NFL owner Mafia meeting drama

[Bill Lee]

Raiders owner Mark Davis reminded the room that, in 2016, the L.A. committee recommended a rival Raiders-Chargers stadium project in Carson, California, by a 5-1 vote over Kroenke's project in Inglewood.

Mara spoke next and said that Kroenke's change in position was ridiculous and that if Kroenke had not agreed to indemnify the league, the owners wouldn't have voted for him to move. He said anyone who was in the room in Houston when the vote was taken would know that.

The sources said Jones argued that he's been dealing with the legal issues, too, and indicated that the problems were not the fault of Kroenke or the league but were because one owner's deposition was shaky. That owner's name was not mentioned.

I find this section the most interesting.

It starts with Davis of the Raiders reminding everyone that the proposal he had along with the Chargers was the one the NFL relocation committee recommended. He's in a position of power because he shook down LV for hundreds of millions of dollars to build their new stadium. He gets to say if you just did what me and Spanos wanted we would not be dealing with this mess.

Then Mara speaks, who represents the old money of the NFL, and he gets to take down the nouveau-rich Kronke a peg or two.

Then Jones, another mega-wealthy nouveau-rich owner jumps off the ropes to defend Kroenke and throw an unnamed owner under the bus, almost certainly Spanos.

So it all goes full circle. Spanos and Davis are relatively poor compared to people like Jones and Kroenke. Their only real asset is their NFL teams. They represent a dying breed in the NFL, which is more and more mega-wealthy people like Tepper who made their money outside the NFL joining the club and pushing out people like them. They too can't help but take Kroenke down a peg or two whenever they get the chance to do so.

As Andrew Brandt recently said, this is how the sausage gets made in the NFL.

In the end, it'll be what I wrote earlier, JJ will use his clout to make sure the pain gets spread across all the owners, even though it was his and Kroenke's greed that led them into this situation.

Hopefully Goodell gets taken out as collateral damage since he didn't find a way to make the Rams move from STL to LA legit. I think it's plausible. All the stuff about Goodell screwing up the game on the field and players conduct issues is just noise to them, but if/when they lose real money and/or have to grant a team to STL thus diluting their wealth, then they take notice.

 

[Bill Lee]

Caption: "Remember Roger when I did a 180 on Brady in Deflategate for the good of the 32? Good times. Good times!"

Interesting thoughts from Breer on how things work at that level, in the context of the Snyder WFT situation:

​

We’ve been over this point before, but the double standard is obvious. We got 243 pages on Tom Brady and Deflategate. We got 144 pages on Richie Incognito and Bullygate. We got 96 pages on Ray Rice. Anyone with Wi-Fi and Google can find those reports readily.​

​

Meanwhile, we got zero from the league on Jim Irsay in 2014, on Jerry Richardson in ’18 or on Robert Kraft in ’20. In each case, the media or the authorities brought the facts to light, there was no follow-up investigation from the league and only Irsay was actually sanctioned by 345 Park.​

...​

Some have asked how other owners could stand for Snyder’s driving the brand of one of the NFL’s flagship franchises into the ground relentlessly for two decades and making them all look bad over the course of the last year. The answer to that one is simple: Everyone has skeletons. No one wants the precedent set of the league’s having license to take an owner’s team away.​

​

Trust me on this: It’s definitely not that the other people in that room like, or even respect, Snyder very much. More so, it’s what taking action on him will mean for everyone.​

​

Four years ago, Richardson did the league a favor in a toxic workplace situation not wholly unlike Washington’s by stepping aside on his own volition, basically conceding that he’d brought a bad situation on to everyone else, and that it was best that he sell the team.​

​

Snyder was never going to be that guy. That’s what left Goodell to stand there and basically say the league was protecting the women promised anonymity by not releasing a Brady- or Incognito-style report, when there were women involved literally asking for the opposite, representing a larger group of women wanting the same, five hours earlier and 50 yards away. That’s what’s left Ron Rivera and others to speak for Snyder over the last year. It’s what’s made this a situation that the league is going to have to continue to reckon with.​

​

So what can everyone take away from this unseemly situation?​

​

In the NFL, the guys who write the checks write the rules, too. And those rules are always subject to change.​

It's still a mystery why Krafty Bob backed down, but in the end I suspect they found something else they could use on him, and/or he knew there was stuff that could be used on him and just a hint of that made him back down.

