Do you think Dan Snyder is broke?

[FootballZombie]

15 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

It seems there is enough money available to sign Terry. So that question of liquidity is answered. 

 

w/ enough left over to visit other countries and sail around the world on a mega yacht.

[Warhead36]

He's not liquid. His net worth largely comes from this football team which is probably one of the least profitable in the league now. And then he's got all these law suits and what not which comes with lawyer fees, etc.

 

He's still a 1% er though. He won't be starving anytime soon.

[Redskins Diehard]

7 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

He's not liquid. His net worth largely comes from this football team which is probably one of the least profitable in the league now. And then he's got all these law suits and what not which comes with lawyer fees, etc.

 

He's still a 1% er though. He won't be starving anytime soon.

But liquid enough to extend Terry. Which the board appeared to be unsure of. As far as the franchise? Forbes has them valued at number 5. And operating income at #6.  Not sure what you base your "probably" on. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

4 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

But liquid enough to extend Terry. Which the board appeared to be unsure of

The question isn’t whether or not he could access the funds to pay Terry, because of course he can.  It’s about whether his lack of liquidity impacted the timeline of making it happen.  I’m rather confident that Dan’s net worth pales in comparison to most other NFL owners.  Failed business ventures, declining revenue, lawsuits, investigations, dropped sponsors, rebranding, needing to get a stadium funded soon, buying out the minority owners, a depreciating mega yacht….none of this stuff is cheap.  The cost of funds for him to free up cash is only going up.  

[Redskins Diehard]

14 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

The question isn’t whether or not he could access the funds to pay Terry, because of course he can.  It’s about whether his lack of liquidity impacted the timeline of making it happen.  I’m rather confident that Dan’s net worth pales in comparison to most other NFL owners.  Failed business ventures, declining revenue, lawsuits, investigations, dropped sponsors, rebranding, needing to get a stadium funded soon, buying out the minority owners, a depreciating mega yacht….none of this stuff is cheap.  The cost of funds for him to free up cash is only going up.  

Then the question was a stupid question.  Just like the question that serves as the title of thread. 

 

Finances of ultra wealthy people and NFL franchises are 2 things that few people on this board actually understand. I don't understand how it works and don't claim to. But with revenue sharing of just about everything related to the NFL(tv, tickets, merchandise) there isn't a whole lot that differentiates one franchise from the other. Stadium situation and premium seats are about the 2 biggest. This isn't MLB

[goskins10]

13 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

The question isn’t whether or not he could access the funds to pay Terry, because of course he can.  It’s about whether his lack of liquidity impacted the timeline of making it happen.  I’m rather confident that Dan’s net worth pales in comparison to most other NFL owners.  Failed business ventures, declining revenue, lawsuits, investigations, dropped sponsors, rebranding, needing to get a stadium funded soon, buying out the minority owners, a depreciating mega yacht….none of this stuff is cheap.  The cost of funds for him to free up cash is only going up.  

 

I will not wade into this again too deep as it's kind of moot conversation but the bolded is just not true - here the list of the top 15 richest owners in net worth. Dan is 11th at $4B. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfls-richest-owners-revealed-cowboys-rams-and-panthers-top-list-of-15-wealthiest-for-2022/  

 

Dan Snyder is the biggest piece of **** as an owner and as a human being as there is in sports. It's not really even close. But he is not broke. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Then the question was a stupid question.  Just like the question that serves as the title of thread. 

 

Finances of ultra wealthy people and NFL franchises are 2 things that few people on this board actually understand. I don't understand how it works and don't claim to. But with revenue sharing of just about everything related to the NFL(tv, tickets, merchandise) there isn't a whole lot that differentiates one franchise from the other. Stadium situation and premium seats are about the 2 biggest. This isn't MLB

So you don't understand it, but you can confidently speak on it.  To the point you can determine that "few people on this board actually understand", because you know so much about everyone here, what they do for a living, and that you know more than them, even though you admit you don't understand it.  

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

I will not wade into this again too deep as it's kind of moot conversation but the bolded is just not true - here the list of the top 15 richest owners in net worth. Dan is 11th at $4B. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfls-richest-owners-revealed-cowboys-rams-and-panthers-top-list-of-15-wealthiest-for-2022/  

 

Dan Snyder is the biggest piece of **** as an owner and as a human being as there is in sports. It's not really even close. But he is not broke. 

