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

Nah Nah Nah…Nah Nah Nah…Hey Hey Hey…GOODBYE CLOWNSHOES

Koolblue13

By Koolblue13
in The Stadium

 Share

Recommended Posts

Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I was feeling really bold earlier this week when the news came out and it still seems most likely that this is a full sale scenario for a variety of reasons.  It makes a ton more sense for it to be that than it does anything else.

 

However, the more I read and perhaps the more I stress about it- I worry the owners will literally only care about his ability to build a stadium, and should he get his hands on the money, that’s what he’ll do.

 

He’s the type of vindictive, petty and spiteful schmuck that would let the celebration of the news he’s exploring options to sell, be the fuel for his fire to continue his reign of terror.

I still think it's going to be a full sale.  The reason why is actually because I think any potential minority owner would have to look at the mess with the previous minority owners and be really skeptical of getting into business with Dan. With a fan-base in ruins, chants of "sell the team" at games, Her Royal High Empress the Savior Tonya getting booed when she was put on the jumbotron during a Breast Cancer Awareness spot, the articles which will never stop, etc. I find it hard to believe a billionaire would knowingly go into that situation without control of being able to get out of it.  These investors are not going to be stupid people.

 

Dan would need multiple billions of dollars in order to get the cash necessary to really make the stadium thing a real thing.  I just find it massively hard to believe there is anybody who's going to invest that heavily in the team knowing the rest of this noise is just never, ever going to end as long as Dan is the owner of the team.

 

The guy who I often think has a really good perspective on just about all the Commanders stuff is Bram.  He works for the team, but he also has his own radio show, and has never been shy about being critical.  He also gets some insider information because of his position.

 

He thinks it's going to be a full sale, and the tea leaves he's reading are the coordinated efforts by the NFL to show Dan that they are serious.  His biggest point was ESPN is an NFL partner.  They WILL NOT report the things they have unless the NFL wants them to.  He said he knows the authors of the stories, and he believes the crux of the story was given to them, the access was given to them, and then they arranged with the NFL when they were going to release it.  A lot of the events of the last several weeks have been orchestrated, and in a change from earlier, they have been orchestrated by NFL ownership.  

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Est.1974

Est.1974

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Conn said:


 

I think SIP’s whole thing with the “cash flow” situation has been that whether he doesn’t have the money to spend, or doesn’t want to spend it—it doesn’t matter. Either way it’s a competitive disadvantage and it’s effecting the way this roster can be built. And Jerry’s comments yesterday about Snyder’s massive debt and the management of it is just another data point. 


I think that’s overblown, the CBA not only has a salary cap but it has a cash floor, or cash spend remit, think it is a rolling 3 years. We are at the lower end of that, but tens of millions off the bottom of the heap. 
 

Re Jerry’s comments, that is more forward looking. The ‘debt’ word seemed misplaced, it’s more about future expenditure and Dan’s inability to fund that. That isn’t debt, it’s the realistic prospect that he needs 2-3b with no league, local government, or fanbase support. So Dan has probably realised why should I bother.

 

Synder doesn’t have massive debt when he has an assets worth 6B plus, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Conn said:


 

I think SIP’s whole thing with the “cash flow” situation has been that whether he doesn’t have the money to spend, or doesn’t want to spend it—it doesn’t matter. Either way it’s a competitive disadvantage and it’s effecting the way this roster can be built. And Jerry’s comments yesterday about Snyder’s massive debt and the management of it is just another data point. 

 

Exactly and the main reason why I kept on that point is two fold.

 

A.  It might actually be a catalyist for Dan to sell in the mix of the soup.

 

B.  Dan brings ZERO to the table, nada.  He sucks in every way possible.  In his younger years at least he had the money and or was willing to spend it.  Now he's one of the cheaper owners.

 

Just about every recent article about the ownership situation has referenced Dan being in potentially financial trouble because of the combination of the 450 million dollar loan and needing to pay out of pocket for a 2 billion stadium.   Then you got beat guys, radio personalities, national reporters and heck even Ron in his own way referenced Dan cutting back.

