Quote:
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.