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

[Darrell Green Fan]

I would be cool with Bezos. But I still go back to John Henry. Not sure where the post came from that said a lot of the comments are negative.  Listening to the fans of his teams, and again I am a Red Sox fan, it's clear that he knows how to build winning sports teams.  That's something Bezos or any other potential owner can claim.  

 

As for Neil in Rockville I'm getting a bit tired of him. Snyder is out the door.  They may or may not have the votes but I'm pretty sure this latest news didn't win him any.  You don't go to BOA if you are not walking out the door, their statement made it pretty clear as they did not deny the reports that they are selling as they have in the past.  

[Redwolves92]

4 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

The NFL has VERY VERY VERY little to do with this, though.  

 

It's Dan's franchise and he could really sell it to anybody he wants, all the NFL can do is approve the transaction.

 

And they don't have the leverage to say, "Sell it to this person or we won't approve it." Because Dan would just say, "**** You.  Ok, I'm going to just stay forever and if you want me out, you'll have to vote me out, then I'm going to sue the pants off of all of you, ask for discovery, and the whole thing will be tied up in the courts for years and be massively embarrassing and costly. Oh, and I just gave Ron and Scott Turner a 10 year, $100m extension EACH so good luck getting a buyer to take that on you effing morons."

 

Which he would say.  

 

This could be Dan's parting gift to us.  

 

My guess is he will just take the best offer and most money, regardless of who it is from.  And the NFL is going to approve it, assuming the financing works out.  Obviously, if it's Bezos, the financing works out. "Go look up filthy ****ing rich bald dude on your google machine, when you see my picture, approve the transaction."  Mike Drop.

 

Regardless, I think the new group can't really be worse than the old guy.  As bad?  Unlikely but possible, I guess.  I don't see how it could be worse.  Unless there was actual homicide involved.... 

I actually like Gutman most of the time.  I think he took this one personally, as @Skinsinparadise also said.  

 

He was dead on balls accurate with almost all of his predictions as to what was going on with the congressional hearings.  Right down to the empty chair testimony with "Mr. Snyder" nameplate, which he nailed weeks before it happened.  

To be accepted into the nfl owner circle is not easy, i dont think snyder has that level of power to sell to absolutely whoever as youre saying even if it is his franchise (for the time being). Hes currently being forced out without the official voting, if he wanted to be petty and sue he could do that now but he knows hes ****ed. The nfl doesnt want another dan situation in Washington again esp so they would likely be picky with who the next owner is. 

[Wildbunny]

4 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

The NFL has VERY VERY VERY little to do with this, though.  

 

It's Dan's franchise and he could really sell it to anybody he wants, all the NFL can do is approve the transaction.

I doubt they would say no to anyone as long as it puts Dan out of the NFL. From their perspective that's a major point.

 

Still, they do have some power regarding it, as they are the one that put Dan in the circle by putting the Cook family out and waiving Milstein group and urging Dan to bid by himself.

Different era, different situation, but I believe they do have some leverage if they really want to.

 

I could see them forcing his hand and choosing to takes bid X, even if Dan wants to go into a bidding war just because Bezos is in it.

[88Comrade2000]

To the lawyers. That civil suit separates Dan and team as both are being sued.

Since the team is being sold; would the new owner be liable since the team is also being sued? This would apply for any others lawsuits.  The team as an entity is also being sued. So any judgement against the team would be the new owner’s responsibility or Dan would, as the former owner?

[KillBill26]

15 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

To the lawyers. That civil suit separates Dan and team as both are being sued.

Since the team is being sold; would the new owner be liable since the team is also being sued? This would apply for any others lawsuits.  The team as an entity is also being sued. So any judgement against the team would be the new owner’s responsibility or Dan would, as the former owner?

I am far from a lawyer, but I would assume that they included NFL and the team not only because of their enormous value, but because Goodell will respond by throwing Snyder under the bus, and the plaintiffs will probably welcome a deal that removes the team from liability if they know they have enough to nail Snyder and collect an enormous sum from him personally while he also agrees to sell the team.  At least I hope so lol.

. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

57 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

could see them forcing his hand and choosing to takes bid X, even if Dan wants to go into a bidding war just because Bezos is in it.