I can say with confidence that the net worth you find on the internet, about practically anyone - from social media influencers to NFL owners, is not accurate.  Forbes hasn't seen the books for any of these guys, they base this on valuations of the assets - which obviously any NFL owner is going to have a huge asset in the franchise - but they have zero idea what the liabilities look like.

 

Who said he was broke?  I've not seen anyone claim he's broke, about to go bankrupt, or even remotely close to that.  Just that his situation is much different than his peers for a variety of reasons that are well publicized.

Edited June 29, 2022 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

The question isn’t whether or not he could access the funds to pay Terry, because of course he can.  It’s about whether his lack of liquidity impacted the timeline of making it happen.  

 

 

A.  IMO it's no coincidence that Dan typically makes his big resigns in the summer versus first thing in the off season. 

 

Either its that he's closer at that juncture on getting his NFL money.  Per Lombardi's point.  Or wants to hold on to his money to make interest off of it.  Per Breer's point.

 

Tough for me to believe that Thomas, Allen, Trent, Kerrigan, now Terry contracts were punted to the summer for just random reasons.  Heck even their biggest offer to Kirk didn't happen until the summer.  Is it that Dan is just a summer dude who gets off about reading about these contracts from his Yacht in Cannes? 

 

B.  For that same reason why he didn't sign Terry early in the off season is the same reason why I thought they would sign Terry this summer.  It would fit the script perfectly.   I said so from the jump.  Among other things for a team bleeding fans, they couldn't afford to lose Terry.  And the summer is when Dan does these things for reasons that national observers have stated.

 

Some see this as a personal slam at Dan -- a shot just to take a shot. Yeah Dan is a douche but its not personal on this point its about his liquidity.  And he's not alone on that front among owners.  Multiple cap expert types speculated for example that the Rams could make all these deals in FA and extend their own with the timing they do it because of Kroencke's liquidity. 

 

Some here seem to think Dan enjoys similar liquidity enough to stagger deal after deal the same way in the off season but Rivera simply chooses not to exploit Dan's wealth in that fashion and prefers a different approach to off season team building.  Personally i don't think so.   I do think Ron doesn't want to overspend and prefers to manage the cap with an eye to the future.  But I suspect he would enjoy being at least a little more aggressive than they have been.   

 

Some turn this into an all or nothing debate.  It's not.  How many people's finances are all or nothing? 

 

Ron said from the jump of the off season not now but later when it comes to Terry's negotiation.  Heck there was an article as recent as 2 weeks ago where Ron more or less said they started negotiating in earnest a week ago.    Terry sat out minicamp I doubt because the thought the negotiation was going great.

 

As far as Dan's net worth, he might be fine compared to other owners but that clearly looks like that's based on the worth of his team.  Some other owners for certain have more cooking for them than just the value of their NFL team.  Dan has been by most reports a train wreck with his outside business ventures -- not all of them but most.  And his biggest asset by a mile is a fixed cost.   If your net worth is mostly about the value of your home, that's cool, but you still have to sell your home to reap that money. 

 

As I've said before if he was brimming with cash, why all the angst about 300 million dollars from Virginia for a stadium?  Fedex has been a train wreck.  They've lost out on opportunities to host the World Cup among other things.  It seems like their built in excuse for why fans don't go to games is the stadium.    The stadium is a code red problem.

 

If he's plenty liquid, why would he let 300 million derail digging out of arguably the biggest hole he has as an owner which is that decaying awful stadium?  Some would say that's because he has to pony up a ton of money already in all likelihood for the stadium.  Yeah I agree with that but my point on that front is his liquidity is likely stretched now more than ever considering his loan and the fact that he is poised to have to pay a lot out of pocket for the stadium. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Mrshadow008]

52 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

So you don't understand it, but you can confidently speak on it.  To the point you can determine that "few people on this board actually understand", because you know so much about everyone here, what they do for a living, and that you know more than them, even though you admit you don't understand it.  

