Snyder Camp Upset!!

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I hate to be political, but I find it funny that everyone complains about Snyder's antics, yet a good portion of this country and a political party continues to support legislation/loopholes that cut taxes on rich people like Snyder and helps them get even richer. And what I am trying to say is, what else do you expect from a rich and powerful person? I'm sure all rich and powerful people in this country are not like them, but probably a lot of them are.

That being said, while I do think Snyder has overreacted (but I'm not surprised that he did), I also think that the media in this area (and the country) tend to beat the dead horse over and over again in regards to Snyder and the Redskins. And maybe...maybe this article got a bit too personal. Yet I don't think Snyder can win this suit (although I am no legal expert).

Yes, he will definitely lose the lawsuit. But with any luck he will get the author fired for having the gumption to jump in the middle of the highway.

[juskins]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I hate to be political, but I find it funny that everyone complains about Snyder's antics, yet a good portion of this country and a political party continues to support legislation/loopholes that cut taxes on rich people like Snyder and helps them get even richer. And what I am trying to say is, what else do you expect from a rich and powerful person? I'm sure all rich and powerful people in this country are not like them, but probably a lot of them are.

That being said, while I do think Snyder has overreacted (but I'm not surprised that he did), I also think that the media in this area (and the country) tend to beat the dead horse over and over again in regards to Snyder and the Redskins. And maybe...maybe this article got a bit too personal. Yet I don't think Snyder can win this suit (although I am no legal expert).

Like Dan chopping down trees so he could have a better view from his property?

The guy is a travesty and a parody waiting to happen. He owns the team that I love. I blame the NFL for selling this team to him. The NFL knew what kind of owner he would be. He even PURPOSELY over-spent for the team thus insuring him of a niffy return should he sell it. This should have been an omen to the fan base that Snyder cares not for the team but cares for making a big splash in the public arena.

[MonkFan4Life]

Originally Posted by juskins

Like Dan chopping down trees so he could have a better view from his property?

The guy is a travesty and a parody waiting to happen. He owns the team that I love. I blame the NFL for selling this team to him. The NFL knew what kind of owner he would be. He even PURPOSELY over-spent for the team thus insuring him of a niffy return should he sell it. This should have been an omen to the fan base that Snyder cares not for the team but cares for making a big splash in the public arena.

That's your problem. It's not the NFL's fault. You should really blame Jack kent Cooke for not leaving the team to his son as opposed to making it so that the team would be put up for sale so that your charity could get more money. Really you kind of should be happy because JKC's charity got more money because Snyder "overpaid" for the team. It was an omen to me just how much this team was worth, or how important it was for one to own it.

So I say blame Jack Kent Cooke, because had he just left the team to his son then we would've won 7 Super Bowls by now right ?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MonkFan4Life

That's your problem. It's not the NFL's fault. You should really blame Jack kent Cooke for not leaving the team to his son as opposed to making it so that the team would be put up for sale so that your charity could get more money. Really you kind of should be happy because JKC's charity got more money because Snyder "overpaid" for the team. It was an omen to me just how much this team was worth, or how important it was for one to own it.

So I say blame Jack Kent Cooke, because had he just left the team to his son then we would've won 7 Super Bowls by now right ?

Sarcasm Duly noted.

Had JKC's son bought it, we would have an owner that was on a beach somewhere sipping margarita's, while we fans moaned about his lack of investment in the team. (that's my opinion)

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Sarcasm Duly noted.

Had JKC's son bought it, we would have an owner that was on a beach somewhere sipping margarita's, while we fans moaned about his lack of investment in the team. (that's my opinion)

I can't stand it when people say this cause it's total 100% BS! When the team was under his control he went out and spent money. Does Dana Stubblefield and Dan Wilkonson ring a bell??? It's water under the bridge cause JKC dicked his own son, but there is NO QUESTION in my mind that we'd be in MUCH better hands had John Cooke kept the team.

[juskins]

Originally Posted by MonkFan4Life

That's your problem. It's not the NFL's fault. You should really blame Jack kent Cooke for not leaving the team to his son as opposed to making it so that the team would be put up for sale so that your charity could get more money. Really you kind of should be happy because JKC's charity got more money because Snyder "overpaid" for the team. It was an omen to me just how much this team was worth, or how important it was for one to own it.

So I say blame Jack Kent Cooke, because had he just left the team to his son then we would've won 7 Super Bowls by now right ?

No, it was another flamboyant owner (JKC) over rating his demeanor and his place in life. I think Mr. Cook was saying to his sons, I bought the Washington Redskins with the money I earned. If one of my sons wants ownership of this team, they will have to find a way to buy it on their own merit. Not from heritability. I will bequeath you, John, an investment that you can parlay with other investors to buy the team that I will sell to you or whomever. I wish it did not have to be parsed out that way but I had nothing to do with it or nor did any other fan have a say about it.

