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

[Spaceman Spiff]

Like I said, speak it into existence. Even if this USA Today article isn’t totally correct, Snyder has to start wondering if it’s true. And the owners can gauge whether or not canning Snyder would be a possibility. 
 

They just need to keep reporting these things even if they’re half truths and embellishments.

 

Speak it into existence. 

[Skinsinparadise]

31 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

Do you really need Jarett Bell or Florio to tell you that owners were talking about getting rid of Snyder if those allegations are true?

 

The discussion about Dan has been forever it seems about the owners probably would never move on him because of their own supposed issues being exposed at some point. The wet blanket on the Dan stories was typically this theme.  It's not happening because the owners wouldn't do it.  OK this story makes it clear its not some wild pipe dream.  It might not happen.   But its something that's really being discussed. 

 

And as for the specifics in this story.

 

A.  we got a real story about the owners counting votes to actually do the very thing many have said they wouldn't consider doing.  (that's new).

B. Nail in the coffin implies there are other things that bothered them too

C. Dissapointment from owners that he wasn't suspended for the sexual allegations (that's new)

C.  And the kicker is an actual owner is talking to the national press about it now.  (that's a new thing too) I don't recall an owner of another team talking to the press about Dan's removal.

 

Even if we want to keep it purely on the allegations of revenue sharing and that alone is what upsets them -- the fact that its being talked about now still indicates the NFL for the moment hasn't cleared Dan on this in spite of Dan's team dismissing the charge as nonsense.

 

So yeah I think this is 100% a story with some teeth versus all of this is no brainer that we all would just assume is going on with or without that report.  And even if I ran with we all knew the owners were having discussions and counting votes -- the mere fact that an actual owner went out of his way to share this with the press is a development in itself.

 

20 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Like I said, speak it into existence. Even if this USA Today article isn’t totally correct, Snyder has to start wondering if it’s true. And the owners can gauge whether or not canning Snyder would be a possibility. 
 

They just need to keep reporting these things even if they’re half truths and embellishments.

 

Speak it into existence. 

 

This story is different than the he said she said accusations from the ex-employee versus the team where you got some potential ambiguity.

 

I don't see how there is any ambiguity with this one.  This is a reputable long time national reporter (Snider talks about the reporter below, he knows him) reporting a story that an NFL owner shared with him.  The odds that the reporter lied (which likely would destroy his career) or the owner lied is pretty low.    As for whether the owners actually vote Dan out, that's a different story, who knows. 

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Spaceman Spiff]

The fact that they’ve even put it to a vote has to mean there’s a good chance that they can come up with 24 necessary votes. 
 

If it’s like Shaad Khan and whoever owns the Texans just whining, they’re not gonna open it up to a vote. But they must feel like there’s enough owners around the league who want him gone. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

This story is different than the he said she said accusations from the ex-employee versus the team where you got some potential ambiguity.

 

I don't see how there is any ambiguity with this one.  This is a reputable long time national reporter (Snider talks about the reporter below, he knows him) reporting a story that an NFL owner shared with him.  The odds that the reporter lied (which likely wouid destroy his career) or the owner lied is pretty low.    As for whether the owners actually vote Dan out, that's a different story, who knows. 

 

 

 

Totally agree. It’s way different but I’m just trying not to get my hopes up. 
 

He appears to be a credible reporter. And believe me, I want this to be true. I NEED this to be true. But the one thing that makes me raise an eyebrow ever so slightly is that he’s speaking to an

NFL owner. And that seems slightly far fetched to me. 
 

I mean, c’mon. What NFL owner is returning calls about this, even if he’s not being named?  
 

The only thing I can think is that they want to leak it to the public in order to keep applying pressure. But even so, all they need is 24 votes, it really isn’t worth talking about to a reporter. 
 

Put it this way: you’re an NFL owner and USA Today reaches out to

do a story in Dan Snyder just as you’re voting to kick him

off ownership island. Are you returning that call, even if he keeps your name

anonymous? What’s the upside?
 

 

[Bifflog]

9 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

The fact that they’ve even put it to a vote has to mean there’s a good chance that they can come up with 24 necessary votes. 
 

