|
|
|
| Quote: |
| As reported by Jarrett Bell of USA Today, one NFL owner said that the group is “counting votes” as to Snyder. It would take 24 votes to get rid of him. Of course, that would be just the beginning, not the end. Snyder would surely fight hard to not be forced to sell his business. Although the various members of Club Oligarch accept the rules of life in the league, the antitrust violation that would come from 24 or more business owners forcing another business owner to sell his or her business is hiding in plain sight. Still, the rest of the owners are moving toward their breaking point with Snyder. |
Agreed! Please hang on Danny!
"Don't worry Danny, I got your back."
I'm betting it's the money.
Now that I think about it, has it been good for the Giants?
When we won our 1986 Superbowl, Washington was 12-4.
When we won our 1990 Superbowl, Washington was 10-6.
When we won our 2007 Superbowl, Washington was 9-7. All three of those years were playoff years.
And finally, while they did suck when we won our 2011 Superbowl, they actually swept us in the regular season.
So ... all in all, not only have we not taken advantage of Snyder, it seems like we do better when they do better.
Synder absolutely destroyed that franchise. Try telling a 20 something year old that Washington was once a premier NFL franchise.
Quote:
even more so than the other shitbag owners, is bad for everyone. The "no, keep Snyder because it's good for the Giants" joke is honestly getting old, in my opinion, because he long ago passed the point where the only proper place for him is in jail.
Now that I think about it, has it been good for the Giants?
When we won our 1986 Superbowl, Washington was 12-4.
When we won our 1990 Superbowl, Washington was 10-6.
When we won our 2007 Superbowl, Washington was 9-7. All three of those years were playoff years.
And finally, while they did suck when we won our 2011 Superbowl, they actually swept us in the regular season.
So ... all in all, not only have we not taken advantage of Snyder, it seems like we do better when they do better.
Snyder didnt get the team until '99.
It will be interesting to see if indeed they move to force him out and he has dirt on the others, if any of it will come out. Or will he simply bow out like the Clippers former owner.
I'm a DC native, so many of my family including my wife are fans, but from a competitive perspective Snyder has been good for me:). He's made one decent move (bringing back Gibbs) but most have been terrible.
The only plus from my perspective if he is replaced is them getting a much better stadium. I probably would go to the Giants game every year if they were still playing at RFK, but Fedex is terrible. I live and work not too far from Fedex so it's oh so convenient for me but it is simply not a good experience.
Nonetheless I think there would be a mini-parade in the DMV if Snyder is forced to sell the team.
Quote:
In comment 15715469 an_idol_mind said:
Quote:
even more so than the other shitbag owners, is bad for everyone. The "no, keep Snyder because it's good for the Giants" joke is honestly getting old, in my opinion, because he long ago passed the point where the only proper place for him is in jail.
Now that I think about it, has it been good for the Giants?
When we won our 1986 Superbowl, Washington was 12-4.
When we won our 1990 Superbowl, Washington was 10-6.
When we won our 2007 Superbowl, Washington was 9-7. All three of those years were playoff years.
And finally, while they did suck when we won our 2011 Superbowl, they actually swept us in the regular season.
So ... all in all, not only have we not taken advantage of Snyder, it seems like we do better when they do better.
Snyder didnt get the team until '99.
Sure. But that's the point. Snyder owning or not owning the team has made no difference - Washington has been competitive for us in each of our Superbowl years.
The NFL couldn't even FORCE Snyder to change the team name. Only intense economic pressure on Snyder (the loss of Nike money) got that done.
Now, I'm sure they can bring more pressure to bear, and try to make his life miserable, but unless he's indicted for heinous criminal behavior, I don't see how they can FORCE him to sell the team.
That said, I hope Snyder keeps it. That team will never succeed with him running it.
The NFL couldn't even FORCE Snyder to change the team name. Only intense economic pressure on Snyder (the loss of Nike money) got that done.
Now, I'm sure they can bring more pressure to bear, and try to make his life miserable, but unless he's indicted for heinous criminal behavior, I don't see how they can FORCE him to sell the team.
That said, I hope Snyder keeps it. That team will never succeed with him running it.
I'm assuming that when you're approved to buy an NFL team you also agree to follow predetermined rules, one of which probably involves the owners being able to force you to sell the team if a predetermined number of owners vote to do so.
The railroads figured this out a long time ago, which is why they made sure that the Interstate Commerce Commission, set up ostensibly to keep them in line, became a sort of "protectorate" for the larger railroads, stifling competition from smaller ones. "Big Rail" made the ICC its bitch.
We see it today most notably with the Department of Agriculture and "Big Ag," but it's prevalent in every federal agency. It's an incestuous relationship between government and industry. It's "crony capitalism."
Quote:
Especially us!
Agreed! Please hang on Danny!
Unless you personally hate people who are Redskins fans, this is not something you should wish on a division rival.
These people suffer in a way Giants' fans and others wouldn't understand. I know because they tell me this.
It's NY Knicks level bad, probably worse.
Quote:
In comment 15715385 bigblue12 said:
Quote:
Especially us!
Agreed! Please hang on Danny!
Unless you personally hate people who are Redskins fans, this is not something you should wish on a division rival.
These people suffer in a way Giants' fans and others wouldn't understand. I know because they tell me this.
It's NY Knicks level bad, probably worse.[
Not sure if serious....Redskins fans are pretty unbearable.
The NFL couldn't even FORCE Snyder to change the team name. Only intense economic pressure on Snyder (the loss of Nike money) got that done.
Now, I'm sure they can bring more pressure to bear, and try to make his life miserable, but unless he's indicted for heinous criminal behavior, I don't see how they can FORCE him to sell the team.
That said, I hope Snyder keeps it. That team will never succeed with him running it.
There are bylaws put in place by the NFL that all owners agreed to. It’s not unlike a player getting cut and their contract voided due to something like domestic violence, buying/selling large amounts of drugs, killing someone, etc.
Precedents have already been set with other leagues too; Frank McCourt with the Dodgers and Donald Sterling with the Clippers.
The NFL couldn't even FORCE Snyder to change the team name. Only intense economic pressure on Snyder (the loss of Nike money) got that done.
Now, I'm sure they can bring more pressure to bear, and try to make his life miserable, but unless he's indicted for heinous criminal behavior, I don't see how they can FORCE him to sell the team.
That said, I hope Snyder keeps it. That team will never succeed with him running it.
The other owners weren't losing money because of the other shit Snyder pulled. If he took cash from other owners, his days are numbered. Make no mistake: the bottom line is the only thing the owners and the NFL care about.
+1
I would have left it just the way it was after he was politically forced to change it from "the Redskins".
"The Washington Football Team" - perfect.
This, you can diddle all the cheerleaders you want, just don't mess with the Benjamins.
Quote:
I suspect the last straw was when he stole their money.
This, you can diddle all the cheerleaders you want, just don't mess with the Benjamins.
Well - don't mess with their benjamins.