Irsay says merit to remove Snyder

[chad72]

Commander fans are probably glad someone said it, and they would be behind it, if you did a secret ballot, in a landslide majority.  

[gspdx]

32 minutes ago, DougDew said:

The "look of the league" is an assumption they use to justify their one-sided actions.  Its not rooted in any fact.  In fact, the only evidence that ratings are lost over stuff like this is when the NFL gets TOO political or goes out of their swim lanes too far.  There is no evidence to suggest that the NFL loses ratings because one of its owners is an *.

 

I think Snyder not being able to land a new stadium deal is a bigger deal to the NFL business model.  Of course, he's dealing with a fan base that probably encourages the NFL to go out of their swim lanes....if the issues are the "correct" issues.

 

The "look of the league" is a real issue since the NFL has always looked for ways to expand their market.  One thing the NFL has really pushed over the last decade or so it bringing in more female fans.  A huge market that in earlier years was ignored.  If the actions of the league. players, etc., cause women to sour on being fans that impacts the NFL as a whole.  So there is merit in this statement.
 

And not being able to land a new stadium is an issue too.  Maybe they are just finally tired of everything this guy is and does.  I don't know and really don't care what is going on in the minds of all the other owners.  The bottom line is if they choose to kick him out of the NFL I would bet they have all of the legal bases covered.  

 

If their actions are one-sided that is their choice.  It is their business, their league.  We are just along for the ride.  If you don't like that way they run their league that is your choice.  

[DougDew]

37 minutes ago, gspdx said:

 

The govt isn't taking his private business.  He is at risk of having contractual agreements invoked that he agreed to when he bought the team and joined the privileged club he currently a member of.  He knew the rules when he joined the club.  Now he might get voted off the Island.

I doubt if the rules Snyder violated were specifically pointed out in the contract.    I believe the current criticism is a broad based interpretation under someone's definition of "creating an atmosphere within the organization" that "allowed" specific persons to commit specific acts against another at a specific time.....so it backs up on to Snyder because they want it to.

 

The government gives a 32 franchise league the same rights as other trade organizations or franchise businesses under the antitrust exemption.  McDonalds can operate under rules it wants to operate under because their is no government protection from the competition like Burger King, Wendy's etc from competing against them.

 

So in this case, since  the NFL exists in its current form only because of government action, the government is sanctioning the transference of a franchise to another person even though the government could never do that on its own, and allowing the NFL to transfer the ownership probably under some nebulous interpretations of whatever contracts or rules were established that say that whatever some employee did is ultimately Snyder's fault.   Doesn't seem right to me.  

[Moosejawcolt]

12 hours ago, jonjon said:

Exactly. Irsay needs to shut up.

U r correct . But let's be real. Most of these owners r complete scum bags. U don't acquire that much wealth without walking over a lot of people. Snyder, however, is on another level in terms of being a scum bag.

[2006Coltsbestever]

12 hours ago, jonjon said:

Exactly. Irsay needs to shut up.

No he doesn't. He is saying what almost everyone is thinking. I think Irsay is 100% correct. 

[gspdx]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

No he doesn't. He is saying what almost everyone is thinking. I think Irsay is 100% correct. 

 

I guess free speech is only allowed in certain situations...

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, gspdx said:

 

I guess free speech is only allowed in certain situations...

Irsay says free speech is for everyone, everyone can hold his beer . Where Snyder crossed the line with him was, when Snyder said I am digging up dirt on all the owners. Irsay was like OK 

[John Waylon]

Snyder is a dirtball bag of %, he's never not been one, and he'll never not be one. We don't need an investigation to arrive at this conclusion. In fact, there's been A LOT (No, really. Like, a loooooooooooooooot,) of people who have been pointing it out for the last 4 presidencies. 

 

Goodell himself said he had no issue with Irsay making the comments. I'm sure 75% of the owners are glad Irsay had the stones to come right out an say the exact same things they're all thinking, and the other 25% are either 1. dirtball bag's of % themselves and are living down to their credence of sticking together until they start to swirl the drain (jurrah jones, come on down you're the next contestant on "but its da mainstream media's fault!",) or 2. scared of whatever intel the guy with stooges at the pentagon has on them. 

 

This %storm has been brewing for well over a decade now. WELL over. Time for the flood to come and wash it all away.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

Snyder is a dirtball bag of %, he's never not been one, and he'll never not be one. We don't need an investigation to arrive at this conclusion. In fact, there's been A LOT (No, really. Like, a loooooooooooooooot,) of people who have been pointing it out for the last 4 presidencies. 