 

Most agreed about Dan's cash flow.  But with the few who didn't agree, amongst that group, it felt to me with some of them, not all of them, that they felt this was a point used as an excuse for Rivera.  For me it had nothing to do with Rivera, yeah i do buy Dan limited Rivera in FA both as far as cash flow and this team being an attractive destination -- but my point and I knows yours and others too were centered on Dan. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BatteredFanSyndrome

BatteredFanSyndrome

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Conn said:


 

I think SIP’s whole thing with the “cash flow” situation has been that whether he doesn’t have the money to spend, or simply doesn’t want to spend it—it doesn’t matter. Either way it’s a competitive disadvantage and it’s effecting the way this roster can be built. And Jerry’s comments yesterday about Snyder’s massive debt and the management of it is just another data point. 

This is where my heads been at as well.  
 

I think there are two reasons most folks can’t jive with the thought that his cash flow or lack thereof  is a detriment to the team:

 

A. They really want to hammer Ron.

B. Most people can’t fathom that an NFL owner of any type could have cash flow problems.

 

I have zero idea what Dan’s books look like, but I’m always going to be suspicious of a coach centric model, where the head coach is frugal and worried about years down the line.  Then when you have beat reporters talking about it and try to connect the dots, it’s even more suspicious.  Whether he had the money or would rather not spend it is irrelevant, it’s a detriment to the team to hang on to it.

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome
  • Like 4
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Conn said:


I’m totally on board with your sentiment but I do have to admit that it’s a little annoying after years of these conversations to see the same posters who less than a year ago (and for a very long time before that) were authoritatively speaking on the impossibility of it all now authoritatively speaking on the expected timeline of the thing they said was impossible. 

I will completely admit I didn't think this was going to happen, at least not soon.  My general point was it was easier for the other owners to ignore Dan than do something about it.  Clearly there has been some type of tipping point, and it seems like that tipping point has been pretty recent.  I changed my tune with the ESPN article.  As soon as I saw that, I knew there was momentum.   When a league partner comes out with that type of report, and when the reporters CLEARLY had talked to a bunch of owners, it was the first piece of evidence to me there was actually movement on the front.

 

I'm also willing to admit being wrong that maybe it was death by 1000 paper cuts, and all the noise and articles finally got to the other owners.  My gut still tells me there is something we don't know, maybe something in the MJW report, which did it, and they are gently trying to get Dan to sell without having to oust him.  

 

The other option is the massive amount of bad press crushed the stadium deals, and the other owners just decided they weren't going to get what they wanted from a stadium perspective with him here, so that changed their minds. 

 

I do think, just knowing how long sales of companies takes, it is going to take a while, no matter who buys the team. I'm predicting they have a buyer lined up by the end of January, but the deal doesn't actually close until the end of March or April.  It took 5 months when the Bronco's were officially put up for sale until the deal closed.  I think it's going to be slightly longer than that. 

 

Every sale has a "Financial Due Diligence" period, and given the reporting on the multiple sets of books and things like that, that period might take longer for this franchise.  It might not.  

 

Regardless, I'm thrilled  I do think this is going to result in the full sale of the team.  That's my gut reaction.  I hope like hell I'm not wrong on that.  I've offered in the past to throw a BBQ when the sale goes through, and I think I might just do that.  Though, I might go bankrupt if I get everybody steak.  So, maybe we go with mini-burgers....  :P 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Est.1974

Est.1974

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

This is where my heads been at as well.  
 

I think there are two reasons most folks can’t jive with the thought that his cash flow or lack thereof  is a detriment to the team:

 

A. They really want to hammer Ron.

B. Most people can’t fathom that an NFL owner of any type could have cash flow problems.


From my perspective, I’ve been an accountant by practice for 30 years, producing accounts currently for a Company with £2b sterling revenue. I’ve looked at what I can find online for the Washington FT/Commanders accounts these past 2/3 years. 
 

