Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
7 minutes ago, boater said:

I see a lot of attacking the rich here. As if they were elevated scourge of the earth.

 

The non-rich are equally degenerate. Their crimes are just smaller. Shoplifting for example.

Shoplifting , sexual harassment, mehhhhh pretty much a wash 🤷‍♂️

/s

Posted
3 hours ago, BarleyNY said:

http://amp.thecomeback.com/nfl/roger-goodell-dan-snyder-bank-fraud.html

 

Allegations that Snyder fraudulently secured a loan to buy out minority owners of Commanders. Goodell alleged to have signed off on the loan despite knowing it was fraudulent.

 

It’d be such a shame if both of them were no longer able to be involved with the NFL. 

 

Should link to the actual ESPN article that has a lot of details, and not "amp.thecomeback.com" 

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35726691/former-partners-say-dan-snyder-used-team-fund-lifestyle-took-improper-loan-their-approval

 

As far as Goodell goes I think this is the relevant section:

 

The NFL guarantees all debt taken out by teams. If a franchise wants to take on a new loan beyond strict set limits, it usually must get the permission of the league's finance committee and 24 of 32 owners. McCarthy, the NFL spokesman, did not answer a question about whether the finance committee and the 32 owners had approved Washington's new credit line. A franchise owner and a senior executive said Goodell is not responsible for scrutinizing the terms and conditions of loans. However, a team cannot assume fresh debt, which is guaranteed by the NFL, without Goodell's approval.

 

Snyder, on the other hand, sounds like he may have committed fraud. He needed the board's approval to take out a new loan and he never got it (I'm unclear why the bank ever approved the loan though). 

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, DabillsDaBillsDaBills said:

Snyder, on the other hand, sounds like he may have committed fraud. He needed the board's approval to take out a new loan and he never got it (I'm unclear why the bank ever approved the loan though). 

 

When I read the article, I thought the same thing.  This seems like gross negligence (at a minimum) on the part of the bank.  They issued the loan without the necessary documentation, even after asking for it and not receiving it.  I'm not a huge Goodell fan, but I don't see a whole lot of cuplability on his part here when it comes to the issuance of the loan.  He and the league signed off on a loan that the presumed was valid.  If the bank was willing to issue it, having (presumably) done their due diligence, why would the league object?  They routinely sign off on such loans.  Snyder for his fraud and the bank for its gross negligence seem to be the guilty parties.  Where Goodell have have stepped into it was after the issuance of the loan, when Snyder's partners raised the issue of the fraudulent loan, Goodell swept it under the rug and tried to work a side deal to get around it, rather than addressing it.

 

You may need to read the article to better understand my comments.

Edited by msw2112
Posted
2 hours ago, Captain Caveman said:

What's the crime move (or series?) where they end up nailing someone for a fraudulent mortgage application?

 

Is there maybe something about this in the WIre?

 

Just remembered, this is how they got Clay Davis.

 

Sheeeeeeeit

 

The Wire...but Clay got off and the Feds didn't pursue em because politics.

Posted

These 3 brave billionaires, in the end, stood not on principle, but on massive ROI and simply said "ok, never mind" on their way to the cash counter....

 

"Four days after the partners pressed the NFL arbitrator to seek proof that the loan was legally obtained, the documents show, the NFL moved to shut down arbitration proceedings. The partners begrudgingly agreed to mediation, led by Goodell, sources familiar with the matter told ESPN. The mediation resulted in the partners selling their shares, and it silenced their complaints against Snyder, the sources said."

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
14 hours ago, boater said:

I see a lot of attacking the rich here. As if they were elevated scourge of the earth.

 

The non-rich are equally degenerate. Their crimes are just smaller. Shoplifting for example.

With the major difference being that the rich folk rarely if ever get punished / see jail time, when they get caught red handed, unlike the rest of us, that and rich folk usually screw over large numbers of people at once when busy with their greed oriented schemes, just look at the scam which is the NFL stadium deals, leaves the non rich to pay for and up keep their infrastructure,  they deserve every kick in the azs they get, every time they get kicked, they are the epitome of our lesser angels…, but some folk worship that sort of behavior, go figure.

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, boater said:

I see a lot of attacking the rich here. As if they were elevated scourge of the earth.

 

The non-rich are equally degenerate. Their crimes are just smaller. Shoplifting for example.

rich people get away with things that people like me wouldn't. Bank fraud and shoplifting are similar crimes

Edited by nucci
This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...