 

I can say with confidence that the net worth you find on the internet, about practically anyone - from social media influencers to NFL owners, is not accurate.  Forbes hasn't seen the books for any of these guys, they base this on valuations of the assets - which obviously any NFL owner is going to have a huge asset in the franchise - but they have zero idea what the liabilities look like.

 

Who said he was broke?  I've not seen anyone claim he's broke, about to go bankrupt, or even remotely close to that.  Just that his situation is much different than his peers for a variety of reasons that are well publicized.

The bottom point is the most important to this discussion. People have asked why we cant do what the Rams do. Kroenke not only owns the Rams but also the denver nuggets, colorado avalanche, colorado rapids, and Arsenal in the English premier league. So kroenke has access to money coming in from 2 of the top 40 most valuable sports franchises in the world, 3 other pro sports teams, and the walmart fortune through his wife. Daniel Snyders only source of major income right now is this football team the reason one can seem to do certain things and another cant should be fairly obvious

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, Mrshadow008 said:

The bottom point is the most important to this discussion. People have asked why we cant do what the Rams do. Kroenke not only owns the Rams but also the denver nuggets, colorado avalanche, colorado rapids, and Arsenal in the English premier league. So kroenke has access to money coming in from 2 of the top 40 most valuable sports franchises in the world, 3 other pro sports teams, and the walmart fortune through his wife. Daniel Snyders only source of major income right now is this football team the reason one can seem to do certain things and another cant should be fairly obvious

So in other words, Kroenke has several other budding businesses and from all we know - Dan's only profitable venture is via the football team.  A football team that costs him more to operate that many of his peers due to loss of revenues and sponsors, legal fees, other failed business ventures, fines, name change/rebrand, finding a stadium/land, and add on whatever other liabilities most other owners aren't dealing with currently.  

 

Nobody is saying Dan is broke or had no access to get Terry's money, just that it's more difficult for him than it is many others.

[Mrshadow008]

24 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

A.  IMO it's no coincidence that Dan typically makes his big resigns in the summer versus first thing in the off season. 

 

Either its that he's closer at that juncture on getting his NFL money.  Per Lombardi's point.  Or wants to hold on to his money to make interest off of it.  Per Breer's point.

 

Tough for me to believe that Thomas, Allen, Trent, Kerrigan, now Terry contracts were punted to the summer for just random reasons.  Heck even their biggest offer to Kirk didn't happen until the summer.  Is it that Dan is just a summer dude who gets off about reading about these contracts from his Yacht in Cannes? 

 

B.  For that same reason why he didn't sign Terry early in the off season is the same reason why I thought they would sign Terry this summer.  It would fit the script perfectly.   I said so from the jump.  Among other things for a team bleeding fans, they couldn't afford to lose Terry.  And the summer is when Dan does these things for reasons that national observers have stated.

 

Some see this as a personal slam at Dan -- a shot just to take a shot. Yeah Dan is a douche but its not personal on this point its about his liquidity.  And he's not alone on that front among owners.  Multiple cap expert types speculated for example that the Rams could make all these deals in FA and extend their own with the timing they do it because of Kroencke's liquidity. 

 

Some here seem to think Dan enjoys similar liquidity enough to stagger deal after deal the same way in the off season but Rivera simply chooses not to exploit Dan's wealth in that fashion and prefers a different approach to off season team building.  Personally i don't think so.   I do think Ron doesn't want to overspend and prefers to manage the cap with an eye to the future.  But I suspect he would enjoy being at least a little more aggressive than they have been.   

 

Some turn this into an all or nothing debate.  It's not.  How many people's finances are all or nothing? 

 

Ron said from the jump of the off season not now but later when it comes to Terry's negotiation.  Heck there was an article as recent as 2 weeks ago where Ron more or less said they started negotiating in earnest a week ago.    Terry sat out minicamp I doubt because the thought the negotiation was going great.

 

As far as Dan's net worth, he might be fine compared to other owners but that clearly looks like that's based on the worth of his team.  Some other owners for certain have more cooking for them than just the value of their NFL team.  Dan has been by most reports a train wreck with his outside business ventures -- not all of them but most.  And his biggest asset by a mile is a fixed cost.   If your net worth is mostly about the value of your home, that's cool, but you still have to sell your home to reap that money. 