If it’s like Shaad Khan and whoever owns the Texans just whining, they’re not gonna open it up to a vote. But they must feel like there’s enough owners around the league who want him gone. 

 

There's a difference between taking votes, and counting votes.  You count votes so you know how the voting will go if it goes down.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

The fact that they’ve even put it to a vote has to mean there’s a good chance that they can come up with 24 necessary votes. 
 

If it’s like Shaad Khan and whoever owns the Texans just whining, they’re not gonna open it up to a vote. But they must feel like there’s enough owners around the league who want him gone. 

 

People thought for a long-time Bruce was teflon and wouldn't be removed.  Some reporters fed into that cynicism too because Bruce escaped so many things that didn't do him in and he was Dan's buddy on and on.  And then one day bam it happened.  Same thing with Vinny.    The Dan comment about in caps that the Redskins name would never be changed.

 

Regardless of what side people were on those issues, the money bet was the status quo would prevail and those who thought otherwise were naive and hoping against hope.

 

Now, Dan being removed is obviously a much bigger fish than some other changes that have happened.  And I get the instinct from some to ignore the smoke and bet on pessimism that the status quo prevails.  I get the instinct. 

 

And this isn't me saying, its going down with Dan.  Obviously I got no idea.  But the reason why that story was so interesting to me is it deflates at least one pessimistic narrative that I've read for years here and elsewhere which is the owners wouldn't even consider it and that there is no chance that they'd remove a member of that owner's club.  While that story doesn't say they will.  At a minimum that story indicates that heck yeah its on the table and that Dan isn't seen as teflon to them.   

 

To me that there is an owner who feels passionate enough about it to talk to the national press, is also IMO a good sign.  The fact that a number of owners thought Dan should be suspended for the sexual harassment stuff also a good indicator that the owners don't behind the scenes have Dan's back no matter what he does.  All of that to me at least indicates that we got a fighting chance versus it being in the category of the owners will always protect their own, even Dan.

[Skinsinparadise]

9 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Totally agree. It’s way different but I’m just trying not to get my hopes up. 
 

He appears to be a credible reporter. And believe me, I want this to be true. I NEED this to be true. But the one thing that makes me raise an eyebrow ever so slightly is that he’s speaking to an

NFL owner. And that seems slightly far fetched to me. 
 

I mean, c’mon. What NFL owner is returning calls about this, even if he’s not being named?  
 

The only thing I can think is that they want to leak it to the public in order to keep applying pressure. But even so, all they need is 24 votes, it really isn’t worth talking about to a reporter. 
 

Put it this way: you’re an NFL owner and USA Today reaches out to

do a story in Dan Snyder just as you’re voting to kick him

off ownership island. Are you returning that call, even if he keeps your name

anonymous? What’s the upside?
 

 

 

The odds that a national reporter just makes up a story that never happened -- would bring them ridicule, they'd get fired, and it would destroy their career.  Unless the USA Today reporter is a long-time Redskins/Commanders fan and will die on the sword to take down Dan -- I'd say the odds that the story is fake is maybe 1 percent tops.

 

If Dan is as hated as many have reported.  Why wouldn't an owner enjoy leveling him publicly?  I deal with the press in my business and especially if I have a good relationship with a reporter who I trust, I enjoy leveling a dude i don't like especially if I can keep my name off the record. 

Edited May 22, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[86 Snyder]

Don’t let two dum dums soil this thread.

 

Get this mother****er OUT.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Bifflog said:

 

There's a difference between taking votes, and counting votes.  You count votes so you know how the voting will go if it goes down.

Cooleyfan?  Is that you?  Obviously it doesn’t go to an official vote unless there’s 24 votes for expulsion.

[NoVaSkins21]

The article is another reason for hope, but I will believe it when I see it.  We've been down this road way too many times before only to be fooled and let down.

[TK]

No pay wall

Owner quotes in red

 

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/daniel-snyders-issues-forcing-other-203900093.html?guccounter=1

 

Daniel Snyder's issues force other NFL owners to mull drastic options: 'We are counting votes'

Jarrett Bell, USA TODAY

Sat, May 21, 2022, 6:13 PM

 

 

ATLANTA – Daniel Snyder isn’t officially on the agenda for the NFL meetings this week.

