Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

JSSkinz

By JSSkinz
in The Stadium

 Share
TK
Message added by TK,

Pay Attention Knuckleheads

 

 

Has your team support wained due to ownership or can you see past it?  

229 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you attend a game and support the team while Dan Snyder is the owner of the team, regardless of success?

    • Yes
      47
    • No
      106
    • I would start attending games if Dan was no longer the owner of the team.
      77

Recommended Posts

Cooleyfan1993

Cooleyfan1993

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, JoggingGod said:

You should be ashamed of being a fan of this team. Unironically, I have more respect for the Cowboys Eagles and Giants than I do this team.

Cool. And you shouldn’t tell others what you think they should be ashamed about. K? If you’re ashamed, fine. I dont blame you (or others)  for feeling ashamed. I’m not ashamed of being a fan of this team at all. And that shouldn’t be yours or anyone else’s business 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Commander PK

Commander PK

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, GhostofAlvinWalton said:

Bezos was never going to buy less than 100% of the team. This makes it a much easier process for him to buy the whole thing from Snyder. 
 

#chessnotcheckers

 

🤞
 

 

I do have a theory that possibly Dan pays this loan back with what he gets from Bezos.  Maybe Bezos has literally offered a sum that he can’t refuse.  Kind of like bidding on a house.  Somebody overpays to close the deal, but gets what they want, and turns the profit on the back end.   
 

Again, this is just me talking and speculating.

 

Edit: Dan was a fan, but everybody has a price.  Bezos literally has money to burn.

Edited by Painkiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dissident2

Dissident2

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

I do have a theory that possibly Dan pays this loan back with what he gets from Bezos.  Maybe Bezos has literally offered a sum that he can’t refuse.  Kind of like bidding on a house.  Somebody overpays to close the deal, but gets what they want, and turns the profit on the back end.   
 

Again, this is just me talking and speculating.

 

Edit: Dan was a fan, but everybody has a price.  Bezos literally has money to burn.

 

 FYI, if you're right, I will officially support "Warriors" and any logo design of your choosing. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
profusion

profusion

Posted
Posted

The "consolidating for a sale" theory is almost certainly wishful thinking.

 

For one thing, no lender is likely to go along with such a short-term deal unless they're getting a level of return that would make the deal a loser for Snyder. 

 

I think it also overstates the difficulty for a buyer to just buy all the pieces separately. All the minority owners have tipped their hand in wanting to sell. Stonewalling in hopes of driving up the price would do them no good. Anyone who buys Snyder's share gains immediate control and can simply wait out recalcitrant minority owners.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GhostofAlvinWalton

GhostofAlvinWalton

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, profusion said:

The "consolidating for a sale" theory is almost certainly wishful thinking.

 

For one thing, no lender is likely to go along with such a short-term deal unless they're getting a level of return that would make the deal a loser for Snyder. 

 

I think it also overstates the difficulty for a buyer to just buy all the pieces separately. All the minority owners have tipped their hand in wanting to sell. Stonewalling in hopes of driving up the price would do them no good. Anyone who buys Snyder's share gains immediate control and can simply wait out recalcitrant minority owners.


It was a joke on my part...but I can still have it in the back of my head to keep my feeling warm and safe at night. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, redskinss said:

Why would you tie your Fandom to anything other than the inanimate object that is the team itself?

 

Players and owners come and go throughout the history of every team and many of them do outlandish and embarrassing things, none of which we as fans should feel guilty for just because we root for the team they are associated with.

 

Dan Snyder is the owner of the Washington football team but he is not the Washington football team.

 

There's no reason we as fans should be ashamed of anything him or any of the players do, that's completely out of our control and we shouldn't have to keep bouncing from team to team hoping we land somewhere that has no history of embarrassing moments, because it's not actually possible. 