 

As I've said before if he was brimming with cash, why all the angst about 300 million dollars from Virginia for a stadium?  Fedex has been a train wreck.  They've lost out on opportunities to host the World Cup among other things.  It seems like their built in excuse for why fans don't go to games is the stadium.    The stadium is a code red problem.

 

If he's plenty liquid, why would he let 300 million derail digging out of arguably the biggest hole he has as an owner which is that decaying awful stadium?  Some would say that's because he has to pony up a ton of money already in all likelihood for the stadium.  Yeah I agree with that but my point on that front is his liquidity is likely stretched now more than ever considering his loan and the fact that he is poised to have to pay a lot out of pocket for the stadium. 

Not trying to delve to far into the stadium news front but i think its relevant to this discussion. I think he ends up in VA money from the state or not. He doesnt just want that mini city thats been reported. He NEEDS it. He needs those real estate $. Hes not going to get that in MD with PG county already committing to redevelop the area around the stadium with parks and such. Dan cant afford for that to happen. VA is likely the better financial play in the long run regardless of the extra cost of land and no tax $

4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

So in other words, Kroenke has several other budding businesses and from all we know - Dan's only profitable venture is via the football team.  A football team that costs him more to operate that many of his peers due to loss of revenues and sponsors, legal fees, other failed business ventures, fines, name change/rebrand, finding a stadium/land, and add on whatever other liabilities most other owners aren't dealing with currently.  

 

Nobody is saying Dan is broke or had no access to get Terry's money, just that it's more difficult for him than it is many others.

That's exactly it. He also just had to do an entire rebrand which cost him a ton of money. 1) having to pay for a rebrand of this magnitude isnt cheap 2) typically with these types of rebrands its normal to lose revenue in the process

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

 

 

I can say with confidence that the net worth you find on the internet, about practically anyone - from social media influencers to NFL owners, is not accurate.  Forbes hasn't seen the books for any of these guys, they base this on valuations of the assets - which obviously any NFL owner is going to have a huge asset in the franchise - but they have zero idea what the liabilities look like.

 

Who said he was broke?  I've not seen anyone claim he's broke, about to go bankrupt, or even remotely close to that.  Just that his situation is much different than his peers for a variety of reasons that are well publicized.

 

I have seen several different sources that have dan in the 14 to 10 spot. They all made it up and inflated his income? Why would they do that. makes no sense. Again, he is a loathsome total POS as an owner and a person but there is no rational data to prove he has any cash issues.

 

And the title of thread literally asks do you think Dan is "broke." 🙂  

 

I remember why I backed out of this thread before. Some are really invested in him having money problems despite all the factual information indicating otherwise. Now we are down to all the sources that show him with top middle third net wealth, despite it being in line with what's been reported every year for the last 20+, is now somehow flawed. I will bow back out. Should have learned the first time. LOL  

 

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by goskins10

[CommanderInTheRye]

Dan Snyder is most certainly not liquid!

 

He is another state of matter entirely.

 

He is a gas. A foul smelling gas that expands to fill any void with its stench.

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

12 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

I have seen several different sources that have dan in the 14 to 10 spot. They all made it up and inflated his income? Why would they do that. makes no sense. Again, he is a loathsome total POS as an owner and a person but there is no rational data to prove he has any cash issues.

Again, nobody - not Forbes, CBS, Bloomberg, etc. know what Dan or any of these folks finances actually looks like.  They base these things on assets with generally zero idea what the liabilities look like.  The closest to knowing what his situation really looks like would be the IRS and his auditors.

 

12 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

I remember why I backed out of this thread before. Some are really invested in him having money problems despite all the factual information indicating otherwise. Now we are down to all the sources that show him with top middle third net wealth, despite it being in line with what's been reported every year for the last 20+, is now somehow flawed. I will bow back out. Should have learned the first time. LOL  

I know you're a smart guy, I would think you would easily understand that the Forbes list means absolutely nothing more than how many assets a person has.  Which is why I'm not sure why you are so invested in him 'not having money problems' by citing this stuff as gospel.  There are numerous examples provided by people that are versed in the finances of the wealthy that point to why his situation is likely different than many of his peers.  That doesn't make him broke or incapable of accessing cash, but it doesn't mean that his financial strategy doesn't impact football operations for the team.

