Dolan Already Opposing Jackson Decisions Islanders' Wang Listening To Suitors Is Manchester United On Shaky Ground? Blazers Look to Increase Future Revenue NBA Franchise Notes Bucks' Sale Agreement Includes Arena Clause Bills Reach Settlement In Text-Message Suit NBA Fines Ujiri $25,000 For Comments New Bucks Owners Talk Arena Jim Kelly Fielding Bills' Ownership Offers
Upcoming Conferences and Events
SBD/March 26, 2012/Franchises
Cowboys, Redskins File Grievance Against NFL, NFLPA Over Salary Cap Penalties
Published March 26, 2012
THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY: Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones Friday said, "What we're doing is a combination procedural and legal and all of that." He added the team is "talking with not only the league but the Redskins and whoever we can visit about it." In Dallas, Rainer Sabin noted Jones “is working in concert with the Redskins -- an arrangement he admits is odd.” Jones: “First of all, there is no joy in Mudville, having to team up with the Redskins on a point with the league. They're competitors, not cohorts. It just shows you, independent of that, some of the issues we have with this cap space issue. Sometimes you can have strange bedfellows and this is one of them" (DALLASNEWS.com, 3/23).
IN HIS OWN WORDS: Giants President & CEO John Mara, who also serves as NFL Competition Committee Chair, said of the situation, “The penalties imposed were proper, and what they (Redskins and Cowboys) did was in violation of the spirit of the salary cap and they attempted to take advantage of a one-year loophole and gain a competitive advantage. The commissioner acted reasonably, and quite frankly I think they’re lucky they didn’t lose draft picks. ... It has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole (USA TODAY, 3/26). Stephen Jones responded to Mara's comments, saying, “That’s John’s opinion. That’s not my opinion” (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 3/25). ESPN.com’s Dan Graziano wrote when people sit down to talk about “the right and the wrong of this whole situation, there's very little right and a whole big pile of wrong, and the defiant stance Mara took Sunday afternoon made that pile much bigger.” Mara came out “guns-a-blazin.” And if there are people out there “who believe (as I do) that the NFL has acted with irresponsible, petty arrogance in this case and imposed unjustified penalties against teams that broke no actual rules, Mara's stance isn't likely to change their minds” (ESPN.com, 3/25). YAHOO SPORTS’ Doug Farrar wrote there are “a few 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 is “antitrust at the very least.” Second, the "spirit of the salary cap" statement is “just plain silly” (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 3/25).
WHAT HAPPENS NOW: SI.com’s Don Banks cited NFL sources as saying that while the “process of having the matter settled by an arbitrator always makes the outcome of the grievance process more difficult to predict, Mara expressed no sense of concern.” But other league sources “weren't as confident, and acknowledged that the size of cap penalties might be reduced as part of a final ruling, or perhaps even overturned.” A source said, “Who knows where this goes with an arbitrator involved? There might have to be some ground given. But it really doesn't seem to be (NFL commissioner) Roger Goodell's style to change his mind to any great degree when it comes to his decisions” (SI.com, 3/25). YAHOO SPORTS' Farrar wrote 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” (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 3/25).