I really think a cleaver lawyer can find a way to sue the NFL and Snyder for Dan's ownership of this team. If they did not win the suit, they would bring public opinion down on Mr. Snyder. I know you are saying "dream on" but the point being the entire process of finding the "right" owner was done with fixing the salable market of the Washington Redskins organization so that the NFL would profit by it.

I have bitten my tongue by supporting Snyder for many years. But, there comes a time when enough is enough with Dan. He has brought this franchise down and made it a laughing stock of the NFL.

By you claiming to support Dan Snyder is a let down from one fan to another. Surely, you just.

Yes, Dan Snyder over paid for this organization for his own greed and was not thinking of JKC's beloved charity - not my charity, as you alluded to.

If the response was close to half in support of the law suit and half in opposition to the law suit then I could see why you would throw your hat in Dan's corner. But to be the lone wolf in the forest howling by your lonesome should say something other than your supposedly support for Snyder is a little suspicious, don't you think?

Dan Snyder is a bad owner, period. I am fed up with the one liner "that Dan just wants to win", BS. If he just wants to win then sell the team. Of course that won't happen. We are stuck with this dollar maniac. This is not a rant against anyone who has wealth, not at all. But I am sick and tried of fans saying Dan is a passionate owner. My ass he is.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by juskins

No, it was another flamboyant owner (JKC) over rating his demeanor and his place in life. I think Mr. Cook was saying to his sons, I bought the Washington Redskins with the money I earned. If one of my sons wants ownership of this team, they will have to find a way to buy it on their own merit. Not from heritability. I will bequeath you, John, an investment that you can parlay with other investors to buy the team that I will sell to you or whomever. I wish it did not have to be parsed out that way but I had nothing to do with it or nor did any other fan have a say about it.

I really think a cleaver lawyer can find a way to sue the NFL and Snyder for Dan's ownership of this team. If they did not win the suit, they would bring public opinion down on Mr. Snyder. I know you are saying "dream on" but the point being the entire process of finding the "right" owner was done with fixing the salable market of the Washington Redskins organization so that the NFL would profit by it.

I have bitten my tongue by supporting Snyder for many years. But, there comes a time when enough is enough with Dan. He has brought this franchise down and made it a laughing stock of the NFL.

By you claiming to support Dan Snyder is a let down from one fan to another. Surely, you just.

Yes, Dan Snyder over paid for this organization for his own greed and was not thinking of JKC's beloved charity - not my charity, as you alluded to.

If the response was close to half in support of the law suit and half in opposition to the law suit then I could see why you would throw your hat in Dan's corner. But to be the lone wolf in the forest howling by your lonesome should say something other than your supposedly support for Snyder is a little suspicious, don't you think?

Dan Snyder is a bad owner, period. I am fed up with the one liner "that Dan just wants to win", BS. If he just wants to win then sell the team. Of course that won't happen. We are stuck with this dollar maniac. This is not a rant against anyone who has wealth, not at all. But I am sick and tried of fans saying Dan is a passionate owner. My ass he is.

I am just as sick of fans who, having (most likely) little clue of the complexities of owning an NFL franchise, sit and berate another lifelong Redskin fan(which DS by all accounts is) because he had a chance to come in, and own the team. I swear that any fan who came in would have been the same little boy in the candy shop and bought up all the big names he could. BUT, fact is we don't own the team, and we can't understand the overall plan, and many new owners go through long transitions (JJ may have won quick, but his Cowboys had had a longer playoff losing streak than us), and I believe we have seen a positive trend in DS' understanding of being an NFL owner, and particularly the owner of the Washington Redskins. It's ridiculous to blast out hate on this guy but it happens because his actions/inactions are subject to INTENSE scrutiny by passionate fans and the rabid press.

In the end, you are entitled to hate DS, that's fine, but it's grass is greener thinking that any other serious competitor to own the Skins would have done any better or have been a more passionate owner.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I hate to be political, but I find it funny that everyone complains about Snyder's antics, yet a good portion of this country and a political party continues to support legislation/loopholes that cut taxes on rich people like Snyder and helps them get even richer. And what I am trying to say is, what else do you expect from a rich and powerful person? I'm sure all rich and powerful people in this country are not like them, but probably a lot of them are.

That being said, while I do think Snyder has overreacted (but I'm not surprised that he did), I also think that the media in this area (and the country) tend to beat the dead horse over and over again in regards to Snyder and the Redskins. And maybe...maybe this article got a bit too personal. Yet I don't think Snyder can win this suit (although I am no legal expert).