Edited June 29, 2022 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[SkinsFTW]

4 minutes ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

He is a gas. A foul smelling gas that expands to fill any void with its stench.

 

 

 

Well it's a good thing that he's hanging out in France. I don't think they use deodorant over there anyway. 

[Mrshadow008]

21 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I have seen several different sources that have dan in the 14 to 10 spot. They all made it up and inflated his income? Why would they do that. makes no sense. Again, he is a loathsome total POS as an owner and a person but there is no rational data to prove he has any cash issues.

 

And the title of thread literally asks do you think Dan is "broke." 🙂  

 

I remember why I backed out of this thread before. Some are really invested in him having money problems despite all the factual information indicating otherwise. Now we are down to all the sources that show him with top middle third net wealth, despite it being in line with what's been reported every year for the last 20+, is now somehow flawed. I will bow back out. Should have learned the first time. LOL  

 

 

 

 

So here’s the thing you don’t seem to be understanding it’s not just about net worth. Take Gayle benson whose net worth is 3.8 billion. Her net worth is less than Dans correct? But she also has two sources of revenue to pull from in the Pelicans and the Saints aka more liquid cash. This is true for a lot of other owners. They have multiple other revenue streams regardless of net worth. Jimmy Haslam for example also owns the Columbus crew and pilot flying j. You think Jimmy Haslam has less liquid cash than Daniel Snyder?

[Skinsinparadise]

I'll leave it alone after this post.  At least for awhile.   And my point isn't personal of course whether its to any poster or even for that matter Dan. To each their own as to the argument.  So its all in good spirits except of course to Dan. 😀

 

I can't stand Dan but none of that is coloring my take here.  None of this has anything to do with me disliking Dan.  it's about digesting the narratives about Dan on this subject and my experience working for plenty of rich folks.  Many of them like to run for office.  They by law have to declare their net worth and even have to disclose the assets/items that make up their net worth right down to the specific stocks they own among other things.  And yes there is a difference, often a major one between asset rich net worth people versus liquid ones.  

 

As far as the primarily asset rich ones, in my experience those assets are often tied into real estate investments.  And these people often don't want to sell them or at a minimum they want to time the market to sell versus just liquidiate in a flash.  It's not because they can't do it.  It's not because they aren't rich.  It's because of how those assets are tied up and timing means everything in those cases.  it also takes time to liquidate certain assets. 
  

Dan is obviously not broke, I don't think a soul would argue otherwise.  All he has to do is sell the team and he would reap a fortune.   As I've said before the thread is set up with a ridiculous premise with an all or nothing no-lose premise to I gather defend Dan's liquidity.  

 

It's like me saying Dan is stupid.  And someone posts a thread with the premise is Dan literally a moron -- IQ of 50?  Then its debated.  Oh, OK, he's not technically a moron so maybe he's not stupid? 😀

 

Several national sources have speculated about Dan's liquidity.  So have some locals.  Some of these people are rarely wrong.  It's not a wild outlier left field position that some on this thread are putting out here on an island.

 

But if i had to pick one reason and one reason alone why I am feisty about this argument is I have a hard time seeing how this point seems wild to some.  i can see people thinking A (from the points below) -- even though i don't.  But both A & B?  to me that's hard logic for me to agree with but to each their own. 

 

A.  I think it takes some imagination to believe that Dan has wanted to spend like Kroencke but its been Bruce and now Rivera putting the breaks on it.  And the timing of these contracts are pure coincidence, too?  And to that point, Breer is wrong about Dan likely purposely wanting to wait for the summer to spend for financial reasons.  And Lombardi is full of crap when he said working for owners he's seen that when the cash infusions come from the NFL has effected the behavior of how owners behave in their off season moves.  And to me the kicker is this, Dan who is notorious for interferring with the decisions of his FO -- but this is where it stops -- Dan does care about who they should draft or trade for but the when and where of how he spends major money that he doesn't give a rats behind about -- on that Bruce or Ron you tell me the when or what and I'll write the check?

