Seahawks sold

[Kwyn]

Thank goodness! You had me worried when I first started reading. There’s nothing more valuable to a society than billionaires other than trillionaires.

I’m being greedy now, but I can’t wait until we have more trillionaires. Let’s all vote for more tax breaks for the billionaires and make it happen!!!

Life will be great!!!

 

[shabazz]

Come on Elon. Throw the bank at Jerry and buy the Cowboys .
Money whip him.

The Cowboys organization would have to be pried from Jerrys "cold dead hands"

Merely a Charlton Heston quote if any child is triggered by it.

 

[DallasEast]

The Cowboys organization would have to be pried from Jerrys "cold dead hands"

Merely a Charlton Heston quote if any child is triggered by it.

This is the basis of my post earlier speculating what might constitute a 'reasonable' bid (starting at $18.6 billion in this case) to entice Jerry Jones to sell. I doubt he would ever consider a penny less than what another franchise would sell for, while adjusting for his league-leading franchise's value's demand floats above theirs. That bid will only grow as other franchises are bought for even larger amounts.

It is why I do not believe Jones would ever settle for 'the right price'. There will likely never be a right price. He has and would yell 'SOLD!' for practically anything else he owns. He breathes making money, but this franchise represents everything he is not:

Football

He will never let it escape his clutches, no matter how outrageous the selling price. Perhaps his children may, but him? Just do not see it happening. His narcissism will block that opportunity. Shoot. It may be difficult twisting it loose after rigor mortis sets in.

 

[shabazz]

This is the basis of my post earlier speculating what might constitute a 'reasonable' bid (starting at $18.6 billion in this case) to entice Jerry Jones to sell. I doubt he would ever consider a penny less than what another franchise would sell for, while adjusting for his league-leading franchise's value's demand floats above theirs. That bid will only grow as other franchises are bought for even larger amounts.

It is why I do not believe Jones would ever settle for 'the right price'. There will likely never be a right price. He has and would yell 'SOLD!' for practically anything else he owns. He breathes making money, but this franchise represents everything he is not:

Football

He will never let it escape his clutches, no matter how outrageous the selling price. Perhaps his children may, but him? Just do not see it happening. His narcissism will block that opportunity. Shoot. It may be difficult twisting it loose after rigor mortis sets in.

Agree 100%.

I doubt the kids would sell it either but I could see a scenario where they ease back on the "jocks to socks" micro-managing and finally hire a GM to handle the day to day business.....I sure as hell know that I would.

 

[Loso86]

I'm Jealous......... wish it was Dallas getting new ownership.

Be careful what you wish for

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

Was gonna say at some point we will run out of billionaires to buy these franchises but according to Google AI there are over 3400 on the planet, The US alone with almost 1K. So maybe not.

I am one of the 1K, we are not going anywhere! Here to stay my friend.

 

[DandyDon52]

It’s ridiculous what been done to certain uniforms over the years, but I’ve learned to ignore it.

Can’t stand Jerry in the slightest, but at least there was no dramatic messing with the uniforms.

Seattle? Forget it. Even the iconic Miami Dolphins look like some weird USFL team from the 80s. The Steelers used to be all intimidating with those huge white block numbers. Now they are small and curvy. How cute. Denver started it in the late 90s. They looked like the Rhein Fire.

One thing you can be sure of in many aspects of life….itll change, and 90 percent of the time it not for the better. I feel like an old man saying that, but this began before that happened lol.

I agree , and yeah always changing and rarely for the better !
I liked the old denver uni, and hated the new ones and still do, but as soon as they changed they won 2 SB's lol so that may make owners think if they change too they will win a sb.

 

[plasticman]

I find it curious that an owner of one NFL team is allowed to buy another NFL team ..

Would you believe that, in the 70's, two owners actually traded teams?

It was the Rams and Colts.

Yep, the Israys used to own the Rams and Rosenbloom had the Colts. They switched in 1972.

Pretty wild, right?

 

[fivetwos]

I agree , and yeah always changing and rarely for the better !
I liked the old denver uni, and hated the new ones and still do, but as soon as they changed they won 2 SB's lol so that may make owners think if they change too they will win a sb.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Diehardblues]

I find it curious that an owner of one NFL team is allowed to buy another NFL team ..

He is a limited partner with SF. And if he or his group is approved and he becomes majority owner with Sea he will be required to sell those shares with SF.

 

[Gangsta Spanksta]

I find it curious that an owner of one NFL team is allowed to buy another NFL team ..

Yeah that is the first thing I thought, wonder if he has to sell his stake in the 9ers.

 

[Diehardblues]

Yeah that is the first thing I thought, wonder if he has to sell his stake in the 9ers.

He will if the sale is approved. But he isn’t required to sell those 49ers shares until the sale of Sea is approved.