 

 

I probably wrote the above post a few times since I joined ES back in 2001. That was my stance up until last summer. Some things just cross the line. And, maybe it's my age now (44) or how close to home some of these allegations hit...but it becomes tougher and tougher to root and cheer for laundry when you don't respect or even like the person at the top of the pyramid. I've said it before...when I knew less about the misconduct and harassment, I didn't mind rooting for the idiot, unlikeable, socially awkward owner to figure it out. He was OUR idiot. But as more and more women came forward, then the story of pimping out the one cheerleader broke, and finally the "raw footage" of multiple calendar shoots it was just too much. It's pathetic, disgusting, and despicable so it's tough for me to sit there on a Sunday and hope that the coaches and players get it done when I know the ultimate beneficiary is that predator in the owner's box. 

 

13 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

I think reasonable people can differ on this.  I can see your perspective and the decision to separate the owner from the team.  This is where I was trying to be for the past year. 

 

But from my perspective an owner is about as integral part of the team as anything else.  And while we can't expect to have your chosen team be owned and run by saints, I think there is a line somewhere where you just want nothing more to do with the piece of trash that owns the team, in however remote a way.  I can understand those who feel differently, but that's just where I am.  

Great response. And I agree...as much as I think these latest items SHOULD be the final straw for people, I can also understand the other side because there were plenty of people who bailed earlier for other things and I justified staying a fan in my own mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

Kraft's story was like 3% as bad as what Snyder's done.

 

Also Kraft owns the best franchise over the last two decades.

I agree. The Kraft story needs to stop being used as a comp for what Snyder is being accused of. Here's how I delineate...

 

1) If I was a Pats fan, I wouldn't necessarily want my kids to know what the owner did in Kraft's case...but that's about where it stops

2) If I was still a Skins fan, I wouldn't want my kids to ever work for Snyder's organization because of how he treats people

 

That's a big distinction in my mind. If it somehow got out that Snyder hired hookers or had 1,000 hours of porn on his iPhone, I'd chuckle and move on. I don't mind what these men do in their spare time so long as they aren't harming others. Snyder harmed others. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
clskinsfan

clskinsfan

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

Kraft's story was like 3% as bad as what Snyder's done.

 

Also Kraft owns the best franchise over the last two decades.

Both true. But doesnt change the point of my post. Once you are in that club you will be protected to keep the rest of the club clean. Jerry Richardson chose to sell rather than fight the media. If you think Snyder is gonna do that you are crazy. 

1 hour ago, profusion said:

The "consolidating for a sale" theory is almost certainly wishful thinking.

 

For one thing, no lender is likely to go along with such a short-term deal unless they're getting a level of return that would make the deal a loser for Snyder. 

 

I think it also overstates the difficulty for a buyer to just buy all the pieces separately. All the minority owners have tipped their hand in wanting to sell. Stonewalling in hopes of driving up the price would do them no good. Anyone who buys Snyder's share gains immediate control and can simply wait out recalcitrant minority owners.

This. If Bezos was really trying to buy the team he would have already made an offer to the minority owners they could not refuse. Once he had a 40% stake in the team he would be in a much better place to pressure the league to do something. 

Edited by clskinsfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FrFan

FrFan

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, redskinss said:

There's no reason we as fans should be ashamed of anything him or any of the players do, that's completely out of our control and we shouldn't have to keep bouncing from team to team hoping we land somewhere that has no history of embarrassing moments, because it's not actually possible.

 

The owner and the team are one single entity they rely on each other, but I understand that you can root for the team and despise the owner at the same time.

He was the one who refused the name change (until he was forced to) and to sell the team. He charged fans to watch training camp, proving he doesn't care at all about them. I agree it's mostly out of fans control, but that doesn't mean fans have to purchase gear or keep on going to the stadium to feed him. I'm not going to root for another team. I believe it is possible to have a much better owner, the Steelers had Dan Rooney for example and this is what I wish for this team.

Edited by FrFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen

BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen

Posted
Posted (edited)

Some thoughts on this...