 

B.  And I'll ride with all of that being a coincidence and all of these people are wrong for arguments sake.  But still here is the kicker.  For a dude who just took out a crazy big loan and might have to pay out depending on the report 1.2 to 2 million out of pocket for a stadium -- even that doesn't change Dan's finances?  I get we are talking about a bigger scale but if you had to shell for an expense that's 50% give or take of your net worth and you have the largest loan out that you ever had to take and you had both dynamics cooking at the same time -- that wouldn't impact your liquidity one whit?  That's the part of the argument that gets me a bit feisty because i have a hard time following how this dynamic is just shrug off? 

 

And if none of that type of money affects your bottom line in any fundamental wise, why give a rats behind about 300 million from Virginia?

Edited June 29, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Mrshadow008 said:

Not trying to delve to far into the stadium news front but i think its relevant to this discussion. I think he ends up in VA money from the state or not. He doesnt just want that mini city thats been reported. He NEEDS it. He needs those real estate $. Hes not going to get that in MD with PG county already committing to redevelop the area around the stadium with parks and such. Dan cant afford for that to happen. VA is likely the better financial play in the long run regardless of the extra cost of land and no tax $

 

I agree.  I think he will have no choice and ultimately suck it up and do it.    I wonder if the NFL will care about 2 points related to this though.

 

A.  i presume Dan would have to financne most of this via debt.  At some point will they be concerned by that?    They already had to give him one waiver on that front.

 

B.  It's a bad precedent for future teams for this team to strike out on getting funding for a stadium.  

 

I am betting that he will have to come up with some major corporate sponsorship or major gambiling partner.  Or get a new minority owner with pull and resources.   I think they likely are going to have to be creative.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Mrshadow008]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I agree.  I think he will have no choice and ultimately suck it up and do it.    I wonder if the NFL will care about 2 points related to this though.

 

A.  i presume Dan would have to financne most of this via debt.  At some point will they be concerned by that?    They already had to give him one waiver on that front.

 

B.  It's a bad precedent for future teams for this team to strike out on getting funding for a stadium.  

 

I am betting that he will have to come up with some major corporate sponsorship or major gambiling partner.  Or get a new minority owner with pull and resources.   I think they likely are going to have to be creative.

To your bottom point. Im surprised we havent heard anything about that already. Md legalized retail betting back in December. I wouldve thought Dan wouldve jumped at the chance to have a year round sports book at the stadium. not a peep about it though unless its something the nfl is restricting

[Redskins Diehard]

3 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

So you don't understand it, but you can confidently speak on it.  To the point you can determine that "few people on this board actually understand", because you know so much about everyone here, what they do for a living, and that you know more than them, even though you admit you don't understand it.  

 

 

I can say with confidence that the net worth you find on the internet, about practically anyone - from social media influencers to NFL owners, is not accurate.  Forbes hasn't seen the books for any of these guys, they base this on valuations of the assets - which obviously any NFL owner is going to have a huge asset in the franchise - but they have zero idea what the liabilities look like.

 

Who said he was broke?  I've not seen anyone claim he's broke, about to go bankrupt, or even remotely close to that.  Just that his situation is much different than his peers for a variety of reasons that are well publicized.

Ha! Difference is I don't claim to be an expert on it. My post said he, or more accurately the team, is liquid enough to sign Terry.  Which some seemed to think he, or more accurately the team, was not.  

 

And yeah, I am pretty confident that people hanging out on a message board, this message board are not experts on it either. 

 

Are you claiming you are an expert or just insinuating it? One of those people who maybe do for a living something that would give them keen insight into the finances of billionaires and billion dollar sports leagues. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

6 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Ha! Difference is I don't claim to be an expert on it. My post said he, or more accurately the team, is liquid enough to sign Terry.  Which some seemed to think he, or more accurately the team, was not.  

 

And yeah, I am pretty confident that people hanging out on a message board, this message board are not experts on it either. 

 

Are you claiming you are an expert or just insinuating it? One of those people who maybe do for a living something that would give them keen insight into the finances of billionaires and billion dollar sports leagues. 