Or maybe it is that Kraft and Richardson are just the kind of people who eventually back down and Snyder and Kroenke are the kind of people who never back down.

In the Kroenke situation we see he has JJ in his corner and indeed that $6B he put into the stadium counts for a lot with the other owners.

It seems everything in the NFL is transactional.

Breer's article:

Snyder Will Never Take Responsibility; Goodell Won't Make Him

On the same day two former Washington employees asked for transparency, the NFL commissioner stuck to his unseemly talking points to protect one of his own.

www.si.com

 

[denverpatsfan]

Funny. I guess the media hates Krafty Bob too. All I heard yesterday is that Bob was backing Kroenke 100%. Not the case? Only Jerru was backing him at these meetings? Guy is a pure scumbag. Moved his team twice in order to make a few more bucks. Reneging on his promises too. It's the American way however. Capitalism is king.

 

[Bill Lee]

Funny. I guess the media hates Krafty Bob too. All I heard yesterday is that Bob was backing Kroenke 100%. Not the case? Only Jerru was backing him at these meetings? Guy is a pure scumbag. Moved his team twice in order to make a few more bucks. Reneging on his promises too. It's the American way however. Capitalism is king.

Kraft seems to be on the anti-Kroenke side:

Next came Kraft, who sources said seemed to speak for many in the room that Kroenke's position was unfair. He mentioned all the legal hassle he had gone through. In 2016, he had served on a six-person L.A. committee. He argued that if providing financial records as a result of lawsuits would be a consequence of serving on league committees, it would dissuade other owners from wanting to be on committees and making consequential decisions for the league.

This is a quote from the ESPN article on Page 1 of this thread.

If there's another detailed source other than this, I'd be surprised.

It's already surprising we have this one detailed source.

 

[seven]

'Don't look him in the eye'

"it's Mr Snyder"

 

[farn]

Mr Snyder sounds like a pathetic loser who’s only redeeming quality is wealth (for those who consider that a quality). Long story short : Mr Snyder is the prime example of « if he ever loses his money, everyone in his life is going to bail ».

I suspect some posters put much much more important on wealth than I. But I’d rather be me than be Mr Snyder.

 

[n6249c]

Highly doubtful. The owners care about revenue increases year over year. As long as that keeps happening, Goodell isn’t going anywhere.

Not if costs grow faster than revenue. Even a single loss could break things if it’s big enough, and dumb (read: avoidable) enough.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Not if costs grow faster than revenue. Even a single loss could break things if it’s big enough, and dumb (read: avoidable) enough.

I'd love to see Goodell get what he's owed but probably won't happen in my lifetime. What he did to TB in deflategate is just inexcusable.

 

[Kontradiction]

Not if costs grow faster than revenue. Even a single loss could break things if it’s big enough, and dumb (read: avoidable) enough.

That has a very unlikely chance of happening. If you want Goodell gone, it’s simple - stop spending your hard earned money and time on the product. Then hope enough people do the same thing. Since that won’t happen, Goodell isn’t going anywhere.

 

[BTTA]

Mr Snyder sounds like a pathetic loser who’s only redeeming quality is wealth (for those who consider that a quality). Long story short : Mr Snyder is the prime example of « if he ever loses his money, everyone in his life is going to bail ».

I suspect some posters put much much more important on wealth than I. But I’d rather be me than be Mr Snyder.

His dealings with his neighbors of his house here in the DC area make Trump look like a nun. He is despised and disrespected more thoroughly than any public figure I've even known of.

 

[seven]

He is despised and disrespected more thoroughly than any public figure I've even known of.

Most of all in DC?
Arguably were once toughest to get NFL ticket

 

[Dr Pain]

"It's still a mystery why Krafty Bob backed down, but in the end I suspect they found something else they could use on him, and/or he knew there was stuff that could be used on him and just a hint of that made him back down."

