Book Excerpt: Daniel Snyder and the Unreal Power of NFL Owners

[RS12]

As NFL franchise values have risen dramatically, a sense of invulnerability has increased exponentially, to the point where some owners (not all; there are humble ones such the Mara and Rooney families) have come to believe they are infallible. No owner epitomizes this arrogance like Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington team. His arrogance has even extended to his treatment of fellow owners.

There is a scene that illustrates why Snyder is feared, liked, despised, admired and admonished. Why he is seen as a bully, a genius, a constant threat to litigate, an unabashed defender of a slur, a moneymaker and maybe the most important and most hated owner infootball. That scene begins with a threat.

It was the 2012 owners' meetings, not long after Washington and Dallas were penalized by the NFL for $36 million and $10 million in salary-cap room, respectively. The NFL—specifically the league's management council, which is the business arm of the NFL—accused both clubs of front loading contracts during the 2010 season, when there was no salary cap. Teams had been warned not to do this because it could destroy the central lifeblood of the NFL, competitivebalance.

The owners' meetings, with all 32 owners along with high-ranking league and team executives present, was the first opportunity for Dallas and Washington to address the top of the NFL's hierarchy at once.

Jerry Jones, owner of the Cowboys, spoke first.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...um=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national

 

[Stryker44]

They should have sued.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

I have no problem with the rant by Allen, but less respect for the lack of actually suing.

The NFL should have paid dearly for obvious collusion and knee capping 2 competitors. I still get fired up over it

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I have no problem with the rant by Allen, but less respect for the lack of actually suing.

The NFL should have paid dearly for obvious collusion and knee capping 2 competitors. I still get fired up over it

They didn't sue, because they would have lost. It wasn't spending money that the NFL had the problem with, it was the contract structure. Had the Cowboys gave Miles Austin a $17 million dollar signing bonus, as opposed to a first year salary, they would have been fine. That's what the NFL would have argued and to be honest, I doubt a judge would consider that collusion since the total amount paid was not an issue.

 

[Nightman]

They didn't sue, because they would have lost. It wasn't spending money that the NFL had the problem with, it was the contract structure. Had the Cowboys gave Miles Austin a $17 million dollar signing bonus, as opposed to a first year salary, they would have been fine. That's what the NFL would have argued and to be honest, I doubt a judge would consider that collusion since the total amount paid was not an issue.

I agree 100% and went round and round with many members here at the time.

The Cowboys intentionally structured Austin's contract to circumvent the salary cap when it came back in 2011. It wasn't a penalty they were hit with. It was just putting the contract back to the way it should have been. DAL saved 10m in cap space and paid back 10m in cap space.

They were told not to pull any stunts and they did it anyways, just like WAS with Haynesworth. The funny thing is if they would've dumped a couple bad contracts like other teams did they would have saved more money than fooling around with Austin.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I agree 100% and went round and round with many members here at the time.

The Cowboys intentionally structured Austin's contract to circumvent the salary cap when it came back in 2011. It wasn't a penalty they were hit with. It was just putting the contract back to the way it should have been. DAL saved 10m in cap space and paid back 10m in cap space.

They were told not to pull any stunts and they did it anyways, just like WAS with Haynesworth. The funny thing is if they would've dumped a couple bad contracts like other teams did they would have saved more money than fooling around with Austin.

I honestly gave up trying to explain this, people can still think the punishment was unfair, but no one based their argument of the truth, which is the structure is what the NFL had a problem with, not the total paid.

 

[burmafrd]

I honestly gave up trying to explain this, people can still think the punishment was unfair, but no one based their argument of the truth, which is the structure is what the NFL had a problem with, not the total paid.

then why was the contract approved by the NFL in the first place?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

then why was the contract approved by the NFL in the first place?

Because while the contract structure was different, it was nothing that teams that do not occasionally do, so it possibly may have escaped their notice initially. Teams with an abundance of cap space usually do that to cut future costs, however I think we can all agree that the Cowboys would not be able to structure a contract that way in a capped season.

 

[Longboysfan]

As NFL franchise values have risen dramatically, a sense of invulnerability has increased exponentially, to the point where some owners (not all; there are humble ones such the Mara and Rooney

[SIZE=+0]families[/SIZE]) have come to believe they are infallible.

Ahhh..... BS to that statement.

 

[muck4doo]

Because while the contract structure was different, it was nothing that teams that do not occasionally do, so it possibly may have escaped their notice initially. Teams with an abundance of cap space usually do that to cut future costs, however I think we can all agree that the Cowboys would not be able to structure a contract that way in a capped season.

Perhaps not, but an uncapped season is an uncapped season. That uncapped season was part of the NFLPA bargaining chips. I have to agree with the Commanders fan and Burmafrd.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Ahhh..... BS to that statement.

Any nit wit that praises the Mara's or Rooney's automatically disqualifies himself as having any credibility.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I honestly gave up trying to explain this, people can still think the punishment was unfair, but no one based their argument of the truth, which is the structure is what the NFL had a problem with, not the total paid.

While I agree that the NFL had a problem with the structure, it's still collusion.

There was a NO CAP year which means that not only is there no cap on how much money you spend, but how the deal is structured.

And IIRC, contracts are structured all of the time in terms of WHEN the player will actually get their money and that is an important term of the deal for the *player* in many instances.

Ted Sundquist talked about this when he was a GM with the Broncos under the salary cap. He felt the Cowboys had a benefit with signing FA's because they could pay them money right away because of their bankroll whereas Denver, a smaller market team, had to take longer to get the payments to the player. Players preferred getting paid quicker and teams had the luxury of frontloading or backloading a contract if they wish.

Perhaps a judge would have dismissed the case, but it was likely due to the money and power the NFL has (remember, judges are politicians). But, I don't see how one can say it wasn't a collusion because the agreement didn't break all of the rules, just some.





YR

 

[burmafrd]

Because while the contract structure was different, it was nothing that teams that do not occasionally do, so it possibly may have escaped their notice initially. Teams with an abundance of cap space usually do that to cut future costs, however I think we can all agree that the Cowboys would not be able to structure a contract that way in a capped season.

The NFL approved it. You try and skate around that with the usual lawyer garbage.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

Because while the contract structure was different, it was nothing that teams that do not occasionally do, so it possibly may have escaped their notice initially. Teams with an abundance of cap space usually do that to cut future costs, however I think we can all agree that the Cowboys would not be able to structure a contract that way in a capped season.

No, it was approved simply because the NFL couldn't prevent it from happening. The contracts were good, because there was no salary cap and there wasn't ANY rules or guidelines preventing it. Some people seem to jump through a lot of hoops to defend the NFL in this. If they were right in going after Dallas and Washington they wouldn't have needed to twist the NFLPA's arm in writing into the CBA a "we will not sue for collusion" clause to anything revealed prior to the signing of the new CBA. If they were in the right, they wouldn't have needed to essentially bribe the other 30 teams with more cap space in order to ensure their vote in the punishment. None of these actions are the behaviors of people or organizations who did the right thing, they are the movements and actions of those who knew they were in the wrong and rigged the game to make sure they escaped prosecution.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

If it is that much of a slam dunk, why didn't either team sue?

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

If it is that much of a slam dunk, why didn't either team sue?

Because it would have opened a can of worms for the entire league. Some times you take the high road even tho you've been wronged and look at the bigger picture. It doesnt mean you like it, but you do it anyway.

 

[Longboysfan]

Mara smiles to your face and stick the knife in your back.

At least Snyder tells you what he thinks.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

If it is that much of a slam dunk, why didn't either team sue?

That's not a valid defense. Countless times people don't sue even though they are in the right.

Furthermore, this likely would have been tried in a NYC court. So you have a business from Dallas and a business from DC going to a NYC court with a NYC judge to take on a gazillion dollar business with HQ located in Manhattan. As I said before....remember, judges are politicians as well.

So, I don't think it was a slam dunk in NYC. If it was tried in say...Los Angeles or Minnesota...may have been a different case.

Furthermore, suing would open up a can of worms that Jerry and Snyder didn't want to get into and paying millions of dollars for court costs to open up a can of worms probably wasn't in their best interest. The owners in the NFL tend to work as partners than competitors, so working as 1 versus 30 different owners could create a large mess down the road. Perhaps they would have fought it if it meant tens or hundreds of millions of dollars from out of their pocket, but the cap penalty didn't actually take money out of their pocket.





YR

 

[burmafrd]

anyone trying to defend the other owners on this - basically you are full of it. They saw a chance to stick it to two owners most of the others dislike and did. Jerruh and Danny Boy realized that they just had to basically sit there and take it.

BUT I guarantee you neither one will ever forget or forgive and will even the score if they can at some future date.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

anyone trying to defend the other owners on this - basically you are full of it. They saw a chance to stick it to two owners most of the others dislike and did. Jerruh and Danny Boy realized that they just had to basically sit there and take it.

BUT I guarantee you neither one will ever forget or forgive and will even the score if they can at some future date.

This I believe as well.