 

[Diehardblues]

I get that he will have to sell at some point, but it would seem like that would be against the NFL ownership rules to legally agree to purchase one NFL team while still owning another.

The reason the rule is in place is because the sale cant go thru until it’s approved by 2/3 currently at least 24 owners.

So, in the event the sale isnt approved they are able to retain their current shares.

Back in 1989 for example when Mavs owner Donald Carter and Lakers owner Dr Jerry Buss had higher bids on the Cowboys is part of the reason Bum Bright chose Jethro at a lower bid cause he needed money quickly facing Savings &Loans bankruptcy bail out cash.

Being majority owners ( NFL didn’t allow majority stake in both) they would have needed time to sell out before taking over Cowboys if approved. Time Bum didn’t have.

This Seattle buyer only owns about 3% share so won’t be difficult or time consuming to sell, most likely to other partners.

 

[Diehardblues]

Note: cross ownership rules ( multiple sports )were amended in 1997 after was challenged in Anti-Trust litigation.

“After the antitrust litigation with the NASL in the 1980’s, the NFL continued to operate as if the cross-ownership ban was still in place, but would occasionally grant exceptions to the rule.[22] The NFL did not change the way it operated until 1997 when Wayne Huizenga (Huizenga) was allowed to become owner of the Miami Dolphins, while still retaining his ownership of the Florida Panthers (National Hockey League (NHL)) and Florida Marlins (Major League Baseball (MLB)).[23] Huizenga bought the Dolphins in 1993, but the team was placed in a trust subject to restricted ownership under NFL rules, since he was in conflict with the cross-ownership rules.[24] The NFL could have forced Huizenga to sell one or more of his teams if it did not change its position on cross-ownership.[25] Well, the NFL did change its stance on cross-ownership in 1997 when it amended the NFL Constitution and Bylaws to modify the rule with the 1997 Resolution FC-3.[26] NFL owners voted, 24-5-1, with one abstention to allow team owners to own multiple other major sports franchises. “

“The new Rule allowed NFL team owner cross-ownership in another major league sports team if: (1) the other professional sports franchise was in the same city as the NFL team of the owner, or (2) the other league’s franchise was in a neutral city, meaning a city that is not currently occupied by an NFL team and is not characterized as a potential NFL city.[33]This Rule helped to advance the NFL’s goal of limiting competition among team owners to the field.[34] The NFL does not want a situation where the owners, who are also business partners, are competing against each other for revenue from tickets, sponsorships, and merchandise, which they share.[35]Essentially the NFL is trying to prevent owners from competing with each other for sports and entertainment dollars in the same city.[36] This would be the case if owners were allowed to own their NFL team in one city and a baseball team in a different NFL city; the owner of the baseball team would be competing with his business partner (the other NFL owner) for fans and revenue.”

https://greenberglawoffice.com/nfl-cross-ownership-rule/

 

[John813]

Seeing these numbers, and then owners crying about public funding is so off putting.

If you and your rich friends can afford a 9.6bil purchase, then you can also be 100% responsible for the stadium renovations. Lord knows these days the NFL prints money for the owners.

 

[Diehardblues]

Seeing these numbers, and then owners crying about public funding is so off putting.

If you and your rich friends can afford a 9.6bil purchase, then you can also be 100% responsible for the stadium renovations. Lord knows these days the NFL prints money for the owners.

But the cities, municipalities communities and business benefit financially. And why they are usually more than willing to invest and participate.

Ultimately citizens vote on any tax increases.

If not then the owners should receive all of the additional income spent by fans staying at local hotels, eateries, airports , etc.

Not to mention all of the employees who spend on housing, livelihood cost, etc.

The economic impacts to these communities is huge and why they are usually more than willing. And IMO obligated to share investments. How much or percentage is a better argument.

 

[Reality]

The reason the rule is in place is because the sale cant go thru until it’s approved by 2/3 currently at least 24 owners.

So, in the event the sale isnt approved they are able to retain their current shares.

Back in 1989 for example when Mavs owner Donald Carter and Lakers owner Dr Jerry Buss had higher bids on the Cowboys is part of the reason Bum Bright chose Jethro at a lower bid cause he needed money quickly facing Savings &Loans bankruptcy bail out cash.

Being majority owners ( NFL didn’t allow majority stake in both) they would have needed time to sell out before taking over Cowboys if approved. Time Bum didn’t have.

This Seattle buyer only owns about 3% share so won’t be difficult or time consuming to sell, most likely to other partners.

I get the reasons why the owner would want to be covered in event something goes wrong, but given the NFL's competitiveness and potential for poaching and stealing of internal/inside information of their current team, it seems to me that the NFL would require any current team owner interested in buying another team (exception would be a new expansion team) to sell their ownership in their current team BEFORE making any offers to buy a new team even before they start negotiating.