 

Goodell himself said he had no issue with Irsay making the comments. I'm sure 75% of the owners are glad Irsay had the stones to come right out an say the exact same things they're all thinking, and the other 25% are either 1. dirtball bag's of % themselves and are living down to their credence of sticking together until they start to swirl the drain (jurrah jones, come on down you're the next contestant on "but its da mainstream media's fault!",) or 2. scared of whatever intel the guy with stooges at the pentagon has on them. 

 

This %storm has been brewing for well over a decade now. WELL over. Time for the flood to come and wash it all away.

- awesome post!

[gspdx]

3 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

Snyder is a dirtball bag of %, he's never not been one, and he'll never not be one. We don't need an investigation to arrive at this conclusion. In fact, there's been A LOT (No, really. Like, a loooooooooooooooot,) of people who have been pointing it out for the last 4 presidencies. 

 

Goodell himself said he had no issue with Irsay making the comments. I'm sure 75% of the owners are glad Irsay had the stones to come right out an say the exact same things they're all thinking, and the other 25% are either 1. dirtball bag's of % themselves and are living down to their credence of sticking together until they start to swirl the drain (jurrah jones, come on down you're the next contestant on "but its da mainstream media's fault!",) or 2. scared of whatever intel the guy with stooges at the pentagon has on them. 

 

This %storm has been brewing for well over a decade now. WELL over. Time for the flood to come and wash it all away.

 

Tell us how you really feel now!

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, gspdx said:

 

Tell us how you really feel now!

I liked it

[gspdx]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I liked it

Me too!

[John Waylon]

Just now, gspdx said:

 

Tell us how you really feel now!

 

lol I got no skin in the game. I've just been a follower from the distance watching the happenings in real-time. Whatever this current investigation finds isn't worth peanuts. The dozens of other investigations that have unearthed what a greaseball he is, and the cruddy and illegal practices he runs his franchise with have told us all we need to know. We shouldn't need to be told again for like the 34th time. 

[gspdx]

Just now, John Waylon said:

 

lol I got no skin in the game. I've just been a follower from the distance watching the happenings in real-time. Whatever this current investigation finds isn't worth peanuts. The dozens of other investigations that have unearthed what a greaseball he is, and the cruddy and illegal practices he runs his franchise with have told us all we need to know. We shouldn't need to be told again for like the 34th time. 

 

He's also really bad at free agent acquisitions.  

[stitches]

Irsay was the conscience of the Colts last year and is turning into the conscience of the NFL ownership right now. He's saying what everybody is thinking and wants to say, but then everybody acts like he's some line stepper who's speaking out of turn. 

 

You know what? Good on Jimmy with the Colts. I'm glad he's the owner of my team. 

[cdgacoltsfan]

Years ago, a couple buddies (Skins fans) and I traveled to Indy for Colts / Wash game at the old RCA dome. We decided to go out to eat and got in line at St Elmo's. A white limo pulled up and Dan Snyder and his entourage got out. One of my buddies asked if he could upgrade our tickets (my two buddies had Skins hats on, I had a Colts hat on,) Snyder told him , " for you two, yes. For your friend ( me) ....no. He and his entourage proceeded to walk right by us and into St Elmos. He should have been forced to sell the team right then and there!

[John Waylon]

8 minutes ago, gspdx said:

 

He's also really bad at free agent acquisitions.  

 

If only the league would allow him to take along cheerleaders on recruitment trips...

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

13 minutes ago, John Waylon said:

 

If only the league would allow him to take along cheerleaders on recruitment trips...

 

- I approve that message.

[Nesjan3]

You know Snyder can feel it coming and is getting desperate by having that article released about him having "dirt" lol. He is toxic and will likely be gone by next season.

[RollerColt]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

I doubt if the rules Snyder violated were specifically pointed out in the contract.    I believe the current criticism is a broad based interpretation under someone's definition of "creating an atmosphere within the organization" that "allowed" specific persons to commit specific acts against another at a specific time.....so it backs up on to Snyder because they want it to.

 

The government gives a 32 franchise league the same rights as other trade organizations or franchise businesses under the antitrust exemption.  McDonalds can operate under rules it wants to operate under because their is no government protection from the competition like Burger King, Wendy's etc from competing against them.

