Peregrine

21 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

He is actually going to testify?  I'll be damned.  And not a deposition and actual video conference for all to see him squirm.  Oh man, I have to be available that day.  

Ah, looks like typical Snider stuff.  His attorneys have only offered the literal last two days of the session as an option, because they knows anybody there has more important things to do the last two days, where they scramble to complete important business.  Then when they turn him down he can say "Look I tried" or if they accept it he goes "Why arent they focused on more important things being taken care of?".

They should absolutely reject it and give him 4-5 days as options so he really has no excuse(not that he ever had one).

Im not sure how he thinks dodging a subpoena isnt going to make things worse.  Hes absolutely living in his own bizarro land but even his thin support is eroding with these stunts.  It may take 5 years, but once he goes it will be bad.

9 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

Patrick said that Goodell said that Snyder had to give up the team to his wife. As if the league did something and he stepped down.

 

This isn't true. 

 

Snyder is just pretending that he's not involved, and his wife is making the decisions now. Which also isn't true. 

Goodell also said that he voluntarily did it, so Goodell didnt make him do anything, Snyder chose to.  The NFL is trying to have their punishment and not have it too.  The fact nobody on that committee actually went after him for that or asked questions on it shows what a failure it was.  Based on all that I saw, if that is the committee responsible for investigating Snyder and his behavior, absolutely nothing will come of it as they are all seemingly incompetent.

16 minutes ago, Commander PK said:

 

I’m noticing more and more on social media than this utterly relentless barrage of negative publicity surrounding Dan Snyder is starting to turn him into more of a sympathetic figure.  I reiterate again, I’m not a fan of Snyder’s tenure as owner, and wouldn’t mind seeing him sell or even be forced out, but this “make it my mission in life” attitude of some by any means necessary is starting to garner him some unexpected support.  Take that however you want, but it’s the truth.  
 

The “I don’t like Snyder either…but stop beating the dead horse” posts are increasing.  

Its not.  Its just that no one else except his hardcore fans care anymore.  Theres no one that disliked Snyder before that is now thinking "gee, now that a few more accusations and details came out, but because its dragged on a bit Im part of his fanclub".  Anecdotal evidence from your random perusing's on twitter means nothing times zero, especially not to the only few that matter, the other owners.

"and wouldnt mind seeing him sell".  Thats about all you need to know.  "You know if it happened, I guess it wouldnt be the worst thing in the world".

Wright was brought in, simply, to save an evil empire.  He was put in place to make sure the evil overloard Dan got to stay as owner.  To help him smooth over the current problems and lawsuits and make things look good enough that the attention would go away.  That in and of itself should make it revolting to most people.  Theres not a chance that Goodell, or Wright, or anyone else involved would say anything bad about a guy we know is terribly evil in Dan Snyder, unless public opinion made them do it to keep themselves afloat.  

Its just a shame that congress got its opportunity to press Goodell on his obvious lies about the investigation, why he sealed it, and why he protects Dan, and chose to ask a few questions but mostly play politics.  Sadly, Riveras statement showed Ron was also fully on that train.  While the report remains secret, and not written down according to Goodell, Ron says "our organization had already put into place or was in the process of implementing the suggestions mentioned in the report".  What report?  What nonsense.  Nobody has seen the suggestions in the report that was ordered not to be reported, unless it does ACTUALLY exist in written form and then Goodell and Snyder lied and Ron knows it.

1 minute ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

“NoT rEaDiNg AlL tHaT” 

 

every. Single. Reply. To that tweet. 

I read it all.  Wish I had taken their correct approach to it and saved myself the time.

3 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Ah. The story my old man was threatening to sue the Washington post over during the weekend if they wrote this story. Yeah, funny thing is, the Washington post doesn’t even know the true facts. They only publish half of the details of that investigation but fail to report that video evidence even confirmed no sexual assault even happened. 

they even fail to mention the woman even got a text from her husband saying he was close to bankruptcy and they needed some way to come up with the money. 

 

Washington Post isn’t going to enjoy this lawsuit 😁 

So, lets be clear here...They had video evidence showing no assault could have occurred, and Mr "Ill sue an old lady" Snyder agrees to pay her 1.6 million.

Absolute BS.  If you want to argue she made things up and there is some he-said she-said thats fine, and plausible if again super suspect because of the payout for a guy we know would only do that as a last resort.  But anyone suggesting theres actual video proof it doesnt happen, but they paid her anyway, is absolutely lying in my(and pretty much everyone elses) opinion.

Never forget, Goodell is a great evil, and he sells himself for very large sums of money to protect the greater evils.

I think the committee is using the appearance of giving Dan as many options as possible as extra ammo to later force a subpoena.  Because if they gave him every option and he declined they can then say they had no choice.  Of course Dan would be a fool to agree to testify as the moment he enters that room he looses even more than he usually does.  But they are backing him into a corner.  Then maybe they will subpoena him and he will refuse to answer any questions and the humiliation of the NFL and Snyder will continue.  He just doesnt have a good option as Goodell is way more of a smooth talker, and because what hes done in the past has made it impossible for him.  