There is no evidence of real cash flow issues. None at all. Now forward looking is a different matter, Dan can’t fund what needs to be done to get this franchise through the next 3 years. Maybe that caution has been built into his current strategy. Who knows. 
 

I would sway towards the roster being under cooked because of Ron, Mayhew, and the other FO wooden tops to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

That the league will not approve anything but a controlling stake of the team. 

Well, what the league would do in this case I can't speak to.  But a whole bunch of the teams have minority owners, and I think there were even repots in the story when Dan bought out the previous minority owners, he could bring on new partners to get an inflection of cash, and if memory serves, there were reports he would have to do that within a certain period of time if he couldn't pay off the loan he took.  

 

I think they can really do whatever they want.  What they want, however, I think, is to get Dan out and get new ownership in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

This is where my heads been at as well.  
 

I think there are two reasons most folks can’t jive with the thought that his cash flow or lack thereof  is a detriment to the team:

 

A. They really want to hammer Ron.

B. Most people can’t fathom that an NFL owner of any type could have cash flow problems.

 

I have zero idea what Dan’s books look like, but I’m always going to be suspicious of a coach centric model, where the head coach is frugal and worried about years down the line.  Then when you have beat reporters talking about it and try to connect the dots, it’s even more suspicious.  Whether he had the money or would rather not spend it is irrelevant, it’s a detriment to the team to hang on to it.

Yeah, I'd just say I really DON'T want to hammer Ron because I have been a Ron fan.  I was a fan of his hiring, and have for almost his entire tenure been one of his biggest supporters.  Hell, I've even taken a few bullets defending Scott Turner. 

 

I'm in the second camp, and I'd add it's specifically the way the league is set up with revenue sharing and the collective bargaining agreement.  The shared revenue streams and the fact it's negotiated how much of that revenue can go to players (which is 49% or there abouts) tells me that any NFL owner almost regardless of any situation should be able to do anything they want. Further, I don't think the NFL Finance Committee would have given Dan the license to take the loan to buy out the minority partners if they knew it was going to put a strain on operations. 

 

Now, I have allowed that Dan might be pulling the reins on the spending just because he wants to keep more of the cash for himself.  I've said that's absolutely possible.  But I've gone the other way on the fact he's over-leveraged and therefore having cash flow problems.  I don't believe that to be the case, and never have.

 

Him telling Ron he's on a shorter budget because he wants to hoard more of the cash for himself?  Sure.  There are other teams who's owners are notoriously cheap: the Bidwells (Arizona) and Brown Family (Bengals) immediately come to mind.  But it's less that they CAN'T spend and more that they DON'T spend.  I have no problem believing Dan worked his way into that category.  He wasn't that way through 2009.  But I have no problem seeing him changing as he got older and he wanted a bigger piece of the pie.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

This is where my heads been at as well.  
 

I think there are two reasons most folks can’t jive with the thought that his cash flow or lack thereof  is a detriment to the team:

 

A. They really want to hammer Ron.

B. Most people can’t fathom that an NFL owner of any type could have cash flow problems.

 

I have zero idea what Dan’s books look like, but I’m always going to be suspicious of a coach centric model, where the head coach is frugal and worried about years down the line.  Then when you have beat reporters talking about it and try to connect the dots, it’s even more suspicious.  Whether he had the money or would rather not spend it is irrelevant, it’s a detriment to the team to hang on to it.

 

When Ron-the team was 1-4 especially, some not all, especially wanted to square the lack of aggression in FA on Ron.  Even though Hurney is if anything was known to overspend on the cap in Carolina, most coach centric models center on winning now and beat guy after beat guy referenced a budget being in play.

 

In the off season beat guys referenced a budget.  They referenced Dan's cash flow in the context of the loan and the stadium.  Then we got Ron referencing not doing Richmond training camp because its "expensive".  Sheehan mentioning he heard they are cutting back on travel expenses-perks.    

