know...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top