OT: Washington Commanders: 2022 Offseason - Part 1 - Commander Carson Edition

[CapitalsCupReality]

I agree, but I don’t know if they will be able to show he broke any laws.

certainly hard with a full coverup in effect.

 

[Jacoby4HOF66]

 

[Corby78]

I don't think anyone is saying congress has the legal power to force the league to ditch an owner, or that this is a criminal trial. That's the point. It's about financial pressure via politics.

The original premise was "I hope congress pressures the NFL to make Dan sell." That isn't an area we want the government to go. I don't care if it is financial. There is a judicial process if he did something illegal, and I hope he ends up in it. Outside of that, its up to the NFL to govern its private entity. If the committee uses the NFL to do a deep dive into writing laws to help mitigate a toxic workplace, then great! But then the NFL has the opportunity to abide to those laws. The government can't punish people because they suck.

 

[g00n]

The original premise was "I hope congress pressures the NFL to make Dan sell." That isn't an area we want the government to go. I don't care if it is financial. There is a judicial process if he did something illegal, and I hope he ends up in it. Outside of that, its up to the NFL to govern its private entity. If the committee uses the NFL to do a deep dive into writing laws to help mitigate a toxic workplace, then great! But then the NFL has the opportunity to abide to those laws. The government can't punish people because they suck.

The government puts pressure on businesses to do X or Y all the time.

 

[Corby78]

certainly hard with a full coverup in effect.

You have said this a couple of times. Did he pay somebody to lie? Did he threaten to hurt family members if they talked? Or did he legally use the law to protect himself? These are two different things. If these events bring forth change that helps protect victims, I'm all for it. But unless he did something illegal....

And lets be clear, I hope they find something that he did illegal and they can nail him for it. This is not me trying to protect Dan, its about not throwing away rights as a citizen just to get rid of a crappy owner.

 

[g00n]

You have said this a couple of times. Did he pay somebody to lie? Did he threaten to hurt family members if they talked? Or did he legally use the law to protect himself? These are two different things. If these events bring forth change that helps protect victims, I'm all for it. But unless he did something illegal....

And lets be clear, I hope they find something that he did illegal and they can nail him for it. This is not me trying to protect Dan, its about not throwing away rights as a citizen just to get rid of a crappy owner.

If he's suspected of possibly breaking laws would it make you more comfortable if the FBI were investigating him instead of Congress? Or if Congress passes a "Don't be a Shithead Owner" law?

It seems like this is just semantics. Congress investigating is essentially discovery of facts and potential, suspected wrongdoing. I'd rather a committee of generally disengaged congresspeople handling that for a sports owner instead of the Feds when there are plenty of serious criminals out there better served by actual LEO attention.

 

[Corby78]

The government puts pressure on businesses to do X or Y all the time.

First; Adjusting business practices and forcing somebody to sell property are two different things.
Second; There are steps to do this. While previously ambiguous, you can adjust business laws to cover loop holes and make a business adjust.

I'm fine with the second. They can tell the NFL they need to fix their ship and have better business practices. Then let them do it. How many times have they had people like Zuckerburg testify? They didn't make him sell, but they may have clarified where the law was. Two different things.

Seriously think about this. Do you really want the government to look at you or somebody else, say "that dude is a scum bag" then force him to sell property/business and lose money? That's a scary place.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

You have said this a couple of times. Did he pay somebody to lie? Did he threaten to hurt family members if they talked? Or did he legally use the law to protect himself? These are two different things. If these events bring forth change that helps protect victims, I'm all for it. But unless he did something illegal....

And lets be clear, I hope they find something that he did illegal and they can nail him for it. This is not me trying to protect Dan, its about not throwing away rights as a citizen just to get rid of a crappy owner.

he has no “right” to be an NFL owner….it’s a private club for the most part, by invite only.

He’s certainly silenced people….illegally…well I don’t know more than you do, but it’s clear there has been mass impropriety.

I’m not a huge fan of Congress meddling in sports, but I’d take their interference in this one. Snyder is evil scum who deserves this.

 

[Corby78]

If he's suspected of possibly breaking laws would it make you more comfortable if the FBI were investigating him instead of Congress? Or if Congress passes a "Don't be a Shithead Owner" law?

