Snyder Camp Upset!!

My initial Cooke comment was tinged with sarcasm, but please that article is a puff piece from the Post at a time when Snyder was on the ropes and they were pulling no punches. Cooke had every opportunity to be the winning bidder, his Dad could have changed the will at any time to give his son additional chances but he didn't.

After he lost the team, what did Cooke do, he went to Bermuda and sat on the beach for several years. Who knows how he would have run the team, but nothing in that article, or his actions at the time convince me that he would have been any better or worse of an owner. Different yes, but better I dunno.

Personally that article sounds like a petulant son who thought he should have everything and when he didn't get it he got mad at the man who did. You notice in the article that Snyder said he was going to give the team to his son, I imagine that that royally ticked Cooke off towards Snyder.

Do you really think he would ever come out and give DS any credit regardless of the team's situation?

Winning bidder? With what? He didn't have the money. His dad only left him 15 or 20 mil. His dad simply didn't want him to have the team. He got 10% of the sale which turned out to be 80 mil cause he owned a small part but he simply didn't have the cash. Snyder did and won fair and square.

I was making an example that John Cooke would spend money, which he did. Right? We'd be winning more games cause we'd be a professional organization. From top to bottom. Professionals would be running the team. Not Vinny Cerrato and co. Professionals would be picking the players and putting a TEAM together. Not a fantasy team a REAL team. I'm sure someone has John's interview with Wise but he said it himself. He'd let the scouts and front office people do their thing. He'd have a competent head coach, not colleges coaches that didn't practice in bad weather, or a quirky QB coach with no OC experience. All that shows me there would be more wins. Oh, and I can promise you he wouldn't have shit on the fans.

You've got some crystal ball there...

All the stuff you're talking about is in the past though. Don't we have pros in place running things now?

No, it was another flamboyant owner (JKC) over rating his demeanor and his place in life. I think Mr. Cook was saying to his sons, I bought the Washington Redskins with the money I earned. If one of my sons wants ownership of this team, they will have to find a way to buy it on their own merit. Not from heritability. I will bequeath you, John, an investment that you can parlay with other investors to buy the team that I will sell to you or whomever. I wish it did not have to be parsed out that way but I had nothing to do with it or nor did any other fan have a say about it.

I really think a cleaver lawyer can find a way to sue the NFL and Snyder for Dan's ownership of this team. If they did not win the suit, they would bring public opinion down on Mr. Snyder. I know you are saying "dream on" but the point being the entire process of finding the "right" owner was done with fixing the salable market of the Washington Redskins organization so that the NFL would profit by it.

I have bitten my tongue by supporting Snyder for many years. But, there comes a time when enough is enough with Dan. He has brought this franchise down and made it a laughing stock of the NFL.

By you claiming to support Dan Snyder is a let down from one fan to another. Surely, you just.

Yes, Dan Snyder over paid for this organization for his own greed and was not thinking of JKC's beloved charity - not my charity, as you alluded to.

If the response was close to half in support of the law suit and half in opposition to the law suit then I could see why you would throw your hat in Dan's corner. But to be the lone wolf in the forest howling by your lonesome should say something other than your supposedly support for Snyder is a little suspicious, don't you think?

Dan Snyder is a bad owner, period. I am fed up with the one liner "that Dan just wants to win", BS. If he just wants to win then sell the team. Of course that won't happen. We are stuck with this dollar maniac. This is not a rant against anyone who has wealth, not at all. But I am sick and tried of fans saying Dan is a passionate owner. My ass he is.

I am just as sick of fans who, having (most likely) little clue of the complexities of owning an NFL franchise, sit and berate another lifelong Redskin fan(which DS by all accounts is) because he had a chance to come in, and own the team. I swear that any fan who came in would have been the same little boy in the candy shop and bought up all the big names he could. BUT, fact is we don't own the team, and we can't understand the overall plan, and many new owners go through long transitions (JJ may have won quick, but his Cowboys had had a longer playoff losing streak than us), and I believe we have seen a positive trend in DS' understanding of being an NFL owner, and particularly the owner of the Washington Redskins. It's ridiculous to blast out hate on this guy but it happens because his actions/inactions are subject to INTENSE scrutiny by passionate fans and the rabid press.

In the end, you are entitled to hate DS, that's fine, but it's grass is greener thinking that any other serious competitor to own the Skins would have done any better or have been a more passionate owner.:rant:

I'm not going to say much here because I'm still pretty livid about previous accusations sent my way (won't sue anyone though, so don't worry), but just wanted to point out a couple of things a) in the year and change I was around the team when John Kent Cooke was around it was pretty obvious he wasn't all that respected (and I've had many former players it was like that during the 80s/early 90s, that he was kept out of most major decisions regarding the team). Some may say that's what we need right now of course. Right? A guy who just writes checks and sits in a corner.