I just don’t see how they could force him.  It’s his asset and he can sell it to whoever he wants to.  If he wants to take it to a bidding war to maximize his value, I’m not sure what levee they have to force his hand. 
 

Honestly, what they should do is buy the team from him.  Hold a vote, force him out, also buy the team for fair market value, and then immediately turn and sell it to whoever they want to for a slight profit.  
 

I get the 47,837 reasons they can’t do that. But they probably should have done it years ago.  MLB ran the Expos for a whole before they sold the team to the Lerner’s.

 

That’s really the only way they can force Dan to do what they want.  Hell, he might do the opposite of what they want out of spite.  So maybe the just need to play the opposite game with him like you do with a junior high schooler.  You want them to do something, just tell them not to and they will.  It’s why I encourage my kids to drink, smoke dope and have sex.  Guaranteed they won’t….  (this is a joke for those of you with broken joke detectors who want to turn me into CPS)

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Re Henry:

 

The Marlins payrolls during Henry’s three seasons of ownership were $15 million in 1999 which ranked last, $20 million in 2000 which ranked second to last and $35 million in 2001 which ranked 27^th.  The data does not suggest that he was trying very hard to put a lineup on the field that he did not need to apologize for.  That 1999 team had the third worst record in team history with just 64 wins.

 

He sucked. No Thanks.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2022 by COWBOY-KILLA-

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

19 minutes ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

Re Henry:

 

The Marlins payrolls during Henry’s three seasons of ownership were $15 million in 1999 which ranked last, $20 million in 2000 which ranked second to last and $35 million in 2001 which ranked 27^th.  The data does not suggest that he was trying very hard to put a lineup on the field that he did not need to apologize for.  That 1999 team had the third worst record in team history with just 64 wins.

 

He sucked. No Thanks.

 

 

 

Why focused exclusively on the Marlins?  Seems like cherry picking.  Be one thing if that was the last team he owned but far from it.   It would be like colleges going over the transcript of prospective students and saying I am not interested in your High School grades, show me where you started at Junior High that's our focus.  

 

If he's that bad how did the championships happen in Boston and Liverpool?

Edited November 12, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[The Rook]

31 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I just don’t see how they could force him.  It’s his asset and he can sell it to whoever he wants to.  If he wants to take it to a bidding war to maximize his value, I’m not sure what levee they have to force his hand. 

 

But I thought the other owners had the power to not approve a buyer - as what happened to the group in contention before Danny's group.  Or maybe it is written that they have to approve a buyer by 75% vote.  Either way, it seems they have a hand on the controls as to gets to join.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

[Skinsinparadise]

The thing about Henry that some may like and some may not as the article referenced here.  He will spend big but every now and then he rebuilds and resets.  I got no problem with that.  Dan was never willing to rebuild to the chagrin of many including myself.

 

Liverpool was the 12th biggest spender in world football (soccer) for most of his tenure.  The Red Sox spent plenty, too. 

 

 

https://www.masslive.com/redsox/2019/11/john-henry-boston-red-sox-owner-i-dont-think-of-it-as-a-business-this-is-not-the-business-i-would-choose-to-go-into.html

 

John Henry, Boston Red Sox owner: ‘I don’t think of it as a business. This is not the business I would choose to go into'

I don’t think of it as a business," Henry said. “This is not the business I would choose to go into if you call it a business. But it’s a competitive challenge. And we’re doing everything we can every year to maximize our resources. Other than the Yankees, we’re probably second among the 30 teams in spending in the last decade; maybe over the last two decades. For me, it’s about competitive advantage. You need to manage your resources properly."

 

 

BOSTON — The Boston Red Sox led Major League Baseball in payroll both in 2018 and 2019, spending approximately $480 million combined.

 

Add another approximately $24 million in tax penalties for exceeding the Competitive Balance Tax threshold both years, and the organization topped a half billion dollars in spending.

 

Outspending the other 29 clubs resulted in a franchise record

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/john-henry-says-red-sox-focused-competitiveness-not-salary-cutting

 

Sox principal owner John Henry told the Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy that the team is focused more on being competitive rather than getting under baseball's luxury tax - a.k.a. competitive balance tax - threshold of $208 million.