 

1. What's to keep Snyder from changing the name back to Redskins? (a dumb question, but thought I'd ask...)

 

2. Does this 'deal' mean the lawsuits are closed, meaning no one cares any more than Snyder sent goons to intimidate Moag and some of the team's employees? What about the lawsuit in India? The phone of McCloughan's wife? Has anyone ever explained why Schar and the others wanted to sell their shares so desperately that they helped expose the toxic, sexist environment at WFT Park? Does any of this matter to the NFL?

 

3. What if FedEx and other sponsors threatened to pull out unless Snyder sells the team?

Edited by BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

Kraft's story was like 3% as bad as what Snyder's done.

 

Also Kraft owns the best franchise over the last two decades.

 

Kraft's story involved sex trafficking. No way in hell is that only 3% as bad as whatever Snyder has done. What the hell.

 

And the plea deal he was offered may actually hurt the fight against trafficking:

 

"The state attorney's decision to possibly forgo fully prosecuting these men (including Kraft) is an all too common byproduct of misunderstandings about human trafficking and prostitution.This was clear in the disturbing share of the media coverage expressing sympathy for the men charged, proclaiming the entire operation a waste of resources, and advocating for legalization of prostitution. Not only do such opinions diminish the grotesque human rights violations alleged in this case, they ignore the pivotal role the demand for commercial sex plays in perpetuating human trafficking.

 

Authorities recovered a series of victims and found most had been living out of the illicit businesses, cooking on hot plates and sleeping on what were likely the same massage tables where they allegedly engaged in commercial sex to repay their traffickers for debts incurred traveling from China to America. Yet some in the media sympathized with the men charged with soliciting prostitution. Dave Portnoy of Barstool Sports went on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight to protest that the entire investigation was a conspiracy to bring down the Patriots NFL team, insisting that Kraft’s actions had no relation to human trafficking. ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith told listeners he supported Kraft and flippantly dismissed the incident as a “public relations blemish."

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

Some thoughts on this...

 

1. What's to keep Snyder from changing the name back to Redskins? (a dumb question, but thought I'd ask...)

 

2. Does this 'deal' mean the lawsuits are closed, meaning no one cares any more than Snyder sent goons to intimidate Moag and some of the team's employees? What about the lawsuit in India? The phone of McCloughan's wife? Has anyone ever explained why Schar and the others wanted to sell their shares so desperately that they helped expose the toxic, sexist environment at WFT Park? Does any of this matter to the NFL?

 

3. What if FedEx and other sponsors threatened to pull out unless Snyder sells the team?

 

1) It really plays no role in whether or not Snyder changes the name back.

 

2) I doubt it. They are two separate legal situations.

 

3) If them threatening to pull out can cause Snyder to sell the team, that same threat should keep him from changing the name back to "Redskins". And if Snyder won't change the name under that threat from sponsors, no way in hell would he sell the team under the same threat. It would have to be all sponsors for all teams and for the entire NFL to have that type of effect. And that will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FootballZombie

FootballZombie

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

What if FedEx and other sponsors threatened to pull out unless Snyder sells the team?

 

Its one thing to hold out over a team name, its another to hold out over an owner.

 

Unless the owner is in a D. Sterling situation (which Snyder is not) where it is clear an obvious an owner has to go yesterday and a company shows a vested interest in putting pressure to remove said owner, than no business w/ an owner would likely be keen on doing business w/ said company, as tying themselves to them could lead to future threat of your ownership.

 

The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, any publicly traded companys with a CEO that can be fired, would not want to be financed in any way by a company that has already proven it will try to have you removed from yours in the event things are not to their liking. FedEx would literally be blacklisting themselves to attempt it. 

 

Why would any owner/CEO work with a party that would threaten their own ownership? They would not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dont Taze Me Bro

Dont Taze Me Bro

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

Some thoughts on this...

 

1. What's to keep Snyder from changing the name back to Redskins? (a dumb question, but thought I'd ask...)

 

2. Does this 'deal' mean the lawsuits are closed, meaning no one cares any more than Snyder sent goons to intimidate Moag and some of the team's employees? What about the lawsuit in India? The phone of McCloughan's wife? Has anyone ever explained why Schar and the others wanted to sell their shares so desperately that they helped expose the toxic, sexist environment at WFT Park? Does any of this matter to the NFL?

