Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Why is the sale of the team taking so long?


Eazy-E

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

It's reasonable. The story about him being the front runner did, after all, come from NFL.com :thinking:

Tepper is already "in the club" so to speak, and given how much money he brings to the table it's reasonable to believe that the NFL wants him to have a bigger stake.

Someone else pointed out that the 5% stake Tepper has in the Steelers was bought from Jimmy Haslam, who basically followed the same path.  I suppose you could get fairly tinfoil hattish with that if you wanted to.

I just think he fits the profile perfectly for the league.  He's already a club member, is likely on friendly terms with several owners, has the funds that would put him at the grown-up table, and he is a skilled and cut-throat negotiator (which would come in very handy with the upcoming CBA negotiations).  He just makes too much sense.  I'm not a tinfoil hat guy, but I can easily see a scenario where the league is trying to steer this franchise toward Tepper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Woodie said:

I just think he fits the profile perfectly for the league.  He's already a club member, is likely on friendly terms with several owners, has the funds that would put him at the grown-up table, and he is a skilled and cut-throat negotiator (which would come in very handy with the upcoming CBA negotiations).  He just makes too much sense.  I'm not a tinfoil hat guy, but I can easily see a scenario where the league is trying to steer this franchise toward Tepper.

Which brings up another question...

Does Richardson having to sell the team under a cloud of scandal make it easier for the NFL to nudge the sale toward their preferred guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Which brings up another question...

Does Richardson having to sell the team under a cloud of scandal make it easier for the NFL to nudge the sale toward their preferred guy?

I don't know if it makes it easier, but it might give JR a greater sense of urgency to find a buyer rather than wait on someone that fits his ideals better.  I do think he is loyal to the league, and won't want to put it through the ringer while waiting on his preferred group to figure out a way to get enough capital to justify selling it to them over Tepper.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Woodie said:

I don't know if it makes it easier, but it might give JR a greater sense of urgency to find a buyer rather than wait on someone that fits his ideals better.  I do think he is loyal to the league, and won't want to put it through the ringer while waiting on his preferred group to figure out a way to get enough capital to justify selling it to them over Tepper.   

Do you believe he's still loyal to the league even though they declined to drop the investigation?

Word was the league was trying to pressure Richardson into hiring someone other than Hurney as GM, but he did it anyway.  I kinda doubt he's got enough power to keep the league from imposing their will on this front, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do.  I think it's ingrained in his DNA at this point.  I also think he understands the league is in a tough position with this.  The Metoo! stuff along with the negative press from the domestic violence issue pushed the NFL to at least give the appearance of taking it seriously and investigating the accusations.  But I do believe he thinks this is all a dog and pony show, and nothing will come of it.  And he's probably right as long as no one picks it up as their agenda (like the NFLPA is trying to do).   

And I don't think we know for a fact that the league was trying to pressure JR to hire someone other than Marty.  I think it was just a rumor/unsubstantiated report.  But even if they did, we don't know how much pressure, or if it was presented as a big deal or just a suggestion.  Either way, I don't think he made the hire to flaunt it in the league's faces, I think he genuinely believes Hurney is the best person for the job right now...and I also think it was another case of him rewarding loyalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Woodie said:

I do.  I think it's ingrained in his DNA at this point.  I also think he understands the league is in a tough position with this.  The Metoo! stuff along with the negative press from the domestic violence issue pushed the NFL to at least give the appearance of taking it seriously and investigating the accusations.  But I do believe he thinks this is all a dog and pony show, and nothing will come of it.  And he's probably right as long as no one picks it up as their agenda (like the NFLPA is trying to do).   

And I don't think we know for a fact that the league was trying to pressure JR to hire someone other than Marty.  I think it was just a rumor/unsubstantiated report.  But even if they did, we don't know how much pressure, or if it was presented as a big deal or just a suggestion.  Either way, I don't think he made the hire to flaunt it in the league's faces, I think he genuinely believes Hurney is the best person for the job right now...and I also think it was another case of him rewarding loyalty.

I've gone back and forth on how I think this all ends.

There are times when I think maybe the old boys club would be willing to do him one last favor and let him ride off into the sunset.  But then I think about the backlash from the #metoos and others and I have to wonder whether the NFL would be willing to weather something like that just to save Jerry Richardson some embarrassment.

No idea how this story ends, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I've gone back and forth on how I think this all ends.

