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

Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)

Through a FedEx spokeswoman, Smith declined to comment.

Snyder does not need to buy out his partners because he already holds a majority of the team. He also has no plans to sell his stake, which he expects to leave to his children, according to several people who have spoken to him.

 

Still, Snyder was disappointed by the decision by Schar and Rothman — his friends and business partners for nearly 20 years — to hire a banker to sell their shares. In mid-June, he threw all three limited partners off the team’s board.

The three shareholders, upset about being removed from the board, asked the N.F.L. to settle the dispute. The commissioner’s office appointed an arbitrator in late June, according to two people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly. The N.F.L. declined to comment.

 

That is when the war spilled into the public. Days after the N.F.L. arbitration was set into motion, the legal counsel for FedEx, where Smith is chairman, sent the team a letter saying the company would demand that its name be removed from the stadium, where it has been displayed since 1999, if the team’s name was not changed. FedEx pays about $8 million a year for the naming rights to the team’s stadium in Landover, Md. Less than two weeks later, Snyder announced that the name and logo would be replaced.

 

As the boardroom drama unraveled, the fight began to make its way through the courts and is slowing efforts by the minority partners to sell their shares. In August, Snyder filed a defamation suit against an Indian internet company that published what he claims are false and defamatory stories about him.

 

Connected to that lawsuit, Snyder’s lawyers asked a judge in United States District Court in Maryland on Sept. 15 for the right to subpoena the phone and internet records of Moag, the banker for the limited partners.

 

In the filing, Snyder’s lawyers claim that in early July a representative from Moag’s company called a potential investor to see if he was interested in buying a minority stake in the team. The representative claimed that Snyder would be selling his shares soon.

When this person said he was skeptical that Snyder would sell his majority stake in the team, Moag’s representative said that Snyder “would have no choice but to do so soon thereafter due to negative information that would be released imminently,” according to the court filing.

 

Moag declined to comment.

 

A week later, on July 16, Snyder and his football organization were the subject of a mountain of bad press. The Washington Post published an investigation into the mistreatment of the team’s female employees, citing 15 former employees of the team’s front office as sources.

 

The same day, articles disparaging Snyder, including one that linked him to the sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, appeared on the Indian website.

 

The next day, Moag spoke with a different person and suggested that Snyder “would be forced to sell his shares due to further upcoming negative press,” according to the court filing.

In succeeding days, information from both the Washington Post article and the Indian website’s articles that linked Snyder to Epstein was repeated on social media.

 

“For all the foregoing reasons, it is apparent that Moag had advanced warning” of the articles published by the Indian website, Snyder’s lawyers wrote in the filing.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/sports/football/washington-nfl-team-owners-dan-snyder.html?auth=login-facebook

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

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Whoa....

 

The sexual harassment issues will still be investigated and rightfully so. But the rest...

 

Minority owners possibly being given a heads-up by the WP before they let Snyder know?...Telling possible investors that Snyder will be forced to sell the team well before the articles came out? Speculation about Snyder bribing refs and connections to Epstein making the rounds? The fact that the WP didn't break any of this but the NY Times did? That the conspiracy theory inside Snyder's hamster-wheel mind might actually have a bit of validity??...

 

 

giphy.gif

 

 

Also, did the article just kind of cut off at the end there? lol...It didn't seem to end very smoothly.

Edited by Califan007
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo#44

Riggo#44

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Also, did the article just kind of cut off at the end there? lol...It didn't seem to end very smoothly.

 

It seemed like a rehash and not-too-surprising they changed the name over money issue. However, it highlighted the infighting more than WP did. I'd also say there was a lot of speculation leading up the 1st story in the media about a "bombshell" so his partners weren't the only ones saying a big reveal was coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

It seemed like a rehash and not-too-surprising they changed the name over money issue. However, it highlighted the infighting more than WP did. I'd also say there was a lot of speculation leading up the 1st story in the media about a "bombshell" so his partners weren't the only ones saying a big reveal was coming.