 

So in this case, since  the NFL exists in its current form only because of government action, the government is sanctioning the transference of a franchise to another person even though the government could never do that on its own, and allowing the NFL to transfer the ownership probably under some nebulous interpretations of whatever contracts or rules were established that say that whatever some employee did is ultimately Snyder's fault.   Doesn't seem right to me.  

I see your side of the argument, but this is the norm in the US of A. Take the private education system for example:

 

Private schools are at least partially funded by the government, and are expected to follow at least some of the standards of public education. There have been many instances of teachers being fired for their beliefs, orientations and so on. Is that right? Is that wrong? Being as they are private they technically have the right to do that... 

 

What I'm trying to say is that this is common in our country, where if someone does, says, or believes something different than what the general society accepts as the norm they can and often will be held accountable for their actions and beliefs and be removed, replaced or outright shunned. The NFL, acting privately while being supported publicly, is doing the same thing. 

[Nickster]

13 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

You can think that and live that if you wish but it doesn’t exist when it comes to peoples opinions.  

I'm pretty sure that owners would have to show legal cause to kick a guy out of the league.  

So I'm not sure your take is quite accurate. 

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, gspdx said:

The "look of the league" is a real issue since the NFL has always looked for ways to expand their market.  One thing the NFL has really pushed over the last decade or so it bringing in more female fans.  A huge market that in earlier years was ignored.  If the actions of the league. players, etc., cause women to sour on being fans that impacts the NFL as a whole.  So there is merit in this statement.
 

And not being able to land a new stadium is an issue too.  Maybe they are just finally tired of everything this guy is and does.  I don't know and really don't care what is going on in the minds of all the other owners.  The bottom line is if they choose to kick him out of the NFL I would bet they have all of the legal bases covered.  

 

If their actions are one-sided that is their choice.  It is their business, their league.  We are just along for the ride.  If you don't like that way they run their league that is your choice.  

Yep, its all a matter of choice.   And our opinion.  Like most fans, I'm certainly not going to be so personal-conduct judgmental as to actually not watch football because the NFL chose to either keep or kick out Snyder.

 

I won't make a decision about my interest in a team based upon what the NFL policy does or doesn't do...but I might lose interest if my owner shoots off his mouth in an elitist judgmental sort of way....on the heels of sort of doing the same thing with his QB last year.  That's a real turn off that I can see for myself...not some investigator telling me my owner "created an atmosphere within the organization"   whatever that is. 

 

How exactly do you cater a football product "more to women" if you don't assume that they all think alike  (introduce more pink into the clothes?)  The idea of not staying gender or racially neutral by trying to make your product more attractive to specific demographics inherently assumes that members of that demographic all think alike.   Interesting how people just publicly accept that inherent sexism in marketing or product development.  In private, they probably say WTH...and quietly question the mentality of companies like the NFL who appear to pander in a way that's based upon its own biases.

 

[Nickster]

5 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It is not a skeleton, everyone knows about what irsay did. Goodell needs to slow his role as well if he has a problem with Jim or other owners having a problem with Snyder, the owners pay his salary. 

It's a skeleton.  It's just not in his closet. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Nickster said:

It's a skeleton.  It's just not in his closet. 

[Nickster]

38 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I'm pretty sure that owners would have to show legal cause to kick a guy out of the league.  

So I'm not sure your take is quite accurate. 

So looked it up.  It's interesting.  You need a 3/4 committee vote and a 3/4 full ownership body vote, if there is "wrongful conduct".

 

So I don't know if there is any obligation to "prove" "Wrongful conduct" or not.  But I would guess that this would involve a legal battle if 24 owners agree to get rid of him.

 

Any legal types on here?  Would the NFL need to show cause or can they just act at will?  He's not an employee, but I guess like a board member?

[indyagent17]

13 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Agreed. Fans and social media will always argue. But owners are traditionally conservative in terms of what they say about each other. Did anyone voice concerns about Kraft, or others. Nope. And those that want Snyder gone, normally would normally hold tongues until it's done. 

Hypocrisy 

[indyagent17]

Wow, the court of public opinion doesn't care about facts, they just want to tar and feather anyone they don't like. If all of this is true then he should be arrested but if this is all hyperbole. We all deserve to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Yes an open, visible, dancing skeleton.

[DougDew]

41 minutes ago, Nickster said:

So looked it up.  It's interesting.  You need a 3/4 committee vote and a 3/4 full ownership body vote, if there is "wrongful conduct".