It seems like this is just semantics. Congress investigating is essentially discovery of facts and potential, suspected wrongdoing. I'd rather a committee of generally disengaged congress people handling that for a sports owner instead of the Feds when there are plenty of serious criminals out there better served by actual LEO attention.

1) Well you have a higher opinion of most of congress than I do, but that's a different subject lol
2) I've said before, I would love for them to discover an illegal act and hand that over to the judicial side to get rid of him.
3) I would rather the NFL deal with him, than anyone else, but since that's not happening, I don't care who does it. I'm not against an inquiry, but I didn't agree with the thought that "congress should force him to sell." That is beyond the control I want to give them.

 

[Corby78]

he has no “right” to be an NFL owner….it’s a private club for the most part, by invite only.

He’s certainly silenced people….illegally…well I don’t know more than you do, but it’s clear there has been mass impropriety.

I’m not a huge fan of Congress meddling in sports, but I’d take their interference in this one.

He does have the right to the opportunity to be an owner, as we all do. There are to restrictions on who can own a team. I wouldn't be surprised if he stepped over the line, and if he did I hope they nail him. But I don't want to give up my rights, just so I can have a new owner of my football team. I would rather give up on the NFL than do that.

I'll be clear. NFL ownership is controlled by the NFL, they make the rules there. Not the US Government. Congress does not run the NFL

 

[g00n]

First; Adjusting business practices and forcing somebody to sell property are two different things.
Second; There are steps to do this. While previously ambiguous, you can adjust business laws to cover loop holes and make a business adjust.

I'm fine with the second. They can tell the NFL they need to fix their ship and have better business practices. Then let them do it. How many times have they had people like Zuckerburg testify? They didn't make him sell, but they may have clarified where the law was. Two different things.

Seriously think about this. Do you really want the government to look at you or somebody else, say "that dude is a scum bag" then force him to sell property/business and lose money? That's a scary place.

I don't buy these slippery slope arguments. This isn't about the big bad nosy government snooping in your back yard. It's 100% unique to the NFL.

The government will not say "Snyder has to sell". Nobody is even asking for that so there's no reason to keep making points about it. The investigations will probably bring enough negative attention to the league it will create business and market pressure on the league to do something, which again is something they do all the time.

Snyder will not lose money if he sells, either. This isn't some poor little shop owner being told to sell to WalMart because the government wants it.

No need to stan for billionaire assholes. There aren't that many of them and they don't need our protection.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

He does have the right to be an owner, as we all do. There are to restrictions on who can own a team. I wouldn't be surprised if he stepped over the line, and if he did I hope they nail him. But I don't want to give up my rights, just so I can have a new owner of my football team. I would rather give up on the NFL than do that.

we all have the opportunity to be an NFL owner, not a “right”….we could walk up with $10 billion cash and it doesn’t give us a right to enter the NFL with a franchise.

there are clearly restrictions on who can buy a team, applied by vote of the member owners.

 

[g00n]

He does have the right to the opportunity to be an owner, as we all do. There are to restrictions on who can own a team. I wouldn't be surprised if he stepped over the line, and if he did I hope they nail him. But I don't want to give up my rights, just so I can have a new owner of my football team. I would rather give up on the NFL than do that.

Felons or those who repeatedly break industry rules/laws may be prohibited from owning some types of businesses based on licensing. Sex offenders might have similar limitations.

You don't have to give up any rights in order to deal with these people and they're more common than NFL owners so I don't think you should be worried.

 

[g00n]

we all have the opportunity to be an NFL owner, not a “right”….we could walk up with $10 billion cash and it doesn’t give us a right to enter the NFL with a franchise.

there are clearly restrictions on who can buy a team, applied by vote of the member owners.

This is my issue...he said "right to the opportunity" to own a business. I don't think "rights" even enter into it, at least not in a meaningful way. It's about opportunity and industry standards, and the government has a right to regulate business.

 

[Corby78]

I don't buy these slippery slope arguments. This isn't about the big bad nosy government snooping in your back yard. It's 100% unique to the NFL.

The government will not say "Snyder has to sell". Nobody is even asking for that so there's no reason to keep making points about it. The investigations will probably bring enough negative attention to the league it will create business and market pressure on the league to do something, which again is something they do all the time.