 

3. What if FedEx and other sponsors threatened to pull out unless Snyder sells the team?

 

1.  Because he already made the decision to drop the name.  If he does, then sponsors and companies that sell merchandise won't put it on their sites/stores (like them removing it to pressure him into changing the name in the first place).  That's a done deal, no way back from that decision.

 

2.  Not sure about this, but I doubt they were just dropped, possibly settled with a payout (not sure if that is what you were getting at).  With the NFL approving him for the $450 million dollar debt waiver to buy out the three minority owners, I'd say it doesn't matter to much to them.  At least not yet.  The only way it could matter to the NFL is if they want Snyder to have full control (including his mom and sister's share) in the event that he will sell the franchise (at least his ~81%).  I'm sure that would be more attractive for a new buyer to at least control Snyder's shares (if his mom and sister refuse to sell theirs).  But I don't think he is selling, tbh.

 

3.  That could happen, but honestly, I don't think it will.  This news and investigations have been out there since middle of July 2020 and they haven't put any pressure on the NFL, prior to or during the past season.  Perhaps the NFL is being cautious and wanting Dan (and family) to hold all the shares in case this happens later on?  

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
joeken24

joeken24

Posted
Posted

Let us keep in mind there is an ownership group. And while its easy to point culpability on the main owner, there are still three other owners that should know what the hell is going on with their investments. Now with that said, I am sure all of them (to include Snyder) is not coming into the Ashburn with coffee every ****ing morning, sitting behind a desk and dealing with operational bull**** all day. But as owners, I get they are all responsible for providing a safe environment for every worker in your building. You hire people to ensure that happens. In this case, they made bad hires (who are now fired). My point is the narrative is that Dan is completely at fault and the other owners want out because they are disgusted with what has gone on during their tenure with the organization. GTFO. That's bull****. I'm sure they were at some parties and gatherings. Maybe not Mr. Privacy (Rothman). But still. Its BS to think they didn't know if something was going on. 

 

Rothman - https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2003/08/13/the-unassuming-man-in-the-owners-box/

Schar - https://www.abcmoney.co.uk/2021/02/03/is-dwight-schars-bella-collina-team-caught-hiding-the-ugly-truth/

 

I won't bother Smith because he's a Marine. But I'm sure we all have bull**** in our lives we need to cleanup. 

 

Bottom line: the narrative will always be bias. A lot of people are all in on the other owners winning this business battle. They even want Bezos' who has his share of scandal to come in and become owner of something he doesn't even have experience in. All he would provide is maybe deeper pockets much like Dan initially came in with. Narrative is a mother****er.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sacks 'n' Stuff

Sacks 'n' Stuff

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, hail2skins said:

Regarding JKC, Jeff Pearlman has written a couple books on the Lakers, and I remember him mentioning a story where Cooke would call an employee's desk, and if the person let their phone ring too long, there would be consequences.

That’s cool. I know of a story of a certain current Washington sports owner (I won’t say which one) trying to feed viagra to one of his former tight ends while he was passed out after a night of drinking.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RichmondRedskin88

RichmondRedskin88

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I agree. The Kraft story needs to stop being used as a comp for what Snyder is being accused of. Here's how I delineate...

 

1) If I was a Pats fan, I wouldn't necessarily want my kids to know what the owner did in Kraft's case...but that's about where it stops

2) If I was still a Skins fan, I wouldn't want my kids to ever work for Snyder's organization because of how he treats people

 

That's a big distinction in my mind. If it somehow got out that Snyder hired hookers or had 1,000 hours of porn on his iPhone, I'd chuckle and move on. I don't mind what these men do in their spare time so long as they aren't harming others. Snyder harmed others. 


That depends....What kind of porn are we talking about here?  Are we talking about fun kinky stuff or like the weird damn stuff where people crap on each other?  

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...