There are times when I think maybe the old boys club would be willing to do him one last favor and let him ride off into the sunset.  But then I think about the backlash from the #metoos and others and I have to wonder whether the NFL would be willing to weather something like that just to save Jerry Richardson some embarrassment.

No idea how this story ends, honestly.

I think when the team is sold the league will do whatever they can to make this go away.  More than anything they don't want to embarrass themselves and add another black eye, and substantiating these harassment claims would be embarrassing for everyone, but also could open the floodgates to other franchises. 

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if once the sale is concluded, everyone moves on without actually closing the investigation...at least for a while.  That way the league can say they are still investigating until everyone forgets, then they could quietly close it down without any official word.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Woodie said:

I think when the team is sold the league will do whatever they can to make this go away.  More than anything they don't want to embarrass themselves and add another black eye, and substantiating these harassment claims would be embarrassing for everyone, but also could open the floodgates to other franchises. 

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if once the sale is concluded, everyone moves on without actually closing the investigation...at least for a while.  That way the league can say they are still investigating until everyone forgets, then they could quietly close it down without any official word.   

I could see that, but I'm not sure the Players Association would sit quietly by and let that happen. They're not exactly Jerry Richardson's biggest fans. Honestly with the Sports Illustrated report already out there, it might be difficult to do regardless.

Obviously, the NFL wants to get this story out of the public consciousness. I just question whether they can actually do that now in a #metoo world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I could see that, but I'm not sure the Players Association would sit quietly by and let that happen. They're not exactly Jerry Richardson's biggest fans. Honestly with the Sports Illustrated report already out there, it might be difficult to do regardless.

Obviously, the NFL wants to get this story out of the public consciousness. I just question whether they can actually do that now in a #metoo world.

The one thing the NFL has going for it right now is "metoo" fatigue.  I think people are starting to get worn out by all the accusations and reports, so are starting to not pay as much attention as they had been.  You're still going to have groups trying to make it an issue, but I don't think there are as many people listening as there were a month or two ago.  Add that with the fact that any investigation likely will not conclude until after the sale of the team, and you'll likely get a bunch of "so what's." 

And since the players association really doesn't have much authority here, I don't think their agenda will gain much traction.  I think it's more just a volley at the NFL that they are watching anyway.  I also don't think they'll want to waste any power they have on an issue in which most of the principles involved no longer have any affiliation with the NFL.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Woodie said:

The one thing the NFL has going for it right now is "metoo" fatigue.  I think people are starting to get worn out by all the accusations and reports, so are starting to not pay as much attention as they had been.  You're still going to have groups trying to make it an issue, but I don't think there are as many people listening as there were a month or two ago.  Add that with the fact that any investigation likely will not conclude until after the sale of the team, and you'll likely get a bunch of "so what's." 

And since the players association really doesn't have much authority here, I don't think their agenda will gain much traction.  I think it's more just a volley at the NFL that they are watching anyway.  I also don't think they'll want to waste any power they have on an issue in which most of the principles involved no longer have any affiliation with the NFL.  

All of which would explain why they want to see the investigation conclude before the team is sold.

It does occur to me they could also hope to take a parting shot at an old nemesis. They might believe a scandal could potentially knock some of the value off the team and cost Richardson some money.

I don't really believe any potential revelations will affect the team's value on the field at all, but I could see where someone might.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

All of which would explain why they want to see the investigation conclude before the team is sold.

It does occur to me they could also hope to take a parting shot at an old nemesis. They might believe a scandal could potentially knock some of the value off the team and cost Richardson some money.

I don't really believe any potential revelations will affect the team's value on the field at all, but I could see where someone might.

Honestly, I think everyone just wants this to go away.  It's not good for the league, the team, or even the players association.  In fact, the only benefit for the NFLPA is to gain leverage for future dealings with players.  It wouldn't be in their best interest to blow this up publicly. 

The only people it really benefits are those who are trying to bring light to the issue, but they already have all they need to keep the fire burning with what's going on in Hollywood.  So, I can't see them pushing their agenda like those fighting against domestic violence did.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Woodie said:

Honestly, I think everyone just wants this to go away.  It's not good for the league, the team, or even the players association.  In fact, the only benefit for the NFLPA is to gain leverage for future dealings with players.  It wouldn't be in their best interest to blow this up publicly. 

The only people it really benefits are those who are trying to bring light to the issue, but they already have all they need to keep the fire burning with what's going on in Hollywood.  So, I can't see them pushing their agenda like those fighting against domestic violence did.  

Perhaps, except maybe the lawyers.

(billable hours and such)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...