MKnight82 Posted March 1, 2023 Author Share Posted March 1, 2023 1 hour ago, offbyone said: If you own a large business this is the kind of expense/deduction games you play for tax benefits. If you own a small business you do the same thing. The percentage of people I know having their small business pay for their automobile expenses is massive. Snyder is just playing at a level where one of his automobile is a private jet. Honestly, I totally get Snyder's fear of lawsuits post sale. Snyder might be a villain, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a constant witch hunt to get him. If I am him, I would surely be scared that I would sell my business for a wind fall of 7B only to have the same people sue me and take the money back. It isn’t the fact that he’s expensing those items that is illegal. It’s the fact that he’s doing it without a vote from his board or minority investors that is fraud, which is illegal. It’s completely different than what small businesses do. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaiphoon Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 40 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: It isn’t the fact that he’s expensing those items that is illegal. It’s the fact that he’s doing it without a vote from his board or minority investors that is fraud, which is illegal. It’s completely different than what small businesses do. Yup. You're right. A few years ago, I rearranged my finances and the way I went about structuring my businesses and investments. What Snyder did is no different than what small businesses can do (and what I've done with various things). And it would be legal IF (and that is a big word) his board had approved that expenditure. But according to them, they did not and I can probably bet that there are no meeting minutes or recorded votes on those line items in the ledger. I can get away with it because I don't answer to a board. Snyder can't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offbyone Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 5 hours ago, MKnight82 said: It isn’t the fact that he’s expensing those items that is illegal. It’s the fact that he’s doing it without a vote from his board or minority investors that is fraud, which is illegal. It’s completely different than what small businesses do. So large corporations check with the Board of directors every time they expense something? And minority shareholders basically have zero authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle28 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 4 hours ago, offbyone said: So large corporations check with the Board of directors every time they expense something? And minority shareholders basically have zero authority. If it’s $55 mil they do. If it’s a dinner with clients they don’t have to but they still have to do expense reports which anyone on the board can see at anytime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSkinGM Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 Synder, the snake !, will drag this out forever ! Getting depressing. I read somewhere he was a Billion in debt-hope that's true. Should be a great incentive to sell. I wonder where Tanya stands on this ? She is probably the key. After getting booed as a cancer survivor- hope she wants out at any cost . Just sail off to the Riveria and enjoy life- though she has to endure Danny shedding his skin several times a year ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 8 hours ago, offbyone said: So large corporations check with the Board of directors every time they expense something? And minority shareholders basically have zero authority. When it involves a loan like that? Yes. Taking credit out against an organizations assets isn’t the same as an expense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Mc Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/03/01/report-daniel-snyders-future-is-on-the-agenda-for-league-committee-meetings/ Dan Snyder is on the officially agenda for the leagues owner meetings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offbyone Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 3 hours ago, MikeT14 said: When it involves a loan like that? Yes. Taking credit out against an organizations assets isn’t the same as an expense. This isn't a public corporation. If it is in the bylaws that the organization is supposed to notify board of directors to take a loan out and he didn't then he broke the bylaws. But again this isn't a public corporation so I am not sure why the govt is involved in enforcing the bylaws of a private corp unless a civil lawsuit was begun. This is the prosecutors continuing to take on work cause they have a hard on for snyder. This isn't helping our cause. And really, who cares? This isn't some evil move. The league signed off on the loan. It was pretty darn public. This isn't Snyder sexually harassing women, it is just some crossing t's dotting i's in order to get the minority shares so he can then sell the team. I imagine if this nullifies the transactions the loan was acquired for and the minority shareholders get their shares back that will create a snafu in the sale of team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 10 minutes ago, offbyone said: This isn't a public corporation. If it is in the bylaws that the organization is supposed to notify board of directors to take a loan out and he didn't then he broke the bylaws. That's their exact argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offbyone Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 7 minutes ago, MikeT14 said: That's their exact argument. Argument for what....that an officer in the company, likely the CFO [not snyder] failed to formally notify the board of directors they got a loan for buying out the minority stakeholders. Even if that is the case, the only way this goes anywhere is if the board had zero knowledge that they were buying out the minority stakeholders. If that was discussed at a board meeting or board members were notified, Snyder would just argue that we did inform the board that we were taking the necessary action to buyout the stakeholders. Which is truly legit. You don't tell the board every little details, they just approve broad ideas and then the officers implement them. But really, what's the end game here? Nullify the transaction, rollback the minority shares? Or simpler, oust the CFO who is probably the person responsible and is not snyder? Is all this noise helping the sale? None of this even looks like malintent. All this does is help prosecutors continue to get their name in the press and lengthen this sale process we want to end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 32 minutes ago, offbyone said: Argument for what....that an officer in the company, likely the CFO [not snyder] failed to formally notify the board of directors they got a loan for buying out the minority stakeholders. That's not what the loan was for or their argument. Quote The note revealed a $55 million credit line the team had taken out 16 months earlier without the knowledge and required approval of Snyder's minority partners -- the three billionaires who owned 40% of the franchise, according to documents obtained by ESPN. During a confidential arbitration, the former partners demanded that the NFL investigate the origin of Snyder's loan. But neither NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, whose signature granted league approval for the team to take on the new debt, nor the NFL arbitrator investigated the partners' allegation of financial wrongdoing, according to hundreds of pages of confidential NFL arbitration documents obtained by ESPN and more than a dozen interviews. Loans and lines of credit obtained without the approval of Washington's board of directors violate the team's shareholder agreement, according to the documents. The documents also show Bank of America officials asked team executives repeatedly for proof that the board had approved the loan. But the team executives never turned over a copy of the board approval before the loan closed, and one team lawyer later acknowledged in a letter that the board approval doesn't exist, documents show. The documents obtained by ESPN show that minority partners Robert Rothman, Dwight Schar and Frederick W. Smith protested the loan after they discovered it in a financial report's fine print. They then started looking closely into the team's finances and found Snyder was using the team as his "personal piggy bank," including charging the team $4.5 million to put its logo on his private jet, they alleged in the arbitration petition filed with the NFL. It was for Dan personally. The ongoing happenings and result of the inquiry then led to the minority owners selling. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35726691/former-partners-say-dan-snyder-used-team-fund-lifestyle-took-improper-loan-their-approval 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARTMONK HOF Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT14 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 I give it a .001% chance anything leads to any jail time for any reason, but this should absolutely force the owners to put Dan's feet to the fire on the sale. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle28 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 2 hours ago, Slappy Mc said: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/03/01/report-daniel-snyders-future-is-on-the-agenda-for-league-committee-meetings/ Dan Snyder is on the officially agenda for the leagues owner meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripsean21 Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 1 hour ago, ARTMONK HOF said: 🤣🤣🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts