Snyder (the absolute worst owner in all of sports) to stay on a owner

[EdmundDorf]

It is some sort of support, but what I was saying was that it may just be to make the problem go away as much as support for DS personally. The owners have no fixed financial rules despite what they would like the world to believe, they let owners break the "debt" rules all the time when it comes to building a new stadium or moving a franchise as it sets a precedent that allows all of them to do it in the future. Extrapolating the franchise value from the sale of a minority stake with no voting power is misguided, I don't think it is a linear extrapolation.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by EdmundDorf

It is some sort of support, but what I was saying was that it may just be to make the problem go away as much as support for DS personally. The owners have no fixed financial rules despite what they would like the world to believe, they let owners break the "debt" rules all the time when it comes to building a new stadium or moving a franchise as it sets a precedent that allows all of them to do it in the future. Extrapolating the franchise value from the sale of a minority stake with no voting power is misguided, I don't think it is a linear extrapolation.

I'm aware voting power changes the value of the shares, that's why minority owners wanted Dan to be forced to sell, so their shares would be sold at a higher price. But 40% of a 5 billions worth franchise at 800M is still a bargain.

Anyway, that's not the point, the NFL didn't set this price, the point is I do think it's quite the endorsement, and they'd look like morons if they were to force him to sell in a couple of months/year. He's not going anywhere.

I also think it's a reminder that it's an owners' league, and unless something obviously outrageous and blatant comes out, and I mean "we don't have a choice" outrageous and blatant, they'll always lean towards protecting owners' power.