 

The minority owners' lawyer telling perspective buyers that Snyder will be selling soon could be damn important. That's new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riggo#44

Riggo#44

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

The minority owners' lawyer telling perspective buyers that Snyder will be selling soon could be damn important. That's new.

 

That was surprising--but that might also be in response to the legions of sexual harassment claims, but, who knows, I wouldn't put it past any over them to make up that Epstein ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)

Digesting the article, I don't blame the minority owners to be upset about their dividends to be withheld with no forewarning.   Dan removes them from being on the Board of Directors.  Now, they are in a back and forth spitting match.  You reap what you sow. 

 

If I were a minority owner, I'd blame Dan for the demise of this franchise as for fans, TV raitings, the whole works.  If I am a successful business guy like Fred Smith I'd eventually have some contempt for Dan.  Dan doesn't exactly have the midas business touch at least not of late.  And the sleaze-unlikeable brush that this organization has been tainted with mostly because of Dan has also IMO hurt the brand. 

27 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

The minority owners' lawyer telling perspective buyers that Snyder will be selling soon could be damn important. That's new.

 

Other interesting thing if true is Dan's desire is to give the team to his kids

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

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

That was surprising--but that might also be in response to the legions of sexual harassment claims, but, who knows, I wouldn't put it past any over them to make up that Epstein ****.

 

That was my original thought as well, but also thought it would (should?) be...unprofessional, maybe?...to claim that Snyder will be selling soon and chalking it up to controversies coming out. If it were the other way around and Snyder was saying that to perspective buyers about the minority owners selling soon, we'd all be suspicious as hell about his motives and what he knew, when he knew it, his role in things, etc, etc. For me, though, it wouldn't simply be because it's Snyder...it would be that on it's face it seems shady no matter who is doing it, especially within the context of everything else that occurred.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Digesting the article, I don't blame the minority owners to be upset about their dividends to be withheld with no forewarning.   Dan removes them from being on the Board of Directors.  Now, they are in a back and forth spitting match.  You reap what you sow. 

 

If I were a minority owner, I'd blame Dan for the demise of this franchise as for fans, TV raitings, the whole works.  If I am a successful business guy like Fred Smith I'd eventually have some contempt for Dan.  Dan doesn't exactly have the midas business touch at least not of late.  And the sleaze-unlikeable brush that this organization has been tainted with mostly because of Dan has also IMO hurt the brand. 

 

Other interesting thing if true is Dan's desire is to give the team to his kids

 

I was hoping for more insight into those things, but instead we got this:

 

"It is unclear how much money the three limited partners were owed, why Snyder delayed payment of the dividends, or whether he notified them in advance. It is also unclear whether Snyder undertook some or all of the cost-cutting measures that Schar asked of him."

 

So for now I'm accepting that there may be more to the story than Snyder is just a dick.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

I believe we are one of, of not the, slowest growing franchise, financially. Don't quote me on that. We were #1 a few years ago, we're down to #7. I dont think the minority owners are too pleased with that.

 

This may be what you meant, but I don't think we have been #1 since the early 2000s, so it would be like 18 years ago. But like I said, that may be what you meant by "a few years ago", though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

So for now I'm accepting that there may be more to the story than Snyder is just a dick.

 

There have been stories for well over a month centered on the back and forth with the minority owners might be behind pushing some of these stories.  I think this story isn't a good one for Dan because it reveals something he specifically did to instigate the back and forth -- at least from the perspective of the minority owners.  Previously it gave the vibe that it was just a general being fed up with the dude and wanting to get the most value from selling the minority shares.  Sheehan elabtorated on this some on his show today saying Fred Smith has wanted to check out for awhile but didn't say anything about the other miniority owners. 