 

"But this focus on CBT [competitive balance tax] resides with the media far more than it does within the Sox," Henry, who also owns the Globe, wrote to Shaughnessy in an email. "I think every team probably wants to reset at least once every three years — that’s sort of been the history — but just this week...I reminded baseball ops that we are focused on competitiveness over the next 5 years over and above resetting to which they said, ‘That’s exactly how we’ve been approaching it.’

This comes a few months after Henry said this at Sox ownership's end-of-the-season press conference:

"This year we need to be under the CBT and that was something we've known for more than a year now. If you don't reset, there are penalties, so we've known for some time now we needed to reset as other clubs have done."

The Sox had MLB's highest payroll last season of $228 million and consequently had to pay a $13.4 million luxury tax, well above what it cost the only other two teams that had to pay - the Cubs at $7.6M and Yankees at $6.7M. The Sox have paid more than $50M in luxury tax since the system began in 2003.

 

 

[Corcaigh]

2 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

To the lawyers. That civil suit separates Dan and team as both are being sued.

Since the team is being sold; would the new owner be liable since the team is also being sued? This would apply for any others lawsuits.  The team as an entity is also being sued. So any judgement against the team would be the new owner’s responsibility or Dan would, as the former owner?

Not a lawyer either (but have been involved in a company changing hands). If the suit against the organization is not resolved then the new owners might require as a condition of sale that a portion of the purchase proceeds is put in escrow and used to cover any fine or other unknown liabilities, and the balance only released when the suit is settled.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Corcaigh

[Voice_of_Reason]

32 minutes ago, The Rook said:

 

But I thought the other owners had the power to not approve a buyer - as what happened to the group in contention before Danny's group.  Or maybe it is written that they have to approve a buyer by 75% vote.  Either way, it seems they have a hand on the controls as to gets to join.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

Yes.  They can approve. And they can suggest.  
 

But let’s say Bezos and one of the other folks offer close bids.  And Dan is willing to take, sag $100m less to sell to the other bidder just to spite Bezos and the NFL.  
 

Assuming the other bidder meets the financial criteria and isn’t an axe murderer, they kidof have to approve the sale.  Even if they want Bezos, they can’t force Dan to take more money to sell to Bezos.  
 

They can try to persuade, but that’s about it.

 

They could threaten to deny approval, but in that case they risk Dan just saying he changes his mind and doesn’t want to sell.  
 

End of the day, it’s Dan’s choice. 
 

unless there is a stick out there in the form of the MJW investigation or some hunt else which they can use to force Dan’s hand, which is possible, it’s really up to Dan which bid he accepts.  

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

I can just imagine Snyder pacing around his office right now clutching a glass of Crown Royal, muttering to himself "They can't eff with me...they can't eff with me..."

 

 

[Zim489]

 

[The Rook]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Yes.  They can approve. And they can suggest.  
 

But let’s say Bezos and one of the other folks offer close bids.  And Dan is willing to take, sag $100m less to sell to the other bidder just to spite Bezos and the NFL.  
 

Assuming the other bidder meets the financial criteria and isn’t an axe murderer, they kidof have to approve the sale.  Even if they want Bezos, they can’t force Dan to take more money to sell to Bezos.  
 

They can try to persuade, but that’s about it.

 

They could threaten to deny approval, but in that case they risk Dan just saying he changes his mind and doesn’t want to sell.  
 

End of the day, it’s Dan’s choice. 
 

unless there is a stick out there in the form of the MJW investigation or some hunt else which they can use to force Dan’s hand, which is possible, it’s really up to Dan which bid he accepts.  

 

Is this your opinion, or is this from the Charter (Rules/Statutes) of the NFL approving ownership?  I realize there is a legal world outside of their Charter, but I am pretty sure they all had to agree to the rules to join.  He may have already given up his rights to litigate about decision of purchase.

 

Interesting case, though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook  

[Voice_of_Reason]

32 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

 

Just keep in mind Forbes is the Snyder team plant.  They gave the initial story to Forbes and had a press release ready to go as soon as the story broke.  The author of the original story was on Sheehan’s podcast and was clearly spouting the party line fed to him by Snyder’s team.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

25 minutes ago, The Rook said:

 

Is this your opinion, or is this from the Charter (Rules/Statutes) of the NFL approving ownership?  I realize there is a legal world outside of their Charter, but I am pretty sure they all had to agree to the rules to join.  He may have already given up his rights to litigate about decision of purchase.