Snyder will not lose money if he sells, either. This isn't some poor little shop owner being told to sell to WalMart because the government wants it.

No need to stan for billionaire assholes. There aren't that many of them and they don't need our protection.

Not going to beat this dead horse, it all started from that one comment, and that was my response. But I don't buy the "this is just for the NFL or for billionaires." I work for the government and you don't want to be giving these idiots more authority.

But enough on this, I hate Snyder as an owner, and there is a hockey game tonight..

 

[Corby78]

we all have the opportunity to be an NFL owner, not a “right”….we could walk up with $10 billion cash and it doesn’t give us a right to enter the NFL with a franchise.

there are clearly restrictions on who can buy a team, applied by vote of the member owners.

I corrected my post as your are correct IRT opportunity.

 

[Corby78]

Felons or those who repeatedly break industry rules/laws may be prohibited from owning some types of businesses based on licensing. Sex offenders might have similar limitations.

You don't have to give up any rights in order to deal with these people and they're more common than NFL owners so I don't think you should be worried.

I agree, if he is a felon, then nail him. I'm all for it. I think we are on the same side, we just interpreted a post differently.

 

[ynotcaps]

First; Adjusting business practices and forcing somebody to sell property are two different things.
Second; There are steps to do this. While previously ambiguous, you can adjust business laws to cover loop holes and make a business adjust.

I'm fine with the second. They can tell the NFL they need to fix their ship and have better business practices. Then let them do it. How many times have they had people like Zuckerburg testify? They didn't make him sell, but they may have clarified where the law was. Two different things.

Seriously think about this. Do you really want the government to look at you or somebody else, say "that dude is a scum bag" then force him to sell property/business and lose money? That's a scary place.

Kind of comparing apples and jackhammers. The "federal government as boogeyman that takes things from innocent people" is a tired and overly simple old saw that breaks down when it's played out.
This is a billion-dollar business entity in an industry that has built itself into a money-printing factory largely on the back of a federal antitrust exemption that makes possible the TV contracts that are the overwhelming source of the league's profits. Furthermore, it is an industry where owners have access to an incredible largesse in taxpayer dollars to fund stadiums that do arguably little financial good for anyone other than said owners.
That is nowhere NEAR the same thing as the federal government saying some individual "'is a scumbag' then forc(ing) him to sell property/business and lose money."

 

[kicksavedave]

the question is…..did the NFL quietly tell him it was time to go? I’d think yes.

In one day? I mean he announced he would sell the day the news broke. Its possible, but hard to see that playing out for Richardson when they have protected Snyder like a baby kitten. I'm sure the NFL sent him a Christmas card wit ha thank you note though

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

In one day? I mean he announced he would sell the day the news broke. Its possible, but hard to see that playing out for Richardson when they have protected Snyder like a baby kitten. I'm sure the NFL sent him a Christmas card wit ha thank you note though

oh they knew much earlier than the day of the press release I’m sure…

 

[John Price]

Where will new Washington Commanders football stadium site be? | wusa9.com

 

[John Price]

Do you work for the Commanders or know someone who does? Genuinely curious.

i do not

i just feel like we need to talk football and i've grown tired of seeing snyder talk all over message boards (not singling this one out but others too)

 

[John Price]

I mean just look at the last 2 pages it's all snyder and congress

at this time this kind of talk has long wore out it's welcome IMO

I mean the combine starts in a few days lol

 

[g00n]

I mean just look at the last 2 pages it's all snyder and congress

at this time this kind of talk has long wore out it's welcome IMO

I mean the combine starts in a few days lol

I get that you're a passionate fan of the team, but a lot of us have interests in team issues beyond what happens on the field.

We would like to keep discussing those in the thread dedicated to all-things shit waffles, including the significant developments with management.

This is normal for sports talk.

 

[John Price]

I get that you're a passionate fan of the team, but a lot of us have interests in team issues beyond what happens on the field.

We would like to keep discussing those in the thread dedicated to all-things shit waffles, including the significant developments with management.

This is normal for sports talk.

I'm at the age where I've seen people bitch about Snyder constantly and nothing happens to him. I seriously doubt anything is going to happen to him now.

It's to the point where I'd much prefer we move on to football but hey again if you all want to keep talking about Snyder go ahead