You don't claim to be an expert on it or really know anything about it, but feel confident telling others that they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to the subject.  I never once claimed that I or anyone else here was an expert.  I've stated on numerous occasions that there is no telling what his actual finances look like because it'll never see the light of day.  What I have done, along with others, is cite numerous reasons why Dan's situation is different than many of his peers.

 

@Skinsinparadiselaid it out pretty well, and he didn't just pull it out of thin air.  There's a history there that suggests Dan's liquidity or lack thereof negatively impacts football operations vs. that of his peers.  

 

I finance aircraft for a living, meaning I spend entirely too much time digging through the finances of rich people, with more layers to their financial situation than an onion.  I'm well aware of the investment, interest, tax, etc. games that the filthy rich play.  I'm very familiar with asset rich people that hold on to said assets as much and for as long as physically possible and they scoff at the idea of creating liquidity to make deals work.  

 

The point has never been that it wasn't possible for Dan to create liquidity to get a deal done, it's that it appears the timing is by design of some sort, and it doesn't appear to be optimal.  It also factors in just how different his situation is from his peers due to his own mismanagement of the franchise.  It doesn't mean he's not filthy rich, he's just not as well off because he's bad for business.

[Voice_of_Reason]

5 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

The question isn’t whether or not he could access the funds to pay Terry, because of course he can.  It’s about whether his lack of liquidity impacted the timeline of making it happen.  I’m rather confident that Dan’s net worth pales in comparison to most other NFL owners.  Failed business ventures, declining revenue, lawsuits, investigations, dropped sponsors, rebranding, needing to get a stadium funded soon, buying out the minority owners, a depreciating mega yacht….none of this stuff is cheap.  The cost of funds for him to free up cash is only going up.  

It might be less, but the one thing we don't really know is what happened to the $2billion he got in stock from the sale of Snyder Communications.  Even if he put that in a savings account (which he wouldn't do), it's still generating some degree of income. 

 

What I think we do know is he doesn't have another primary business which is tossing off cash.

 

But as far as I know, these other team's owners don't have other businesses tossing off cash:

 

- Bengals: Mike Brown, inherited from his father, who was the founding owner. 

- Bears: Virginia Halas, as far as I know, the Halas family's wealth is primarily tied up in the Bears, I don't think they have a lot of outside investments. 

- Colts: Jim Irsay.  Irsay's father, Robert Irsay, built his business on HVAC companies before buying the Colts in the early 80's.  I'm not sure they have a bunch of other outside businesses.

- Chiefs: This is a question: Clark Hunt's great grandfather was an oil tycoon.  I don't know if they are still invested in oil as a business through three generations or not.  

- Raiders: Davis Family is tied to the Raiders

- Steelers: Rooney's are tied to the Steelers

- Giants: Mara's are tied to the Giants. 

- Packers: This one is 100% certain because it's publicly owned and there is no owner.  And they just signed Aaron Rodgers to the richest contract in NFL history. 

 

I could be wrong, but a lot of the blue blood franchises 

 

The reason I am skeptical Dan is having any cash-issues which is effecting any decision making is the NFL is set up with shared revenue to basically not let a team have liquidity problems.  Even if the owner doesn't have another business which tosses off cash, that really shouldn't matter to the NFL Franchise they own.  The Franchise should be a self-contained entity away from the owner's personal wealth, which has cash and the ability to really do anything they want. 

 

The issue with the Commander's financials isn't really tied to Dan's other investments, it the non-shared revenue which the team would get to keep.  So, things like local radio broadcasting rights, local sponsorships, premium seat revenue (general admission is shared), and merch.  

 

I can absolutely believe that all of those revenue streams are down because of the fan revolt.  But they haven't dried up to zero, either.  From what I understand, the new radio deal was more lucrative than the previous one, with iHeart Radio taking the primary broadcast position.  People are buying some merch, and some people are going to the games.

 

Could those revenue streams be better, which would infuse the franchise with more money?  Yeah, they could, for sure.  But the shared revenue from general admission tickets and TV contracts is such a big number, it covers just about all of the costs a team needs to.

 

Also keep in mind, through the CBA, the NFLPA negotiated a little less than half the revenue of the NFL goes to the players through salaries, and that's how the cap limit is set.  The rest goes to the team.  

 

Each team WILL GET a certain amount of shared revenue from the NFL.  I think the entire salary cap amount is covered under the shared revenue, and there is 51% left over to do whatever the team wants to do with. 

 

So, rough math, unless I'm completely mistaken, if the Salary Cap is $200M in a given year, you can expect that each franchise will have ~$400m of revenue, minimum, because of shared revenue and an almost even split between players and the NFL.  Now, out of that additional $200m, the team has to pay for everything else: coaches, FO, stadium, the beer guy, everything.  But most likely, that's not $200m. So there is almost always some left over.  And that can be distributed to the owners through dividends, re-invested in the team, used to build stuff, or just sit there in a cash account waiting to need to be spent.

 

Now, if we flipped the argument around and said Dan was taking a disproportionally high amount of cash through dividends which was leaving the team cash poor, and not able to function as effectively as others, then I could ABSOLUTELY buy that argument.  He could do that to pay down debt or just because he's greedy. My guess is if he was doing that, it would be more because he was greedy than he had issues with the $450m loan that we know he has outstanding.  

 

Also keep this in mind: he no longer has to split the dividend payment 60/40% with other owners.  He gets to keep 100% of it.  

 

So, let's walk down this path:  The debt waiver was for $450m.  So, he probably paid cash $400m as part of the transaction to but out the other minority owners.  His cash assets went down, his team assets went up.

 

However, his income from the team also went up by 40%, roughly, because he's not splitting it with anybody.

 

As far as I know, the owners can choose what to do with the profits of the team.  They can re-invest, leave it as cash in the team, pay bonuses to other employees, or take the cash as a dividend.  Now Dan can take MORE money out of the team in order to pay down his $450m loan, and do it more quicky.

 

I'd bet (and grant that this is conjecture) that when he took the loan to begin with, somebody did math to say his additional 40% stake of the team and associated income could cover the cost of the loan.  If not, I'm not sure that anybody is giving him the loan.  If you don't have a way to pay it back, you don't get the loan.  That part is not conjecture: the NFL would never grant a debt waiver or allow a liability on the franchise if there was not a clear path for repayment.  If Dan doesn't have outside income to support it, then the league revenue has to be the source to pay it off.  In that way, it's just like qualifying for a home mortgage. No bank is going to lend you money unless you show that you have a way to repay it.

 

Now, if the NFL was paying the SUPER long game, could they have granted the loan assuming Dan would default on it and then they could take the team from him?  I guess.  But I doubt very much they would do that.  

[twa]

9 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

 

Dan Snyder is the biggest piece of **** as an owner and as a human being as there is in sports. It's not really even close. But he is not broke. 

There is still time.....Hope springs eternal

[FootballZombie]

4 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

So, rough math, unless I'm completely mistaken, if the Salary Cap is $200M in a given year, you can expect that each franchise will have ~$400m of revenue, minimum, because of shared revenue and an almost even split between players and the NFL.  Now, out of that additional $200m, the team has to pay for everything else: coaches, FO, stadium, the beer guy, everything.  But most likely, that's not $200m. So there is almost always some left over.  And that can be distributed to the owners through dividends, re-invested in the team, used to build stuff, or just sit there in a cash account waiting to need to be spent.

 

 

 

Also gotta assume they are not utilizing all of their money every year. They likely have funds built up over a number of years, readily available if wanted. They could have saved 30Mil every season for the last 10 years for all we know.

 

The Jags just had the biggest Free Agent spending spree in history and that was 175 Mil in G money meaning the escrow amount could not have been higher then that. Every team in the NFL makes enough money on its own to make that happen, w/o revenue from outside sources if desired with a little bit of foresight and budgeting. If any franchise wanted to play the cash over cap game, they likely could on their own income alone.

 

Would it be easier if the owner had massive income streams beyond their team, absolutely, But I don't think there is a single org in the NFL that is blocked access from this pathway b/c they don't have the funds to make it happen. The teams themselves make too much money.

Edited June 29, 2022 by FootballZombie

[Voice_of_Reason]

52 minutes ago, twa said:

There is still time.....Hope springs eternal

An NFL owner is never going to be broke.