Skip to main content

 

If this was posted elsewhere, lemme know and I will nix.

 

NFL owners can't have it both ways

 

So this story is in the news again. Remember the one about how the league docked the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins salary-cap money in the 2012 and 2013 offseasons because the other owners didn't like the way Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder structured contracts during the supposedly uncapped 2010 season?

 

 

 

Yeah, it's back. While it's difficult to imagine it advancing very far, there remains a chance it could get embarrassing for the league's owners before it's all said and done. They're wrong on this and always have been. Either there were secret spending rules in place in 2010 despite the lack of a salary cap, or the Cowboys and the Redskins didn't break any rules. One of those things, by definition, has to be true. Although the NFL Players Association likely can't win a court case on this, it might have a chance to expose the owners as sneaky hypocrites. Which might, in their eyes, be worth the effort.

 

This had appeared to be a settled issue. Jones and Snyder did some grumbling but ultimately realized they were basically complicit in the same shady behavior as the owners who were mad at them for doing it wrong. And even though the NFLPA put its hand up and made the point that agreeing to regulate spending in a year without a salary cap sure does sound a lot like collusion, U.S. District Judge David Doty ruled that the union had given up its right to pursue damages as part of the 2011 collective bargaining agreement.

 

Now, though, the story is back, as the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed part of Doty's ruling last week. That decision could allow the union to pursue discovery in the case -- meaning union leadership and counsel could be allowed to interview Jones, Snyder and other owners about what the arrangement was back in 2010. If that happens, the owners are going to look pretty bad. Because the 2010 arrangement seems to be the textbook definition of collusion.

 

More...

 

SNIP:

 

Nobody looks good here. The Cowboys and Redskins were trying to get over on their fellow owners, who were trying to get over on the union, which then later agreed to the sanctions against the Cowboys and Redskins in exchange for a higher salary cap than the owners were initially offering in 2012. Ugly all around.

 

But after the owners got what they wanted out of the whole arrangement, they acted out of arrogance in publicly punishing Jones and Snyder. And Giants owner John Mara, who chaired the committee in charge of imposing the penalties, made a regrettable PR decision when he angrily proclaimed that the Cowboys and Redskins were "lucky they didn't lose draft picks" over the whole thing.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_...uncapped-2010-season

 

 

Last edited by packerboi
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

speaking of dumb

 

And yet despite the harsh penalties, the cowboys still lead the league in dead cap money

The NFL did him a favor by handicapping him for one season

 

IF the cap wasn't going up, I'm not sure Jerry could field a full team. Right now he is carrying $ 23.5 million in dead money, enough to pay Aaron Rodgers and still have space for another decent player. Instead he's married to Romo, has no room to maneuver and will be lucky to hit his regular 8-8 mark

 

 

 

 

Tyron Smithโ€™s 10-year deal is โ€œnutsโ€

Dallas Cowboys v Minnesota Vikings

Itโ€™s hard to say that a guy who signed an eight-year contract reportedly worth $98 million made a mistake.  But in the NFL, where the player is far more bound to the deal than the team, left tackle Tyron Smith apparently has given the Cowboys near-unilateral control over the balance of his career.

 

โ€œThereโ€™s no way you can do a deal that long,โ€ a league source with extensive experience negotiating player contracts told PFT.  โ€œIโ€™m stunned. . . .  10 years is nuts.โ€

 

The extension reportedly places Smith under contract for a total of 10 years at a payout of $110 million.  Heโ€™ll have no power to get more money, no matter how well he performs.  And if he doesnโ€™t perform well, the only security heโ€™ll have is the fully-guaranteed money that he received when committing himself to the Cowboys for the next decade.

 

The full details eventually will be known, and weโ€™ll get a chance to see just how team friendly the contract is.  Unless every year of the contract is fully guaranteed (and if it were, that detail would have been leaked), the mere duration of the deal makes it a bad one for the player โ€” who apparently wanted to do a contract badly enough that he was willing to make a commitment that, for nearly all NFL contracts, never is mutual.

 

Apparently, the Cowboys knew how badly Smith wanted that new contract, and the Cowboys took full advantage of it.

Originally Posted by packerboi:

Tyron Smithโ€™s 10-year deal is โ€œnutsโ€

Dallas Cowboys v Minnesota Vikings

Itโ€™s hard to say that a guy who signed an eight-year contract reportedly worth $98 million made a mistake.  But in the NFL, where the player is far more bound to the deal than the team, left tackle Tyron Smith apparently has given the Cowboys near-unilateral control over the balance of his career.

 

โ€œThereโ€™s no way you can do a deal that long,โ€ a league source with extensive experience negotiating player contracts told PFT.  โ€œIโ€™m stunned. . . .  10 years is nuts.โ€

 

The extension reportedly places Smith under contract for a total of 10 years at a payout of $110 million.  Heโ€™ll have no power to get more money, no matter how well he performs.  And if he doesnโ€™t perform well, the only security heโ€™ll have is the fully-guaranteed money that he received when committing himself to the Cowboys for the next decade.

 

The full details eventually will be known, and weโ€™ll get a chance to see just how team friendly the contract is.  Unless every year of the contract is fully guaranteed (and if it were, that detail would have been leaked), the mere duration of the deal makes it a bad one for the player โ€” who apparently wanted to do a contract badly enough that he was willing to make a commitment that, for nearly all NFL contracts, never is mutual.

 

Apparently, the Cowboys knew how badly Smith wanted that new contract, and the Cowboys took full advantage of it.

 

Dumb and dumber? Try these two (LeVeon Bell and LaGarrette Blount), only the Steelers' top two RBs.

 

@WillGravesAP: #Steelers RBs @LG_Blount @L_Bell26 to face charges on pot possession. Bell also to face DUI charge after getting picked up this PM in Ross.

 

@WillGravesAP: Ross police say traffic officer detected smoke coming from Camaro operated by Bell, who was taken to hospital to have blood drawn for DUI.

 

@WillGravesAP: Cops say there were about 20 grams of pot in the car. All 3 passengers (there was a female in back) claimed possession.

Last edited by ilcuqui

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/20...lount-dui-pot-arrest

 

Yes, you can get a DUI for being high. It is an acronym for Driving While Intoxicated. Le'Veon Bell was not aware of that at the time of his marijuana arrest earlier this week, and the Steelers running back borrowed a page from the Cheech & Chong playbook, according to the police affidavit.

 

Affidavit: @L_Bell26: "I didnโ€™t know you could get a DUI for being high. I smoked two hours ago. Iโ€™m not high anymore. Iโ€™m perfectly fine."

 

Wait, he's not high after two hours?

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×