 

So I don't know if there is any obligation to "prove" "Wrongful conduct" or not.  But I would guess that this would involve a legal battle if 24 owners agree to get rid of him.

 

Any legal types on here?  Would the NFL need to show cause or can they just act at will?  He's not an employee, but I guess like a board member?

Board members can be kicked off of Boards, but its a lot harder to force them to sell their ownership shares. 

 

I'm not a lawyer at all, but I would think that an owner's contract with the NFL would have to be very clear about the conditions that his multi-billion dollar company could be taken away from him (and how compensation is arrived).  "wrongful conduct" is too subjective, IMO, and is subject to legal interpretations by lawyers on both sides.  

 

So far, nobody has ever shown that personal or social misconduct by anybody under the NFL umbrella has ever hurt the NFLs bottom line..  Its just been an assumption used to validate punishment, IMO.  Snyder has enough lawyers and motivations to challenge that assumption, I would guess.

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, indyagent17 said:

Wow, the court of public opinion doesn't care about facts, they just want to tar and feather anyone they don't like. If all of this is true then he should be arrested but if this is all hyperbole. We all deserve to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  

And in a court of law he will be.  Innocent until proven guilty never has and never will exist in public opinion.  

[GoColts8818]

 

[Nickster]

7 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

And in a court of law he will be.  Innocent until proven guilty never has and never will exist in public opinion.  

That's what I am interested in.  Is there some sort of Show Cause deal with the minimum 24 owners who would be required to get rid of him, or is it a kindof at will decision for the 24 required owners.

 

If it is a show cause thing, then he would have some legal burden of "proof" of guilt it seems.  

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Seriously doubt Irsay is a Saint compared to other owners..besides the well known substance abuse he's been battling, he put innocent motorists and pedestrians in danger driving a car while intoxicated, publicly criticises his own players and and dated and wrecked a married woman's marriage with kids.  home....... https://larrybrownsports.com/football/jim-irsay-girlfriend-jami-martin-twitter/244389

 

....not to mention we haven't won our division in nearly a decade. 

 

But despite everything, he's our owner and actually like the dude and wish him well. 

[RollerColt]

56 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Snyder has enough lawyers and motivations to challenge that assumption, I would guess.

Absolutely. It's about to get ugly. 

[jvan1973]

9 hours ago, DougDew said:

I doubt if the rules Snyder violated were specifically pointed out in the contract.    I believe the current criticism is a broad based interpretation under someone's definition of "creating an atmosphere within the organization" that "allowed" specific persons to commit specific acts against another at a specific time.....so it backs up on to Snyder because they want it to.

 

The government gives a 32 franchise league the same rights as other trade organizations or franchise businesses under the antitrust exemption.  McDonalds can operate under rules it wants to operate under because their is no government protection from the competition like Burger King, Wendy's etc from competing against them.

 

So in this case, since  the NFL exists in its current form only because of government action, the government is sanctioning the transference of a franchise to another person even though the government could never do that on its own, and allowing the NFL to transfer the ownership probably under some nebulous interpretations of whatever contracts or rules were established that say that whatever some employee did is ultimately Snyder's fault.   Doesn't seem right to me.  

Ever heard of Donald Sterling?

[GoColts8818]

6 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Ever heard of Donald Sterling?

Not sure if the NFL has the same rules that let silver take the Clippers from Sterling.  Also those rules are normally really limited, like Silver said he didn’t have the power to take the Suns which was a situation similar to Snyder’s.  

[BlueShoe]

I think Snyder is bad for the NFL. However, it’s a slippery slope to start forcing team owners to sell. It would be nice if he would just sell it on his own. But we all know that’s not going to happen. 

[Happy2BeHere]

Breaking news: Irsay doesn’t say “there is merit to remove Reich”

 

Kick them both (Reich and Snyder) out of the league  

[Happy2BeHere]

Not sure I recall seeing this link posted in here https://www.nfl.com/news/jim-irsay-s-comments-put-onus-on-other-nfl-owners-to-grapple-with-daniel-snyder-

 

but it’s a pretty good read. 

[DougDew]

11 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Ever heard of Donald Sterling?

Yep, he came to mind as I was thinking about this.    I disagreed with that too.  But that's the NBA and they've got some weirder attitudes about things.  I think it was even shown that he did NOT do anything remotely illegal....the NBA and possibly its sponsors simply got squeamish about the impact his situation would have on their rather unique fan base.....with no evidence of course....more of an excuse to act.