Secondly, just to remind people John Kent Cooke put up an offer of close to $700 million. But Howard Millstein and his group (of which Snyder was a minority owner) outbid them with an $800 million bid. The owners didn't approve the deal because of concerns of how debt-heavy Milstein's bid would be, and also because they wanted to keep the team in John Kent Cooke's hands (this campaign if I recall correctly was spearheaded by Cooke himself and Pat Bowlen), even though the trustees of Papa Cooke's estate had already agreed to sell to Millstein's group. Ultimately enough owners voted to sell the team to Milstein's group, but this time with Snyder as the majority owner.

That's all. Nothing else to say.

Winning bidder? With what? He didn't have the money. His dad only left him 15 or 20 mil. His dad simply didn't want him to have the team. He got 10% of the sale which turned out to be 80 mil cause he owned a small part but he simply didn't have the cash. Snyder did and won fair and square.

In the Post Article, Cooke said he came up with a proposal for $750 million that he had been told would be enough. It wasn't, but if JKC had had some change of heart that made him want to guarantee his son got it, he could have put stipulations that any non family bidder would have to put up an additional fee to secure the Redskins tradition. Or some other type of financial mumbo jumbo that virtually assured JKC that his son would win the bidding.

He didn't, and Cooke is probably still bitter about that.

And yes DS won fair and square, and how funny it would be had John gotten it that I can imagine this same forum having articles on why we all wished DS had gotten it. The other path ALWAYS looks better.

Sue him for owning the team? That sounds even more ridiculous than Snyder's suit with the city paper.


Its called collusion, connivance to control the sale of a franchise with a willing party. It is not frivolous law suit, it happens all the time. Known as fixing the market, etc.

I'm not going to say much here because I'm still pretty livid about previous accusations sent my way (won't sue anyone though, so don't worry), but just wanted to point out a couple of things a) in the year and change I was around the team when John Kent Cooke was around it was pretty obvious he wasn't all that respected (and I've had many former players it was like that during the 80s/early 90s, that he was kept out of most major decisions regarding the team). Some may say that's what we need right now of course. Right? A guy who just writes checks and sits in a corner.

Secondly, just to remind people John Kent Cooke put up an offer of close to $700 million. But Howard Millstein and his group (of which Snyder was a minority owner) outbid them with an $800 million bid. The owners didn't approve the deal because of concerns of how debt-heavy Milstein's bid would be, and also because they wanted to keep the team in John Kent Cooke's hands (this campaign if I recall correctly was spearheaded by Cooke himself and Pat Bowlen), even though the trustees of Papa Cooke's estate had already agreed to sell to Millstein's group. Ultimately enough owners voted to sell the team to Milstein's group, but this time with Snyder as the majority owner.

That's all. Nothing else to say.

SS, this is a question .I heard it just as you say but Ted's group was not given the same option I heard an that caused some riffs?

SS, this is a question .I heard it just as you say but Ted's group was not given the same option I heard an that caused some riffs?

Ted?

I am just as sick of fans who, having (most likely) little clue of the complexities of owning an NFL franchise, sit and berate another lifelong Redskin fan(which DS by all accounts is) because he had a chance to come in, and own the team. I swear that any fan who came in would have been the same little boy in the candy shop and bought up all the big names he could. BUT, fact is we don't own the team, and we can't understand the overall plan, and many new owners go through long transitions (JJ may have won quick, but his Cowboys had had a longer playoff losing streak than us), and I believe we have seen a positive trend in DS' understanding of being an NFL owner, and particularly the owner of the Washington Redskins. It's ridiculous to blast out hate on this guy but it happens because his actions/inactions are subject to INTENSE scrutiny by passionate fans and the rabid press.

In the end, you are entitled to hate DS, that's fine, but it's grass is greener thinking that any other serious competitor to own the Skins would have done any better or have been a more passionate owner.:rant:



You use the word "hate" associated with my posting, not my choice of word.

The bottom line with Dan Snyder is the dollar. As with other owners. But the difference with Dan Snyder has been itemized by the article in the law suit. I just don't think that Mr. Snyder gives a hill of beans about his loyalties to the Washington Redskins. It's an investment first and foremost and not this BS about his life long love for the Redskins.

Little boy in a candy shop is not a good analogy of Dan's reckless ownership of this franchise. The maverick who is not a maverick in terms of showing a positive direction of owning a franchise that had some moxie during the time when Dan bought it.

Let's hope Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen can restore it to respectability again without Dan Snyder's interference.

So, hate is the wrong word. Disrespect is the right word in describing my present feelings towards Mr. Snyder.

Its called collusion, connivance to control the sale of a franchise with a willing party. It is not frivolous law suit, it happens all the time. Known as fixing the market, etc.

10 years after the fact? C'mon