No its not, Kraft had a stake in Draftkings which my back of the envelope math was worth close to $200M Robert Kraft, Billionaire Meckenzie Selling Millions of DraftKings Stock

A $1M fine was chump change vs what he was looking at in $ from draftkings Sources: Kraft, Jones retain DraftKings stakes

 

[farn]

Report: Roger Goodell made $128 million over past two years

Because the NFL no longer operates as a tax-exempt trade association, the league has no requirement to publicly disclose Commissioner compensation.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

 

[PP2]

Mr Snyder sounds like a pathetic loser who’s only redeeming quality is wealth (for those who consider that a quality). Long story short : Mr Snyder is the prime example of « if he ever loses his money, everyone in his life is going to bail ».

I suspect some posters put much much more important on wealth than I. But I’d rather be me than be Mr Snyder.

Wealth is not a redeeming quality.

 

[farn]

Wealth is not a redeeming quality.

100% agree.

But I've noticed a trend on this board : "he is rich, so he knows more than you" or "you would trade places with him in a heartbeat, because of $"... So I think many patsfans do think money and wealth is a redeeming quality. Obv you and I don't.

 

[BTTA]

Most of all in DC?
Arguably were once toughest to get NFL ticket

Yes. The politicians all have some constituency that likes them. This guy has nobody.

 

[203Pat]

I can't even imagine the things these guys have said in the last 10 years worth of emails in the WFT investigation. There would be no one left if those ever leaked.

 

[BTTA]

100% agree.

But I've noticed a trend on this board : "he is rich, so he knows more than you" or "you would trade places with him in a heartbeat, because of $"... So I think many patsfans do think money and wealth is a redeeming quality. Obv you and I don't.

We can agree that wealth actually creates challengs with regards to character, happiness, relationships, authenticity. Not easy. At one point in the 90's, the fastest growing specialty in psychology was people who inhereted wealth, because of their issues with self esteem and self worth.

That's why the inheretance tax is so important to the fabric of society. Inhereting money you didn't earn is the worst form of welfare, a terrible entitlement. We do those people a terrible diservice with the policy of not heavily taxing that transaction. And it is bad for the parents who have the wealth, as the impending inheretance distorts and ruins relationships.

OTOH, none of us would leave a billion $$ on the table if offered. We'd all walk into those challenges. What we do with the money is another thing, but most people with big ideas about giving it away, don't.

 

[farn]

We can agree that wealth actually creates challengs with regards to character, happiness, relationships, authenticity. Not easy. At one point in the 90's, the fastest growing specialty in psychology was people who inhereted wealth, because of their issues with self esteem and self worth.

That's why the inheretance tax is so important to the fabric of society. Inhereting money you didn't earn is the worst form of welfare, a terrible entitlement. We do those people a terrible diservice with the policy of not heavily taxing that transaction. And it is bad for the parents who have the wealth, as the impending inheretance distorts and ruins relationships.

OTOH, none of us would leave a billion $$ on the table if offered. We'd all walk into those challenges. What we do with the money is another thing, but most people with big ideas about giving it away, don't.

Can't say "none of us". I don't want 1B$. FOr me : the problems that ensue aren't worth the cash considerations.

 

[PP2]

We can agree that wealth actually creates challengs with regards to character, happiness, relationships, authenticity. Not easy. At one point in the 90's, the fastest growing specialty in psychology was people who inhereted wealth, because of their issues with self esteem and self worth.

That's why the inheretance tax is so important to the fabric of society. Inhereting money you didn't earn is the worst form of welfare, a terrible entitlement. We do those people a terrible diservice with the policy of not heavily taxing that transaction. And it is bad for the parents who have the wealth, as the impending inheretance distorts and ruins relationships.

OTOH, none of us would leave a billion $$ on the table if offered. We'd all walk into those challenges. What we do with the money is another thing, but most people with big ideas about giving it away, don't.

To me the biggest problem is that people confuse wealth with financial independence. Those two are VERY different things.