Does the committee wield a banhammer better than TK?  Probably not, but they can always delightfully prove us wrong.

Its a game of chicken where both sides have leverage and both sides dont really have leverage.  First, the team has leverage because it ultimately can control the next few years of Terry's earning until hes 30.  Second, Terry has leverage because Ron and Co are in trouble and need to win THIS season.  And those reasons are why the other side doesnt have leverage.

While the team has control over his earnings for several years, and him sitting out would mean losing out on his one big contract(due to his age), they need him to win now.  While Terry knows they need to win now and so they need him, he also knows that if they dont blink hes screwed, and he will likely lose tens of millions in earnings, meaning his first real opportunity will be when hes 30 and on the decline.  So in the end, its a game of chicken where its about who blinks first and they both probably know it.  The only way either really wins is if they both win.  If Terry was younger, he would be in the drivers seat.  If the team has made the playoffs last year, Ron would be in the drivers seat.  As long as both sides are rational it gets done.  The real danger is someone does something completely irrational, or really angers and offends the other side.

7 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Washington isn’t getting a team, if they lose this one. La went 20 years without a team. Washington probably longer.

Not a chance, the NFL will look at how massive this fanbase is, and how it was top 3 in the NFL, and salivate over putting another team here.  Money talks.

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The idea of Dan being "broke" as the title thread sort of wins the argument on the spot for those who believe Dan's finances are perfectly fine by setting up a ridiculous premise as the counter argument.  Obviously he's not broke.  And the idea that Dan is broke isn't the counter argument. 

 

I could have most of my equity in my house.  I can take a loan off of that equity.  But that doesn't mean I am liquid.  It also doesn't mean I am broke.  i have assets.  Liquity and being broke are entirely two different things. 

 

As far as Terry goes.  If his contract matches Kupp, then he'd need to park 75 million now.  Not spread out over years but all of that right now.  It would be almost twice the price of his new luxury home.  Can he pull that off?  I bet he could.  Does it hurt now more than it would have in years past?  I'd think yeah considering his whopping 875 million loan and all the money he needs to come up for the stadium.    Would it behoove him to wait this out until closer to the period when he gets some in season lump payment from the NFL?  Probably so.  Hence IMO the likely delay.   Or interest made on said money as i pointed out in a different thread.

 

I do think they get this deal done.  I do think though he has less liquidity than he typically does and i do think it effects some of how they roll right now. 

On the flip side, you can also have 26 houses, each worth 1 million, and have 2 million in cash and be broke if you owe $30 million on the houses.  Having lots of expensive things doesnt mean someone isnt broke, its all about assets vs liabilities, and ability to pay big costs for wealthy people is often tied into their financials.  If he has good financials, lenders will line up to give money, especially temporary(6 months) loans to an NFL owner.  But if he has bad financials, lenders are going to look at his books and decline to offer him temporary operating cash, especially considered that someone could turn a cash cow into something thats not.

Unless someone can see his books, we probably can only guess based on how those that CAN actually see his books react.

On 6/10/2022 at 10:30 PM, Conn said:

You can fine almost anyone in the NFL for “conduct detrimental” for basically anything. Your argument doesn’t really hold water anyways because if the team didn’t have the authority to fine him, Rivera personally certainly wouldn’t. 

No you cant.  Conduct detrimental has to be conduct first of all, and almost always has to involve something such as an arrest or charges.  An opinion on twitter would be an absolute lawyer field day.

If the team fined him, legally they would be required to say THEY issued the fine unless he just volunteered, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Im told Tanya has a background in design, so the stadium is in good hands.

The will surely be eventually able to possibly maybe find a potential piece of property that could fit their plans and where someone might possibly let them build something.

Now where the moneys going to come from who knows.

The "I" is probably because the team has no grounds to find him. Regardless of his opinions, unless he specifically breached a part of his contract that forbid some political mention at a team interview, they just have no ground.  Legally you have to have a breach of contract, not just "bad press".

22 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

There's some invitations you should not turn down as it'll make you look bad.

Basically, that's an invitation to defend yourself, so they'd better show up to tell their own version or the comittee will stay on what they already have.

There are some invitations you should not accept, as itll make you look bad.  Theres no way Dan or Goodell are showing up to those.  While they know it will look bad if they dont go, like any guilty person they know it will be way worse if they have to sit their and answer questions.  Theres a zero percent chance they do that willingly.  They are counting on the fallout being manageably if they dont, what Dan always counts on.

On 5/27/2022 at 2:39 PM, hail2skins said:

Meh......I've often said on here that I was as euphoric as anyone when the announcement was made that Gibbs was coming back, but when I stepped back, thought "how long is a 64 year old who has been away from the sidelines for as long as Gibbs had was going to last?"

 

The expectations were probably set too high for him, and of course it was hard to actually predict that Joe's second stint here would only last four years.  Its also hard to blame Snyder for making the move at the time, but you have to wonder if it was in the best long-term interests of the organization. Of course, the retreads bandied about at the time (Fassel, Rhodes, Green) weren't either. Were we even considering another young OC or DC?