 

Unofficially, the controversial Washington Commanders owner – under investigation from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Virginia attorney general after allegations of financial improprieties were revealed in a Congressional committee probe – is very much on the minds of some fellow NFL owners who would go as far as trying to force Snyder from their ranks.

 

“There’s growing frustration about the Washington situation and not over one issue, but over how much smoke there is,” an NFL team owner told USA TODAY Sports under the condition of anonymity. The owner did not want to be identified due to the sensitive nature of the matter.

 

“I think everybody’s getting tired of it.”

 

Snyder has denied any wrongdoing in the latest controversy. He won’t be at the owners meetings that begin on Monday in Atlanta, and last year relinquished “day-to-day control” of his franchise to his wife, Tanya, after some details of a toxic workplace culture that included sexual harassment were exposed.

 

One of the stunning allegations that surfaced in early April maintained that Snyder’s franchise used two sets of accounting systems, conceivably to shield money from other NFL owners with whom Snyder is connected as part of league-wide revenue-sharing.

 

“If that happened, I think that’s the nail in the coffin,” another NFL team owner told USA TODAY Sports under the condition of anonymity. The owner did not want to be identified, due to the sensitive nature of the matter.

 

It’s unclear exactly how many team owners would push for action against Snyder. A third team owner responded to an interview request by indicating that he would wait until the pending investigations were resolved. Several other owners declined or didn’t respond to interview requests.

 

A fourth team owner, speaking under the condition of anonymity, told USA TODAY Sports that the brewing anti-Snyder movement is significant – and was before the latest allegations surfaced. The owner, who requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the matter, described a session during the last league meeting in late March in Palm Beach, Florida, that included commissioner Roger Goodell and owners, when several owners openly expressed their angst.

 

“We are counting votes,” the team owner told USA TODAY Sports.

 

By “counting votes,” the message is clear: Some would support an ouster forcing Snyder to sell his franchise for what would likely be a record amount. It would take 24 votes – three-fourths of the NFL’s ownership membership – to pass a measure to oust Snyder from the club.

 

Of course, it’s premature for such a drastic measure as the investigations, fueled by a whistleblower who previously worked for the franchise, are ongoing.

 

By the same token, it’s significant that fellow owners are weighing options.

 

“For the first time, there’s been chatter,” the second team owner told USA TODAY Sports. “We should really think about doing something if they find something there.”

 

The momentum building within the NFL ownership ranks underscoring disgust with Snyder comes against a backdrop of criticism (well-deserved) that suggests NFL owners are not fully policed by Goodell for various transgressions in the same manner in which he drops the hammer on players.

 

Snyder’s series of episodes not only cast Goodell in negative light (again) as he inexplicably didn’t demand a detailed written report (a la Deflategate or the Miami Dolphins bullying saga) but settled for an oral report for the Beth Wilkinson-led investigation into the workplace culture issues with Snyder’s franchise.

 

According to two owners, the lack of a written report that would have ensured better transparency was one of the concerns vehemently raised by owners to Goodell during the meetings in March.

 

“We don’t know what’s going on in Washington,” one of the owners said. “There’s a lot of frustration with that. My instincts are that there will be a harder push for more information.”

 

At the very least, the first owner contended, Snyder should have received much harsher discipline from Goodell after the NFL “investigation” in 2021 confirmed toxic workplace improprieties that existed for more than a decade. Last July, Goodell fined Snyder $10 million, and rather than officially suspend the owner (which once derailed then-San Francisco 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo Jr.), the league and Snyder agreed to an arrangement that allowed the owner to give up “day-to-day control” while remaining engaged in efforts to strike a deal for a new stadium.

 

Interestingly, Washington coach Ron Rivera acknowledged last season that he speaks regularly to the owner. No, the lax conditions or the “non-suspension” and slight fine amount have not gone over well with at least some fellow NFL owners.

 

“There’s a feeling, a sense of disappointment amongst the owners that I talk to – I don’t talk to them all, but owners who come to the meetings and are active – that he wasn’t suspended,” the team owner told USA TODAY Sports. “Disappointment that Roger did not act stronger.”

 

And if the allegations of financial improprieties hold up?

 

“Certainly, that would be a major, major issue,” the team owner replied.

 

It’s rare that an NFL owner – or the owner of any pro sports franchise – is forced to sell.

 

In 1997, DeBartolo was forced to turn over his stake in the 49ers to his sister, Denise DeBartolo York, after he pleaded guilty to failing to report a felony that involved him paying former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards $400,000 for a riverboat gambling casino license.

 

In 2014, Donald Sterling was banned for life by the NBA after secretly recorded racist comments by the then-Los Angeles Clippers owner were released – prompting several NBA stars to threaten to boycott the playoffs. The franchise was soon sold by Sterling’s estranged wife.

 

After details of workplace misconduct surfaced in December 2017 that directly implicated Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, the franchise was quickly put on the market and sold for a then-NFL record $2.2 billion. The decision to sell never involved any formalized measures from fellow NFL owners. Richardson, who owned about half of the franchise that he founded in 1993 for $206 million, earned more than $1 billion after the sale to current owner David Tepper.

 

Perhaps Snyder could be similarly motivated by money and voluntarily sell out of the NFL. Snyder was the lead partner in a franchise that sold for a then-record $800 million in 1999. Now, the team is rated the fifth-most valuable in the NFL, according to Forbes, with a valuation in 2021 at $4.2 billion. With the Denver Broncos currently on the market and expected to fetch at least $4.5 billion, an industry analyst suggested that the sale price for Washington would be staggering, in excess of $6 billion.

Then again, Snyder hardly seems like the type who would voluntarily give up a franchise set up to be ultimately passed on to he and Tanya’s three children.

 

No, Snyder would have to go away while kicking and screaming. Remember, this is the same man who refused to budge on changing the racist team name, which insulted many Native Americans, until team sponsors demanded otherwise.

 

Part of the argument in the anti-Snyder camp among NFL owners is that the once-proud, signature NFL franchise has become a national embarrassment while existing in one of the league’s most desirable markets.

 

“I don’t know if he did these things they’re alleging now,” one of the owners said. “But I do know that no one in that market likes the guy.”

 

As one of the other owners put it, “There are some owners who believe the league will be better off with a different owner in Washington. At one time, it was one of the best franchises in the NFL.”

 

Not anymore. It’s a franchise trying to restore its reputation on and off the field – led by an owner trying to keep from getting crushed by the walls that are closing in on him.

[Bifflog]

12 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

Cooleyfan?  Is that you?  Obviously it doesn’t go to an official vote unless there’s 24 votes for expulsion.

 

So it only goes to an official vote once it's a foregone conclusion?  So, they couldn't vote NOT to kick him out?  Didn't figure that would be how it works, but I'm no expert to the inner workings of the NFL.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

The media does a lot of things.  But this guy is not going to risk his career to make up lies about Dan Snyder.  The motive behind these owners speaking anonymously to the press isn’t clear, but rest assured somebody is talking.  This isn’t the type of story to make a guys career, it makes no sense to lie.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2022 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[86 Snyder]

9 hours ago, Bifflog said:

 

So it only goes to an official vote once it's a foregone conclusion?  So, they couldn't vote NOT to kick him out?  Didn't figure that would be how it works, but I'm no expert to the inner workings of the NFL.

Come on man, this isn’t Succession.  They find out if they have 24 votes and if they do they move to officially vote and it goes 31-0.  There’s no universe where the owners convene for an official vote and he keeps the team.

 

If there truly are 4 owners speaking out it’s an earth-shattering development.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2022 by 86 Snyder

[Bifflog]

7 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

Come one man, this isn’t Succession.  They find out if they have 24 votes and if they do they move to officially vote.  There’s no universe where the owners convene for an official vote and he keeps the team.

 

If there truly are 4 owners speaking out it’s an earth-shattering development.

 

Fair enough, hope so.

 

 

[Thinking Skins]

What gets me about this is there are definitely more stories. Whether it's sexual harassment, or finance or intimidation or whatever, we know that there's stuff on him.

 

What this story is telling me is

1. They're counting votes.

2. They don't have enough votes right now. If they did, he's be out. 

3. As more stories come out, more votes are likely going to vote to remove him, it's unlikely to go down. 

 

So I'm seeing this and not getting my hopes up. But knowing that we have the worst other in football and a horrible human being as an owner, I don't doubt that the next straw will fall soon, then another, then another. How many before it breaks backs? Who knows. But I'm definitely looking for the light at the end of the tunnel right now.

 

 

 

 

 

[86 Snyder]

1 minute ago, Thinking Skins said:

What gets me about this is there are definitely more stories. Whether it's sexual harassment, or finance or intimidation or whatever, we know that there's stuff on him.

 

What this story is telling me is

1. They're counting votes.

2. They don't have enough votes right now. If they did, he's be out. 

3. As more stories come out, more votes are likely going to vote to remove him, it's unlikely to go down. 

 

So I'm seeing this and not getting my hopes up. But knowing that we have the worst other in football and a horrible human being as an owner, I don't doubt that the next straw will fall soon, then another, then another. How many before it breaks backs? Who knows. But I'm definitely looking for the light at the end of the tunnel right now.

 

 

 

 

 

It also depends which owners want him out.  If it’s someone like Mike Brown, no one gives a ****.  If it’s guys like Rooney you got a different story.  Just depends on what type of clout the leaders of the charge have because they can start leaning and requiring favors.  
 

The Mary Jo White report is huge and I suspect the fact we are hearing about this prior to it being resolved publicly indicates it’s going to implicate him directly in a very negative light.  The inner circle of owners probably have heard rumblings about the results and they are starting to go about their business of circling the wagons in advance.  By the time the story drops, he may already be a dead man walking.

 

This kinda stuff doesn’t hit the media unless they are really, really close, if not already there.

[Thinking Skins]

5 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

It also depends which owners want him out.  If it’s someone like Mike Brown, no one gives a ****.  If it’s guys like Rooney you got a different story.  Just depends on what type of clout the leaders of the charge have because they can start leaning and requiring favors.  
 

The Mary Jo White report is huge and I suspect the fact we are hearing about this prior to it being resolved publicly indicates it’s going to implicate him directly in a very negative light.  The inner circle of owners probably have heard rumblings about the results and they are starting to go about their business of circling the wagons in advance.  By the time the story drops, he may already be a dead man walking.

 

This kinda stuff doesn’t hit the media unless they are really, really close, if not already there.

Shucks. I pressed send too soon. 

 

What I wanted to say was

4. There is a reason this person went to the press. They're trying to rally the votes. This wasn't to us, it was to other owners. They're saying that we need you. 

 

My guess is that the big names aren't on board. It's probably a few of the smaller markets who are losing money from the two books and who hate the sexual harassment things and what he's done to this market. But the question is out there, how long can you wait on the sidelines? 

 

Now if Snyder is clean for the next 30 years, then this is nothing. But if another story comes out this year. And another next year, and another, especially if they're unrelated, then there's going to be a lot of pressure. 

 

Like. This opens the doors for reporters to ask questions at owners meetings about Dan's status. Imagine a story breaking before the next meeting so that that's what all the gossip is about. You think they'll want to only answer questions on the new overtime rules or kickoff rules. Nah, this is open season on Dan and he's on his last legs unless by some miracle he flies right for the rest of his life. 

[86 Snyder]

2 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Shucks. I pressed send too soon. 

 

What I wanted to say was

4. There is a reason this person went to the press. They're trying to rally the votes. This wasn't to us, it was to other owners. They're saying that we need you. 

 

My guess is that the big names aren't on board. It's probably a few of the smaller markets who are losing money from the two books and who hate the sexual harassment things and what he's done to this market. But the question is out there, how long can you wait on the sidelines? 

 

Now if Snyder is clean for the next 30 years, then this is nothing. But if another story comes out this year. And another next year, and another, especially if they're unrelated, then there's going to be a lot of pressure. 

 

Like. This opens the doors for reporters to ask questions at owners meetings about Dan's status. Imagine a story breaking before the next meeting so that that's what all the gossip is about. You think they'll want to only answer questions on the new overtime rules or kickoff rules. Nah, this is open season on Dan and he's on his last legs unless by some miracle he flies right for the rest of his life. 