They do not allow coaches/players to do that because its called tampering.

Imagine if coaches/players could do the same thing .. they could start talking to other teams 1-2 years ahead of their contract ending so when their contract ends, they already have a deal in place with another team.

Even worse, it would be like the Eagles talking to Cowboys coaches/players because the 49ers and Seahawks are division rivals.

That's because getting one coach/player to agree to a future contract with a rival team would likely end up having that coach/player also talking to other coaches/players during that remaining period pushing them to go with them to the new team in 1-2 years.

As I have said, I get the owner reasoning for "don't give up what you have until you know for sure you're getting the new thing you want".

My point was the NFL prevents any type of tampering with coaches/players and I am shocked they do not do the same with owners.

It will be funny if more 49ers minority owners end up leaving to join that owner in the Seahwawks deal.

 

[Diehardblues]

I get the reasons why the owner would want to be covered in event something goes wrong, but given the NFL's competitiveness and potential for poaching and stealing of internal/inside information of their current team, it seems to me that the NFL would require any current team owner interested in buying another team (exception would be a new expansion team) to sell their ownership in their current team BEFORE making any offers to buy a new team even before they start negotiating.

They do not allow coaches/players to do that because its called tampering.

Imagine if coaches/players could do the same thing .. they could start talking to other teams 1-2 years ahead of their contract ending so when their contract ends, they already have a deal in place with another team.

Even worse, it would be like the Eagles talking to Cowboys coaches/players because the 49ers and Seahawks are division rivals.

That's because getting one coach/player to agree to a future contract with a rival team would likely end up having that coach/player also talking to other coaches/players during that remaining period pushing them to go with them to the new team in 1-2 years.

As I have said, I get the owner reasoning for "don't give up what you have until you know for sure you're getting the new thing you want".

My point was the NFL prevents any type of tampering with coaches/players and I am shocked they do not do the same with owners.

It will be funny if more 49ers minority owners end up leaving to join that owner in the Seahwawks deal.

I don’t see the similarity in ownership and personnel.

First of all the only exception in coaching is for HC under contract . All other coaches are allowed to pursue moving to other teams while under contract as long as it’s not a lateral move . And we have seen some exceptions to HC rule with trades or compensation thereof.

We just signed Eagles defensive coach who was under contract cause it was a move up for him to DC. Totally allowed in NFL.

And players under contract are able in contract years to pursue and negotiate when they become FA.

Going back to the owners , the fact they must relinquish after owner approval relieves any issues. I’d assume the prospective Seattle owner already has sale of his 3% lined up.

Imagine if owners were mandated to sell out current shares and then owners didn’t pass new ownership . 2/3 could basically black ball someone out of ownership by forcing him or her to sell current shares while not passing new ones .

 

[Vtwin]

The Cowboys organization would have to be pried from Jerrys "cold dead hands"

Merely a Charlton Heston quote if any child is triggered by it.

 

[Reality]

I don’t see the similarity in ownership and personnel.

First of all the only exception in coaching is for HC under contract . All other coaches are allowed to pursue moving to other teams while under contract as long as it’s not a lateral move . And we have seen some exceptions to HC rule with trades or compensation thereof.

We just signed Eagles defensive coach who was under contract cause it was a move up for him to DC. Totally allowed in NFL.

And players under contract are able in contract years to pursue and negotiate when they become FA.

Going back to the owners , the fact they must relinquish after owner approval relieves any issues. I’d assume the prospective Seattle owner already has sale of his 3% lined up.

Imagine if owners were mandated to sell out current shares and then owners didn’t pass new ownership . 2/3 could basically black ball someone out of ownership by forcing him or her to sell current shares while not passing new ones .

I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying LEGALLY they should not be able to do it.

I'm saying the NFL puts a huge focus on preventing tampering between coaches and players with other teams.

They do this not for legal reasons but simply to prevent all of the negatives that come with it such as tampering and influence spreading to other coaches and players long before their contracts are up.

So with that mindset, it would also seem that if an owner of one team wants to pursue leaving that team to buy a new team, especially a division rival, that the NFL would expect that owner to leave their current team BEFORE attempting to buy the new team because that could lead to a lot of inside/internal information risks.

The legal angle would only come in after the deal was signed and if that happens, it actually would not surprise me to see the 49ers file legal motions to either protect their interests or in complaint of actions already taken by that owner during the process that in any way negatively impacts them.

If the NFL had a policy of requiring the current owner to sell their ownership of the existing team before attempting to buy another team, neither of those scenarios would be an issue.

To be clear, this isn't about ME saying it is right or wrong as that appears to be what you're debating.

What I'm saying is I am surprised the NFL allows it.