 

And the idea that Dan is mega jerk according to multiple people -- I find the most relevant at least to my interest.   Because reading stories about the dude doubles down to me why the culture stinks over there and they are losing franchise under him.   As for the tit for tat with the minority owners I can care less.  There has been nothing in any of those stories that have made me feel better about Dan.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

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

 

There have been stories for well over a month centered on the back and forth with the minority owners might be behind pushing some of these stories. 

 

I didn't mean that. I meant that there may be more behind the NYT reporting that Snyder (and Tanya lol) didn't tell the minority owners about delaying their dividend pay or why he had delayed it than just Snyder (and Tanya lol) is an asshole. For me it's somewhat similar to the story about how he (and Tanya lol) sued a grandmother over her backing out of her stadium seating contract. The more I read the more I realized it wasn't as simple as the "headline" charge made it out to be. I'm accepting that the same thing might be going on here as well since the article said nothing surrounding it is clear yet.

Edited by Califan007
dyst reminded me that I needed to include Tanya lol..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, dyst said:

I think we mean Dan & Tanya because everything is now Dan & Tayna and how can one hate Dan when a Tanya is attached to the end of it. It’s like all the **** he’s done is poof....gone.

 

That's the only thing he seems to have any ability to do...deflect. 

 

Racist name?? Hire a black president!

Sexual harassment and exploitation of cheerleaders?? Hire a woman VP of media!

Huge story drops about the above?? Change the name!!

Articles coming up all the time about him sucking?? Add his wife (who from all accounts is wonderful) to all press releases!!

 

He's a weasel and coward on top of being a pervert and asshole. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dissident2

Dissident2

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Add his wife (who from all accounts is wonderful) to all press releases!!

 

I mean, she's been married to this guy for how long now, through all this nonsense? I appreciate all she's done for charity, but, come on ... how truly "wonderful" could she really be? (I'm only half-joking, lol).

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FootballZombie

FootballZombie

Posted
Posted

This whole pissing contest they got going on is like punching a hole in your own ship to solve an argument. Nobody wins, everybody sinks. Snyder comes out bad for being petty and all of this has to greatly hurt the minority owner’s chances of selling, so they don’t get what they want either.

 

It feels like both sides badly miscalculated their endgame scenarios and now both are locked in a room together. Hope they like each other’s company.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I didn't mean that. I meant that there may be more behind the NYT reporting that Snyder (and Tanya lol) didn't tell the minority owners about delaying their dividend pay or why he had delayed it than just Snyder (and Tanya lol) is an asshole. For me it's somewhat similar to the story about how he (and Tanya lol) sued a grandmother over her backing out of her stadium seating contract. The more I read the more I realized it wasn't as simple as the "headline" charge made it out to be. I'm accepting that the same thing might be going on here as well since the article said nothing surrounding it is clear yet.

 

Maybe?  If I had to think of the most innocent explanation it would be Dan was worrying about COVID-19 dragging down revenue and decided to not give the dividends at the time -- and lets say there was already some tension in place with the people in play, so he passively aggressively decided to just do it without talking to them about it.  But who knows?

2 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

This whole pissing contest they got going on is like punching a hole in your own ship to solve an argument. Nobody wins, everybody sinks. Snyder comes out bad for being petty and all of this has to greatly hurt the minority owner’s chances of selling, so they don’t get what they want either.

 

 

 

It feels like both sides badly miscalculated their endgame scenarios and now both are locked in a room together. Hope they like each other’s company.

 

 

The odd downside to this for the minority owners is they look desparate to sell so that doesn't help them in a negotiation and these stories don't paint Dan as a cool guy to co-own a team with.  So its a lose lose. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JSSkinz

JSSkinz

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If I had to think of the most innocent explanation it would be Dan was worrying about COVID-19 dragging down revenue

Or it could be Dans way of saying F U to Fred Smith for having Fed Ex issue an ultimatum on the name change.

 

Dan's argument could be that the name change created or compounded the loss in revenue while having to change the name during COVID, you never know with him.

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...