My politics tend to support more taxes on the rich, but the fact is that jerkness doesn't discriminate between rich and poor. There are plenty of rich people of boundless generosity and friendliness, and plenty of poor people with the demeanor of Snyder. Not everyone with Snyder's wealth would respond to criticism that way Snyder seems to routinely do, and many of them apply general approaches in how they deal with other people that would help them avoid having publications chronicling their screw-ups.

[Longtimefan]

[quote] from: GMScud....


Yeah I didn't know he was Jewish either, and to throw out the anti-semite card is so pathetic. Like Feinstein said, none of this has anything to do with anti-semitism. It has to do with anti-Snyder.

He's definitely Jewish, which has made me often scratch my head about the hiring of Marty Schottenheimer. It's no wonder the relationship was short lived.

[CRedskinsRule]

My initial Cooke comment was tinged with sarcasm, but please that article is a puff piece from the Post at a time when Snyder was on the ropes and they were pulling no punches. Cooke had every opportunity to be the winning bidder, his Dad could have changed the will at any time to give his son additional chances but he didn't.

After he lost the team, what did Cooke do, he went to Bermuda and sat on the beach for several years. Who knows how he would have run the team, but nothing in that article, or his actions at the time convince me that he would have been any better or worse of an owner. Different yes, but better I dunno.

Personally that article sounds like a petulant son who thought he should have everything and when he didn't get it he got mad at the man who did. You notice in the article that Snyder said he was going to give the team to his son, I imagine that that royally ticked Cooke off towards Snyder.

Do you really think he would ever come out and give DS any credit regardless of the team's situation?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

My initial Cooke comment was tinged with sarcasm, but please that article is a puff piece from the Post at a time when Snyder was on the ropes and they were pulling no punches. Cooke had every opportunity to be the winning bidder, his Dad could have changed the will at any time to give his son additional chances but he didn't.

After he lost the team, what did Cooke do, he went to Bermuda and sat on the beach for several years. Who knows how he would have run the team, but nothing in that article, or his actions at the time convince me that he would have been any better or worse of an owner. Different yes, but better I dunno.

Personally that article sounds like a petulant son who thought he should have everything and when he didn't get it he got mad at the man who did. You notice in the article that Snyder said he was going to give the team to his son, I imagine that that royally ticked Cooke off towards Snyder.

Do you really think he would ever come out and give DS any credit regardless of the team's situation?

Winning bidder? With what? He didn't have the money. His dad only left him 15 or 20 mil. His dad simply didn't want him to have the team. He got 10% of the sale which turned out to be 80 mil cause he owned a small part but he simply didn't have the cash. Snyder did and won fair and square.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Winning bidder? With what? He didn't have the money. His dad only left him 15 or 20 mil. His dad simply didn't want him to have the team. He got 10% of the sale which turned out to be 80 mil cause he owned a small part but he simply didn't have the cash. Snyder did and won fair and square.

In the Post Article, Cooke said he came up with a proposal for $750 million that he had been told would be enough. It wasn't, but if JKC had had some change of heart that made him want to guarantee his son got it, he could have put stipulations that any non family bidder would have to put up an additional fee to secure the Redskins tradition. Or some other type of financial mumbo jumbo that virtually assured JKC that his son would win the bidding.

He didn't, and Cooke is probably still bitter about that.

And yes DS won fair and square, and how funny it would be had John gotten it that I can imagine this same forum having articles on why we all wished DS had gotten it. The other path ALWAYS looks better.

[MTK]

Think about this, under Snyder the team has gone 86-106. That basically averages out to an average of just over 7 wins per year.

So if you don't think things could have been worse under another owner consider that during the same time the Lions averaged under 4.6 wins, the Cardinals 6, the Bills 6.75, the Browns 5.3, the Raiders 6.5, etc.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Think about this, under Snyder the team has gone 86-106. That basically averages out to an average of just over 7 wins per year.

So if you don't think things could have been worse under another owner consider that during the same time the Lions averaged under 4.6 wins, the Cardinals 6, the Bills 6.75, the Browns 5.3, the Raiders 6.5, etc.

Matty:

I understand the point you are making here - - believe me, I do...

However, when one must resort to the argument "Well, we are better than the Lions, Cards, Bills, Browns and Raiders..." you are tacitly saying something about "we" that is not very laudatory...

[MTK]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Matty:

I understand the point you are making here - - believe me, I do...

However, when one must resort to the argument "Well, we are better than the Lions, Cards, Bills, Browns and Raiders..." you are tacitly saying something about "we" that is not very laudatory...

I know, I just get tired of hearing how the Skins are the absolute worst and are the only team with issues. It's simply not true.