 

Interesting case, though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook  

It’s what I’ve heard discussed by different people who I trust to know the rules.  
 

You’re right there are rules  you enter into as part of the franchise agreement, but typically if you own an asset you can sell it to whoever you want unless there is a “right of first offer.”  And example of this is when you buy a timeshare and you want to unload it, the timeshare company often says you have to sell it back to them at their price If they want to buy it.  If they don’t, you can sell to whoever you want.  
 

I don’t believe that’s the case here because the NFL has never bought a team. 
 

So I think based on what I’ve read and heard, Dan can basically sell to whoever he wants pending league approval.

[Conn]

 

[SkinsFTW]

4 hours ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

I can just imagine Snyder pacing around his office right now clutching a glass of Crown Royal, muttering to himself "They can't eff with me...they can't eff with me..."

 

 

 

It'll be great is he completely loses it and decides to go Tony Montana on the league on the way out.

[Wildbunny]

4 hours ago, The Rook said:

 

Is this your opinion, or is this from the Charter (Rules/Statutes) of the NFL approving ownership?  I realize there is a legal world outside of their Charter, but I am pretty sure they all had to agree to the rules to join.  He may have already given up his rights to litigate about decision of purchase.

 

Interesting case, though.

The owners have to approve the buying.

 

But I believe in this case they'll be more than happy to approve almost anyone that is kinda credible just to get rid of Dan Snyder. So as long as he doesn't sell it to joe schmuck, they'll approve the deal and go:

 

[FrFan]

2 hours ago, Conn said:

 

I tend to agree about that, Racine is overreaching here, eventhough he was right about the two clowns. I like it anyway the more pressure on dany boy and Goodell the better. I wish the NFL had a speed up selling process.

Edited November 12, 2022 by FrFan

[tomwvr]

On 11/11/2022 at 5:44 PM, 88Comrade2000 said:

To the lawyers. That civil suit separates Dan and team as both are being sued.

Since the team is being sold; would the new owner be liable since the team is also being sued? This would apply for any others lawsuits.  The team as an entity is also being sued. So any judgement against the team would be the new owner’s responsibility or Dan would, as the former owner?

You could put a condition of buying the team that prior ownership is responsible for any civil ruling against the team 

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

On 11/11/2022 at 7:09 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

Why focused exclusively on the Marlins?  Seems like cherry picking.  Be one thing if that was the last team he owned but far from it.   It would be like colleges going over the transcript of prospective students and saying I am not interested in your High School grades, show me where you started at Junior High that's our focus.  

 

If he's that bad how did the championships happen in Boston and Liverpool?

I’m focused on his time w/ the marlins because it’s my only personal experience with him at the helm of anything. It was a bad one. I can’t speak to what else he’s done with one of my teams, just that one. It’s not to say he’s hasn’t done good things outside of that. You’d be ok w/ him, that’s awesome, I’d prefer someone else is all.
 

I find him smug & pretentious albeit successful. And he did one of my teams poorly. I hear that Boston wouldn’t mind him moving on even after the success he’s had with them, that speaks to something about the guy imo. 
 

https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/03/05/obf-dear-john-henry-time-to-move-on-from-the-red-sox/amp/
 

Edited November 13, 2022 by COWBOY-KILLA-

[Wildbunny]

6 hours ago, tomwvr said:

You could put a condition of buying the team that prior ownership is responsible for any civil ruling against the team 

It takes two to have a  deal. You're not gonna reach this without Dan being OK with it.

 

Sadly, it just takes one guy to **** it all up.

[BrentMeisterGeneral]

I can’t speak much to Henry with other sports franchises, but with regards to Liverpool the one and only thing he got right and it’s quite a big thing was to hire Jurgen Klopp and leave him to do the rest and that’s what led to them winning the PL over here

 

In England Henry is known for being frugal with cash, he won’t go toe to toe with the Man City’s or PSG’s of the world too frequently in the transfer market. What could that mean for Washington? Put it this way if it’s a big new flashy stadium and training facilities that your after, I’d be surprised if Henry was your man

Edited November 13, 2022 by BrentMeisterGeneral