Rumors circulating about Jeff Bezos buying the team

USA TODAY Sports
What we know: Making sense of the latest bombshell reports on Commanders owner Daniel Snyder

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/know-making-sense-latest-bombshell-164220616.html

Two reports in a span of about 12 hours have shed new light on the messy dispute between Washington Commanders owner Daniel Snyder and his former minority partners, as well as the potential legal fight that could follow his sale of the team.

When taken together, these two reports paint Snyder as facing – and, in some instances, starting – battles on multiple fronts. He is reportedly drawing scrutiny from a league investigator and federal prosecutors, anger from NFL owners and very serious accusations from his former partners – all while soliciting bids for what would be a multi billion-dollar sale of the team he's owned since 1999.

The reports also raise questions about the NFL's role, both in managing Snyder and declining to investigate the allegations brought forward by the minority partners. And they suggest that the next few months, if not years, could get messy – should Snyder continue to deny and fight the allegations levied against him.

I sort of think that they decided to sell when Tanya got booed at one the games or events. Seems like the timing fits. Can you imagine the backlash if after dangling the prospect of a sale Dan then backs out. Mob would burn Fedex to the ground, which lets face it wouldn't be a bad outcome. Still think he is selling though, other things have been put in motion. House sale, move to London etc.

That's just a coincidence. The financial investigation was announced on the morning of Nov 2nd. The team announced later that day that it was hiring Bank of America to explore a sale. It's all tied together.

- he has no cash flow to support his lavish lifestyle

- so he took a $55M loan without his partners' consent, which is against the by-laws

- he committed bank fraud by representing to the bank that he had that consent and secured the $55M loan

- the information alleged that Dan has been inappropriately taking money from the team, a claim to which the minority owners all waived their rights to when they sold their stake. But the other NFL owners won't take kindly to this either. You can make the shield look bad but if you start doing untrustworthy things with money they'll look at you as a risk.

- With the information coming to light, the other owners all know how cash-poor Snyder is, which means they know he has no shot of securing a stadium, which they all want because of the revenue boost and valuation boost it represents for the whole league. Ergo, Snyder becomes even more useless to the other owners when it comes to contributing to the future bottom line of the NFL.

So even if Snyder didn't have to sell because he can't meet his debt payments, the other owners will force him out because he's a liability and useless with respect to growing the business.

Has nothing to do with how Tanya is received, Dan only cares about money. He has none, he's in a billion worth of debt, and he has no prospects to help the NFL advance itself. He's both useless and a problem. He's good as gone.

That's just a coincidence. The financial investigation was announced on the morning of Nov 2nd. The team announced later that day that it was hiring Bank of America to explore a sale. It's all tied together.

- he has no cash flow to support his lavish lifestyle

- so he took a $55M loan without his partners' consent, which is against the by-laws

- he committed bank fraud by representing to the bank that he had that consent and secured the $55M loan

- the information alleged that Dan has been inappropriately taking money from the team, a claim to which the minority owners all waived their rights to when they sold their stake. But the other NFL owners won't take kindly to this either. You can make the shield look bad but if you start doing untrustworthy things with money they'll look at you as a risk.

- With the information coming to light, the other owners all know how cash-poor Snyder is, which means they know he has no shot of securing a stadium, which they all want because of the revenue boost and valuation boost it represents for the whole league. Ergo, Snyder becomes even more useless to the other owners when it comes to contributing to the future bottom line of the NFL.

So even if Snyder didn't have to sell because he can't meet his debt payments, the other owners will force him out because he's a liability and useless with respect to growing the business.

Has nothing to do with how Tanya is received, Dan only cares about money. He has none, he's in a billion worth of debt, and he has no prospects to help the NFL advance itself. He's both useless and a problem. He's good as gone.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AthleticMeatyHeifer-size_restricted.gif

Really sad to think about this... the cash flow problem is very well what could have led to us cheaping out on the re-brand and not pursing every possible legal avenue on names like Warriors or Wolves.

Really sad to think about this... the cash flow problem is very well what could have led to us cheaping out on the re-brand and not pursing every possible legal avenue on names like Warriors or Wolves.

The NFL should really change its rules to allow for corporate ownership. They still require that families own 30% of the equity in the team. That was fine when valuations were $100M or even $500M, but when you're talking 30% of $5.8B or whatever, you're talking about what 100 people on Earth who could potentially make this work? Probably fewer.

We ended up with one who could make it work at a valuation of $875M, and he ended up being an asshole who didn't care about corporate governance, Mr. "What the F__ do I need a board meeting for?"