 

The results were blah.  People talk about the two playoff appearances and one playoff win, but forget about the two crappy seasons, including 5-11 in 2006 when the team did not score ONE offensive TD in three divisional away games.

 

IMO, people don't rationally discuss Gibbs 2 because of the magic Joe worked during his first stint here.

 

 

 

 

You probably havent really looked at the history of the franchise.  Since the beginning of the NFL some 55 years ago, how many years have the Redskins/WFT/Commanders won a playoff game......where Joe Gibbs wasnt the coach?

The answer is two.  In 55 years.  If we win 3 playoff games over the next several years, it will be the teams best stretch in the past 30 years, the best by any coach not named Gibbs in the history of the franchise, and tied for as many wins as all other coaches combined.

Not surprised they went for the loudoun location first, that one is a no-brainer as the much better option, especially if you want to put a whole complex in.

Already thrown the first of many(or 7) interceptions, look out.

Horrible location?  Check.  Looks like a condom? Check. Traffic nightmare? Check. Dan Snyder Special!

The reason they like it?  Its 1 1/2 hours from Richmond, so they think they will get a lot of fans making that drive.  Why build an entire campus around the stadium if theres no reason for anyone to come visit from out of town?  If the stadium is in DC, people can make a weekend of it.  If its Ashburn/Dulles, its right by the airport with metro access, super easy and people can still visit DC easily.  Woodbridge?  Nothing.

Hes teflon and the NFL is corrupt enough to keep him until he goes to prison for something.  Basically owners said "for the first time" other owners are discussing it, which is a bad sign.  Also that "if" the new allegations are true they should "do something".  IM hardly enthused.  The NFL owners meetings may just be the semi-annual super-villains meeting, and nothing more.  They could care less what anyone does as long as it allows them to stay rich enough.

14 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

I think it ends in a stalemate. Russia will control the areas do now and Ukraine will just have to come to a peace agreement. 

 

Russia will rebuild and try again in the future. Putin's eventual successor will be a military person who will make sure Russia's isn't as pathetic as it is now.

 

Why would Ukraine make an agreement?  Eventually they won't be receiving assistance and be pressured to make a deal That includes us. The next Congress will be more Maga and they aren't giving Ukraine a dime. Europe will no longer support  the impact , this is having on their economies . Their citizens will demand Europe stop supporting Ukraine ad their leaders will buckle. 

 

Russia just needs to wait it out.

Russia cant wait anything out.  Their economy is falling apart, they are running out of money and are using up their mediocre weapons, leaving them with those they know probably dont work.  Ukraine can dig in and the longer this goes on, the more Russia falls apart economically, socially, militarily, and the will of both the people to live it and soldiers to die in it will continue to erode, while Ukraines will not.  You've completely misread it.

The only hope Russia really have, and the real danger is they can grab the rest of the two separatist regions and declare new governments, annex them into Russia and say now that any foreign military entering there is declaring war on Russia.  It may not work but its at least the only play they have, and they want to do it as quickly as possible.

Broke for a normal person? No.  Broke for an NFL owner.  Yes.

The Eagles finished the season 6-2, shored up their defense in free agency, and on paper had a fantastic draft.  And based on what some fans on here are saying about the Eagles being overrated, looks like they are a lock to be really good this year.

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

That's highly arguable. If I kill someone, by law I would be a murderer. It wouldn't matter if I'm convicted of it or not.

 

And the false claims of chemical weapons, lies, prior to the war or Irak part II and everything that went with it are going a long way today in most of the countries not blaming Russia.

At the very least, for many of them US position is quite hypocritical for blaming stuff from others when they are doing things alike.

 

Add to these that they camed from a democratically elected President, which makes it even worse, because well... You guys did vote for him. Twice.

 

Like it or not, that's how you are viewed in many countries. And if by 2024 you elect another MAGA asshole kind of type of President, that'll probably be even worse.

 

If you want to set standards for others, fine. But at the very least live with them as well. Otherwise, it's counter productive.

Who is "you guys"?

And its highly arguable by someone like you, but not to the vast majority of rational people.  They dont think the fact a Russian dictator loving country being the only one to try and accuse someone of war crimes means anything.  They also dont think that an elected president who didnt order troops to murder and rape is the same as a dictator who does.  Thats not how the USA is viewed by most countries, thats just how you view things in your crazy world where you try and equate the two, because one war and another war must be identical in your small-minded ability to only fit things in neat boxes. 

And no, if you kill someone, by law, you arent necessarily a murderer.  The fact you dont understand that basic concept would be shocking if it weren't for....yeah.  And im not even getting into the morality of the Iraq war, something I heavily opposed.

1 hour ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

You could say Bush Jr was a war criminal; for things he done in the Iraq.

 

Actually one country did charge him with war crimes and he can’t go to that country because they would arrest him.

And the others not named Malaysia didnt?  So just like Putin then.  Malaysia is on Russia's side in their attempted genocide of Ukraine, so tell me should anyone care about their view of war crimes?

Please, go peddle your political nonsense somewhere else in a desperate attempt to equate a brutal dictator with a democratically elected and unelected official.