Dub70s Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I say $2.2 bil (2013 team value is $1.7 bil), I think he will sell for a cool $0.5 bil and less headaches. Buffett said, laughing, “I don’t know whether he would sell. But Sammy Baugh was my hero in those days. That’s a little before your time. It was the dream of every kid to have a sports team; well, it was the dream of every kid to be a superstar. But of course I never had a chance of that.” Story posted in Bubba9497's Redskins Breaking News http://es.redskins.com/topic/376574-espn-buffett-once-dreamed-of-owning-redskins/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 i say no. he already has more money than anyone could ever need. he can buy almost quite literally anything he wants to buy. he doesnt need money. owning his favorite childhood team is worth more than even more money. especially since he wants to win, and he hasnt done that yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Gawd, let's hope not. First thing Buffett would probably do is change the team name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterPinstripe Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Gawd, let's hope not. First thing Buffett would probably do is change the team name. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Yep, someone made the post in another thread that "we're one owner away from a name change", & I agree. grego's post is also a good one. Lovin' me some Danny. Hail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 People are so eager to get rid of Snyder, but what they don't know is sometimes the guy you know is better than the guy you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 People are so eager to get rid of Snyder, but what they don't know is sometimes the guy you know is better than the guy you don't. And sometimes after 15 years of dysfunctionality you realize that the chances to get worse with another owner are slim to none, so it could be only better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 And sometimes after 15 years of dysfunctionality you realize that the chances to get worse with another owner are slim to none, so it could be only better. Hahahaha But he wants to win!!!!! Don't you know that?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 And sometimes after 15 years of dysfunctionality you realize that the chances to get worse with another owner are slim to none, so it could be only better. The Cleveland Browns send their regards... So do the Raiders. Then again, it might be kinda fun to go 4-12 while our owner is under federal investigation from the FBI and might see jail time *thumbsup* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 And sometimes after 15 years of dysfunctionality you realize that the chances to get worse with another owner are slim to none, so it could be only better. Hahahaha But he wants to win!!!!! Don't you know that?!?!? It would also mean the team changes part of its name. If you think for one second that a guy like Buffet wouldn't cave under the pressure like a fat guy at a... well... buffet... You're out of your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I agree with Califan, Buffet would collapse under pressure and change the team name. The media would slam him on every opportunity, coupled with the crybabies who say its offensive, he would end up doing it and destroy every single moment of greatness the Redskins have accomplished over the tenure of their existance. Besides, we don't need another owner, we need a new stadium; one that has a personality, like RFK. SIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Also, Buffet seemed to indicate in his interview that he viewed sports franchise ownership as one of those rich people indulgence of things in limited supply or exclusive club. Sounded like 15 years old Buffet was interested but not the 70 years old Buffet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Double value. I.E Buffet and investors would need to bring 3.2 billion to the table. Buffet also would never pay double value for anything. If he ran the team, I think he would do a fantastic job, seeing that he invests in companies with strong management structures. He would be the perfect owner in that regard, set up a very strong front office, invest in the infrastructure, and get out of the way. The name change itself, my bet is by the end of the decade pressure will simply be too much (especially if the Redskins experience any success, we saw how many articles the Washington Post ran last summer) and the name will be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The name change itself, my bet is by the end of the decade pressure will simply be too much (especially if the Redskins experience any success, we saw how many articles the Washington Post ran last summer) and the name will be changed. There will be a point when the team will have no choice but to change it's name. We aren't there yet but people who think this will go away are dreaming. As the team has more success, the pressure will grow. Eventually, the government will make so Snyder has no choice but to change the name. As for Snyder selling the team; never going to happen. Snyder will be owning the Redskins probably for another 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The Cleveland Browns send their regards... So do the Raiders. Then again, it might be kinda fun to go 4-12 while our owner is under federal investigation from the FBI and might see jail time *thumbsup* Haslam sends you back its regards since first ne has not been charged with any crime, and second he has yet to be proven guilty. "The NFL has said in the past that it stands by Haslam and called him "a man of integrity." When asked if he is confident that the federal probe can be resolved without being indicted, Haslam said he "accepts responsibility" but insists "we have not done anything wrong and is confident of a successful outcome." Link The Raiders, well let's see, Al Davis 2 SB appearances one ring, Mark Davis and his mom Carol inherited the franchise. We're talking selling/purchasing here, right ? That's quite thin to me. You missed the only one worthy of your argument: Eddie DeBartolo Jr.'s Honestly I could careless having a convicted owner like him as long as he brings in 5 Superbowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 It would also mean the team changes part of its name. If you think for one second that a guy like Buffet wouldn't cave under the pressure like a fat guy at a... well... buffet... You're out of your mind. Buffet is much smarter and has more wisdom than Snyder will ever had. I wish he would have bought this franchise 15 years ago. With all due respect may I send you back your judgement: you're out of your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 With all due respect may I send you back your judgement: you're out of your mind. I'm not sure what this means. But