Other sports have eliminated that clause. The NFL would stand to benefit if corporate ownership were permitted. Say what you want about the downsides of that but boards are used to providing oversight and governance, and executives accountable to them are used to that relationship. Dan clearly never was.

And you're right, it had to have affected the branding, and I'm sure it has affected player acquisition decisions. Why was Carson Wentz so appealing? Because none of his contract was guaranteed, meaning Dan didn't have to take funds and sock it away in escrow, he didn't have to commit any cash up front. As long as he remains owner we won't offer any meaningful long term guarantees.

His cash flow problems are the primary reason we lost Kirk Cousins. Guaranteed.

The NFL should really change its rules to allow for corporate ownership. They still require that families own 30% of the equity in the team. That was fine when valuations were $100M or even $500M, but when you're talking 30% of $5.8B or whatever, you're talking about what 100 people on Earth who could potentially make this work? Probably fewer.

We ended up with one who could make it work at a valuation of $875M, and he ended up being an asshole who didn't care about corporate governance, Mr. "What the F__ do I need a board meeting for?"

Other sports have eliminated that clause. The NFL would stand to benefit if corporate ownership were permitted. Say what you want about the downsides of that but boards are used to providing oversight and governance, and executives accountable to them are used to that relationship. Dan clearly never was.

And you're right, it had to have affected the branding, and I'm sure it has affected player acquisition decisions. Why was Carson Wentz so appealing? Because none of his contract was guaranteed, meaning Dan didn't have to take funds and sock it away in escrow, he didn't have to commit any cash up front. As long as he remains owner we won't offer any meaningful long term guarantees.

His cash flow problems are the primary reason we lost Kirk Cousins. Guaranteed.

It's all fun and games until the money runs out.

It's just crazy the depths he's dragged this franchise to.

Fuck him.

The NFL should really change its rules to allow for corporate ownership. They still require that families own 30% of the equity in the team. That was fine when valuations were $100M or even $500M, but when you're talking 30% of $5.8B or whatever, you're talking about what 100 people on Earth who could potentially make this work? Probably fewer.

We ended up with one who could make it work at a valuation of $875M, and he ended up being an asshole who didn't care about corporate governance, Mr. "What the F__ do I need a board meeting for?"

Other sports have eliminated that clause. The NFL would stand to benefit if corporate ownership were permitted. Say what you want about the downsides of that but boards are used to providing oversight and governance, and executives accountable to them are used to that relationship. Dan clearly never was.

And you're right, it had to have affected the branding, and I'm sure it has affected player acquisition decisions. Why was Carson Wentz so appealing? Because none of his contract was guaranteed, meaning Dan didn't have to take funds and sock it away in escrow, he didn't have to commit any cash up front. As long as he remains owner we won't offer any meaningful long term guarantees.

His cash flow problems are the primary reason we lost Kirk Cousins. Guaranteed.

This is why fans need to stop saying "well so and so team did this, why can't we?" It all boils down to have a shitty owner like Snyder.

Does anyone still want to ask what if the new owner is worse?


https://media.tenor.com/o5CbgYywhaoAAAAd/justin-timberlake-stare.gif

The NFL should really change its rules to allow for corporate ownership. They still require that families own 30% of the equity in the team. That was fine when valuations were $100M or even $500M, but when you're talking 30% of $5.8B or whatever, you're talking about what 100 people on Earth who could potentially make this work? Probably fewer.

We ended up with one who could make it work at a valuation of $875M, and he ended up being an asshole who didn't care about corporate governance, Mr. "What the F__ do I need a board meeting for?"

Other sports have eliminated that clause. The NFL would stand to benefit if corporate ownership were permitted. Say what you want about the downsides of that but boards are used to providing oversight and governance, and executives accountable to them are used to that relationship. Dan clearly never was.

And you're right, it had to have affected the branding, and I'm sure it has affected player acquisition decisions. Why was Carson Wentz so appealing? Because none of his contract was guaranteed, meaning Dan didn't have to take funds and sock it away in escrow, he didn't have to commit any cash up front. As long as he remains owner we won't offer any meaningful long term guarantees.

His cash flow problems are the primary reason we lost Kirk Cousins. Guaranteed.
It can't, it would lose money in Sponsorship. Example Pepsi is the "Official soda of the NFL but Coke owns the Atlanta Falcons do they serve Coke or Pepsi might not be a good example but you see what I mean.

Does anyone still want to ask what if the new owner is worse?

I don't think it's even scientifically possible for someone to be worse.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/2c764e7a70f2d8eec7a72cd5c44b1f00/tumblr_pe8yj3wJUb1tad247o2_r1_540.gif