Rumors circulating about Jeff Bezos buying the team

[EdmundDorf]

Interesting information coming out.....

Kevin Sheehan on Twitter

(1 of 3) A few takeaways from Van Natta story.

1. Snyder has to sell. Can’t afford to keep it. Other reasons too but plan the parade.

2. Snyder/team have really been struggling financially compared to other teams. Cash flow a major problem. Has affected football decisions.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by EdmundDorf

Interesting information coming out.....

Quote:
Kevin Sheehan on Twitter

(1 of 3) A few takeaways from Van Natta story.

1. Snyder has to sell. Can’t afford to keep it. Other reasons too but plan the parade.

2. Snyder/team have really been struggling financially compared to other teams. Cash flow a major problem. Has affected football decisions.

There's no way Snyder can keep the team. He's in debt from buying out the minority owners, He can't afford nor will he get any money for a stadium, and knows the NFL owners will force him out (at the very least, the NFL can release the Wilkinson report).

Without Bezos and with all these clouds hanging over him, he's not going get the price he wants. He just needs to suck it up, sell the team, and go live abroad.

[Giantone]

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

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/know-ma...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.

[MTK]

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by MTK

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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.

Other leagues do it

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

I saw on some of the twitter threads last night that they are alleging the cash flow problems with the team is so severe that they may only be weeks / months away from checks, etc. bouncing.

How does something like that work? Does the NFL guarantee whatever you are supposed to be paid? Say you are Bob that works in the cafeteria and you find out that your paycheck / direct deposit bounced?

Can the team, etc., go bankrupt or does the NFL have provisions for that to protect everyone?

[MTK]

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

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by MTK

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.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by MTK

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

DS is going to retire this saying: "deal with the devil you know..."

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by MTK

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

What I don't get is how the hell Goodell signed off on it without checking first with the minority owners?

[skinsfan69]

Snyder has a real solid chance at being a prison bitch. He would be claimed in minutes.