 

For me though the kicker was the ESPN expose referencing the owners thinking they can use money to beat Dan -- not giving him a debt waiver for the stadium considering he already got a big waiver to buy out his partners.  Dan supposedly knowing that getting the stadium is everything to his future as an owner, yet he was set back completely by not getting 300 million from Virginia. Mike Jones recently said talking in NFL circles in the context of if the season goes south, Dan might not be able to afford firing Ron, because he can't afford paying two coaching staffs at the same time, based on what he's hearing from NFL circles.  Heck even Dan's buddy. Jerry Jones centered his comments about Dan selling purely about his money challenges.

 

I think the reason why some can't agree with this subject is they tie it to more layman terms.  If Dan can pay 45 million for a home, why can't he put 60 million in escrow for name that big FA signing?   The thing is potentially he has to come up with 2.5 billion dollars in the upcoming years to pay off his loan and pay for a stadium.  Yes Dan is worth more than 2.5 million but by most indications most of his net worth is tied into a hard asset, the team.

 

Actually the topic is ironically discussed in the context of who the next owner here will be.  How much disposable cash do they have?  Yes so and so has a billion or so but you need more than that and there is a serious advantage to those with more billions.  Every billionaire isn't seen as the same dude. 

 

Some ridicule the cash situation by bringing it down to lay people like ourselves -- is Dan broke :ols: or using analogies to our personal finances.  But the bottom line is this is a different swimming pool.  Yeah dan has more money than all of us combined and much much more.  but we are not paying off a 450 million dollar loan or have to come up with 2 billion for a stadium.  it's not really that hard to figure out the scale of his challenges. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Redskins Reparations said:


Anything is an upgrade in ownership but Bezos and Jay-Z sounds exciting.

Bezos brings the money and the clout.  I think if he wanted the RFK site, he walks into city counsel and says, "I want the RFK site." They say yes, if you can get the Feds to agree.  Then he goes to the Feds and says "I want the RFK site."  And they say "yes sir" and there you have it.  

 

I think it's hard to minimize how much clout he has, and it's not just money, it's the economic engine he can dangle in front of them.

 

If they buy the team, I want Beyonce ALWAYS singing the national anthem.  :)

 

Can you imagine the creative entertainment hub they could develop for a new stadium?  

 

For some reason, I doubt they get it, just because I think some unknown rich guy will get it.  But the NFL wants minority (ie: not white guys) as owners and Jay-Z checks that box.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phantvm

Phantvm

Posted
Posted

Count me in on Bezos. The potential for him to drag this team into the space age is too euphoric to ignore. In the end, all that TRULY matters is…., NO MORE DAN.

 

With all that said, should they continue to not win, whoever the owner is will mean nothing.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wildbunny

Wildbunny

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

The other option is the massive amount of bad press crushed the stadium deals, and the other owners just decided they weren't going to get what they wanted from a stadium perspective with him here, so that changed their minds. 

Muriel Bowser had an interesting point regarding the stadium lately. Saying that there were 2 things refraining them to get the team back in DC.

  1. Being the name.
  2. Having to deal with Dan Snyder.

The name is now gone, and with Dan Snyder out of the equation, it clearly opens the door to the team moving back to DC.

 

I don't doubt the owners were aware of these points and also weighted quite a bit when they picked their side.

 

48 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

I am full Team Jay-Zos.

With Jay G as HC?

  • Haha 2
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phantvm

Phantvm

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Muriel Bowser had an interesting point regarding the stadium lately. Saying that there were 2 things refraining them to get the team back in DC.

  1. Being the name.
  2. Having to deal with Dan Snyder.

The name is now gone, and with Dan Snyder out of the equation, it clearly opens the door to the team moving back to DC.

 

I don't doubt the owners were aware of these points and also weighted quite a bit when they picked their side.

 

With Jay G as HC?

Interesting thought, should we move on from Ronald before the 23 season, who would you like to see be HC? I suppose more importantly who do you want as President of FO and GM?

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...