I agree with the gist of your last two posts.  An interesting dynamic is whether Mara and Jerruh are involved.  Obviously they are two of the whales but they also have a self-interested reason to retain Snyder.  His existence improves their chances of winning significantly so if they were to be on board with his removal, or to take it a step further, vocal about it, I think speaks volumes.

 

 

[Peregrine]

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.

[FLSkinz83]

Can they vote him out just on allegations or because he's bad for business?         

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, 86 Snyder said:

The Mary Jo White report

The Mary Jo White report is going to say exactly what the NFL wants it to say to justify whatever they want as the outcome.

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 minute ago, FLSkinz83 said:

Can they vote him out just on allegations or because he's bad for business?         

I had a civics teacher in HS who asked the question, “so what is an impeachable offense?”

 

The answer was “whatever the majority of the house says it is!” (This is true because the constitution doesn’t specify, it leaves it intentionally vague)

 

Arnold Goldsmith, great teacher.

 

Same is true here.  What is the criteria to vote a guy out? Whatever the other owners say it is.  If they don’t like the rules, they can always change them.  

 

My guess is, there are a group who are ready to move now.  
 

Then there is a group who have enough skeletons in their closet that they REALLY don’t want to open this door. (I think Jerry would fall into that category)

 

Then there is a group who doesn’t really care, and would just go along with whatever the rest decide.

 

The key is to get enough owners in the first group to sway the “we don’t care” group j to action.  
 

I think it takes half, but within that group has to be some influential ones like Kraft, Rooney, Mara, the folks who own the Chiefs (I can never remember their names), etc.  

 

If you get 10 of the real power-broker owners behind it, the vacuum will just suck the rest along.

 

Nobody is going to stand up and defend Dan.  It’s just a matter of getting enough momentum. 

[88Comrade2000]

Keep on dreaming because that’s all it’s going to be. I won’t believe it until until the team is actually sold and new owner approved.

[Mrshadow008]

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I had a civics teacher in HS who asked the question, “so what is an impeachable offense?”

 

The answer was “whatever the majority of the house says it is!” (This is true because the constitution doesn’t specify, it leaves it intentionally vague)

 

Arnold Goldsmith, great teacher.

 

Same is true here.  What is the criteria to vote a guy out? Whatever the other owners say it is.  If they don’t like the rules, they can always change them.  

 

My guess is, there are a group who are ready to move now.  
 

Then there is a group who have enough skeletons in their closet that they REALLY don’t want to open this door. (I think Jerry would fall into that category)

 

Then there is a group who doesn’t really care, and would just go along with whatever the rest decide.

 

The key is to get enough owners in the first group to sway the “we don’t care” group j to action.  
 

I think it takes half, but within that group has to be some influential ones like Kraft, Rooney, Mara, the folks who own the Chiefs (I can never remember their names), etc.  

 

If you get 10 of the real power-broker owners behind it, the vacuum will just suck the rest along.

 

Nobody is going to stand up and defend Dan.  It’s just a matter of getting enough momentum. 

I cannot for the life of me remember where it was reported but wasnt there a report a while back of Jerry actually wanting to move on from Dan because of how bad the Washington market has gotten? With Jerruh nothing is more important than that $ sign. Id imagine The struggles the Washington market are having is actually likely costing the league a lot of money. Think about it like this DC by itself is the 9th largest market in the league. Adding Richmond and Norfolk to that which should be large Washington areas pushes that all the way up to 3rd. That doesnt even include the parts of maryland, wv, and northern NC that should be largely pro Washington. Washington was the 4th most valuable franchise in the entire world in 2011. As of March they are 19th in the world. The cowboys are the most valuable franchise in the entire world right now. For comparisons sakes in 2011 Dallas was worth 1.81 billion to our 1.55 billion (2nd and 4th) . As of March Dallas is worth 5.7 billion to our 3.5 Billion. Now is part of that the new stadium in Dallas? Sure of course but its hardly all of it. I wish I could remember where I saw that report about Jerry wanting Dan gone. 

[Conn]

3 hours ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

Do you really need Jarett Bell or Florio to tell you that owners were talking about getting rid of Snyder if those allegations are true?

What exactly is your agenda on this board? You’re a suspicious presence in any thread that mentions Snyder, it’s bizarre. Feels like reading posts from 2006.