thanks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Dan Snyder: I wouldn't sell the Redskins for all the money in the world. Not for a hundred million, trillion, billion dollars! Buffett:Then you're crazy! Dan Snyder: I know you are but what am I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I'm not sure what this means. But thanks? Just kidding you, no big deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Dan Snyder has invested his entire identity into ownership of the Washington Redskins. It's not a toy or an avocation for him, as it is with other owners. It is entirely who he is. He's not selling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacoby6644 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 "Not for sale!" says Danny. I think Buffet is a great business man, but not sure if he would treat this as more than a hobbie. I feel it would be like Leon Hess(RIP) when he bought the Jets. Didn't really care about how the team did until he was sick and dying. With all of the other issues that this team has, I'll stick with the owner I know(figuratively) vs. the one I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Haslam sends you back its regards since first ne has not been charged with any crime, and second he has yet to be proven guilty. You noticed I put the word "might" in my post, right? lol...Because if you did, you'd realize there would be no reason for responding the way you did here. "The NFL has said in the past that it stands by Haslam and called him "a man of integrity." When asked if he is confident that the federal probe can be resolved without being indicted, Haslam said he "accepts responsibility" but insists "we have not done anything wrong and is confident of a successful outcome." Link Ah, well then, nevermind. I'll alert the federal authorities to let them know that since Haslam is confident, there's no need to investigate further. You really don't want to play "dueling links" on this matter, do you? lol... The Raiders, well let's see, Al Davis 2 SB appearances one ring, Mark Davis and his mom Carol inherited the franchise. We're talking selling/purchasing here, right ? That's quite thin to me. You missed the only one worthy of your argument: Eddie DeBartolo Jr.'s Honestly I could careless having a convicted owner like him as long as he brings in 5 Superbowls. No, we're talking about change in ownership...not the manner in which the change took place. We're also talking about how after "15 years of dysfuntionality" (as you put it) a new owner couldn't make things worse. For the Raiders it was 10 years of dysfunctionality before ownership changed. I'm guessing you're not exactly gonna hang your argument on those 5 years making all the difference lol... And if you think Eddie DeBartolo Jr. somehow backs up my argument, then you're completely clueless as to what my argument is. DeBartolo's time with the 49ers started in 1977. Did the 49ers have "15 years of dysfunctionality" prior to his arrival? Or even 10? lol...hell, no. So, no...DeBartolo is nowhere near worthy of making my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrFan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 You noticed I put the word "might" in my post, right? lol...Because if you did, you'd realize there would be no reason for responding the way you did here. So, no...DeBartolo is nowhere near worthy of making my point. Sorry my bad I missed the "might". I brought up DeBartolo not about the length of dysfunctionality but to the investigated/convicted argument. Glad we cleared that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 There will be a point when the team will have no choice but to change it's name. We aren't there yet but people who think this will go away are dreaming. As the team has more success, the pressure will grow. Eventually, the government will make so Snyder has no choice but to change the name. As for Snyder selling the team; never going to happen. Snyder will be owning the Redskins probably for another 30 years. I guarantee you that this will never, EVER, happen. If the team changes it's name, it's gonna be at the sole discretion of the owner, and no other reason. It won't be due to public pressure, it won't be due to protests...you guys who think it will inevitably happen have zero understanding of the enormous value of branding, trademark law, as well as the legal ramifications involved in the name-changing debate. I've posted numerous articles about all this, but here's a quick quote from one of them concerning the Redskins name, legal ramifications, and brand value: Even if the REDSKINS trademark registrations are cancelled, they still have very valuable, nationwide common law rights based on the extensive and continuous use of the mark. These rights are exclusive and enforceable. In addition to the basic trademark rights, the team has a First Amendment right to “commercial speech” that probably protects its ability to use the term REDSKINS, even if the trademark registration is lost. [...]UW: Gut feeling: Taking everything into account (legal issues, public opinion, political pressure, etc.), will the Redskins still be called the Redskins 15 years from now? JM: The brand is so valuable, and First Amendment rights are so valued in the United States, that the Redskins will probably be named the Redskins for as long as the team’s owners want to keep the name. It is doubtful that they will be forced to change it.... UW: Okay, so you’re basically saying anything is possible — but we all knew that already. I’m asking you what you think will happen. JM: Fifteen years is a long time. Certainly opinions can change — it was only about 15 years ago that President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act that was just challenged in the Supreme Court. Based on the state of the laws today, however, I would guess that the Redskins will still be the Redskins 15 years from now, especially since it has been over 20 years since the trademark was originally challenged. Sorry my bad I missed the "might". I brought up DeBartolo not about the length of dysfunctionality but to the investigated/convicted argument. Glad we cleared that up. Ah, ok...didn't associate your thoughts on DeBartolo with Haslam when you said I missed the only owner "worthy of my argument". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bifflog Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Eventually, the government will make so Snyder has no choice but to change the name. Believe it or not, the function of your government is not to be your boss or tell you what to do. There would have to be a Constitutional amendment for the government to "force" a privately owned business to change its name. Public pressure? Sure. Dispute to the holding of the trademark? Okay, that might do it. But when did we become a populace who believes the government can just do whatever it wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.