HawkShack.com

by **jshawaii22** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:29 pm

No info and no link yet -- insider texted me - Rah Rah continues!

by **Hawktawk** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:40 pm

NFL network says 11 million a year, hes earned it. Best job hes ever done in Seattle this year.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:03 pm

Here's the link:

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/12/24/1 ... n-nfl-news

It seems odd that Pete would sign a new extension before he knows who our new owner is going to be.

I agree with Hawktalk. This is arguably the best coaching job he's done not only with us, but in his career.

by **c_hawkbob** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:46 pm

Talk about a no-brainer.

by **politicalfootball** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:01 pm

RiverDog wrote:Here's the link:

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/12/24/1 ... n-nfl-news

It seems odd that Pete would sign a new extension before he knows who our new owner is going to be.

I agree with Hawktalk. This is arguably the best coaching job he's
done not only with us, but in his career.

Maybe even his first year with the Seahawks. Do ya think ?

by **Uppercut** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:29 pm

I would bet that PC knows who the new owner will be

by **RiverDog** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 5:41 pm

politicalfootball wrote:Maybe even his first year with the Seahawks. Do ya think ?

It's sort of hard to compare. Pete's job of building the Hawks into a SB contender took 3 years and required a considerable number of players and coaches. The rebuild took one, with fewer pieces to replace and with a franchise QB already in place. But IMO it's his best single year job.

I'd still like to hear one of you guys comment on Pete's decision to re-up prior to knowing who our new owner will be. Suppose we end up with a Jerry Jones/highly intrusive owner that Pete can't work with?

by **Anthony** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:36 pm

RiverDog wrote:

I'd still like to hear one of you guys comment on Pete's decision to re-up prior to knowing who our new owner will be. Suppose we end up with a Jerry Jones/highly intrusive owner that Pete can't work with?

Going to be interesting he is signed through 2021 I believe. Wilson is signed through 2019. Wonder what will happen. Also Reed, IKj, Wagner. Going to be interesting. We could see PC with no Wilson.

by **politicalfootball** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:57 pm

River tell us who you like of the known choices. I already have a preference but I will say after you post your preferences.

Go Hawks !!!!!!

by **RiverDog** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:02 pm

RiverDog wrote:I'd still like to hear one of you guys comment on Pete's decision to re-up prior to knowing who our new owner will be. Suppose we end up with a Jerry Jones/highly intrusive owner that Pete can't work with?

Anthony wrote:Going to be interesting he is signed through 2021 I believe. Wilson is signed through 2019. Wonder what will happen. Also Reed, IKj, Wagner. Going to be interesting. We could see PC with no Wilson.

Yup, Russell's contract runs through 2019. At the start of the season, I thought that it would be a possibility that we might seek a trade of Russell if we really tanked, but at this point where we're legitimate SB contenders and Russell playing really well, I feel it's less likely that we'd consider a trade or not make a major effort to resign him. A lot depends on Russell's stance, if he wants Aaron Rodgers money or a more team-friendly contract.

But what I'm really wondering about is the wisdom of Pete's contract extension. Why not wait until after the season when we have new ownership? Does he need the contract in order to retain/attract assistant coaches?

by **Anthony** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:20 pm

RiverDog wrote:But what I'm really wondering about is the wisdom of Pete's contract extension. Why not wait until after the season when we have new ownership? Does he need the contract in order to retain/attract assistant coaches?

Is it possible he already knows who the owner will be?

by **jshawaii22** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:51 pm

Unless PAs sister is going to become the 'owner' and she does seem to like coming to the games -- who's going to be the next owner is not known at all. There is no way that level of search would stay quiet from the media and i just can't see billionaires telling their coach or Team President a 'secret' -- besides, any new owner has to be vetted by (at a minimum) the NFL. No one keeps secrets at HQ.

by **RiverDog** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:31 pm

jshawaii22 wrote:Unless PAs sister is going to become the 'owner' and she does seem to like coming to the games -- who's going to be the next owner is not known at all. There is no way that level of search would stay quiet from the media and i just can't see billionaires telling their coach or Team President a 'secret' -- besides, any new owner has to be vetted by (at a minimum) the NFL. No one keeps secrets at HQ.

I agree completely. The league's 31 other owners has to approve any ownership change, and Allen's sister has already said that she's not interested in owning the team. I don't think that Pete has any insider information on who's going to be the eventual owner.

I know if it were me that if I had options like Pete obviously has, that I would not commit to a job if I didn't know who my boss was going to be.

by **NorthHawk** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 11:28 pm

He gets 11 million/year with the extension and it syncs with Schneider’s contract.
I would think if a new owner wants to clean house he would get paid out for the full
value of the deal. Probably a good financial move.

He said he’s on a five year plan at his age so it sounds like at this point he wants to stay
here as he builds this team.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 6:40 am

NorthHawk wrote:He gets 11 million/year with the extension and it syncs with Schneider’s contract.
I would think if a new owner wants to clean house he would get paid out for the full
value of the deal. Probably a good financial move.

He said he’s on a five year plan at his age so it sounds like at this point he wants to stay
here as he builds this team.

IMO it's unlikely that a new owner would want to clean house. What I'd be worried about if I were Pete is a hands-on owner constantly looking over my shoulder and questioning my decision making. If Pete doesn't feel comfortable with the new owner, he's stuck with him for another 3 years unless he wants to either retire or quit and go back to the colleges.

I'm more inclined to go with my theory of needing the contract extension if he wants to retain guys like Schottenheimer and Norton.

Another possibility is the impending negotiations to extend Russell's contract. Pete might want to get his own business taken care of before embarking on those talks.

by **idhawkman** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 6:46 am

I think the team's value just went up by a factor of a couple Hundred Million with this move. If you are a potential owner, wouldn't you want to know what you are buying into? With JS and PC in place and knowing that they can build a contender even in a rebuild year, your investment is pretty safe. We also don't know the terms of the deal, Pete could possibly walk at any time, they could have a clause in the deal that if JS leaves that PC could leave or vice versa. There's a lot of great stuff in this move and very little downside as I see it.

Move over Chukky, Pete just topped your contract...

by **RiverDog** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 6:53 am

idhawkman wrote:I think the team's value just went up by a factor of a couple Hundred Million with this move. If you are a potential owner, wouldn't you want to know what you are buying into? With JS and PC in place and knowing that they can build a contender even in a rebuild year, your investment is pretty safe. We also don't know the terms of the deal, Pete could possibly walk at any time, they could have a clause in the deal that if JS leaves that PC could leave or vice versa. There's a lot of great stuff in this move and very little downside as I see it.

Move over Chukky, Pete just topped your contract...

Chucky's contract runs 10 years, Pete's extension runs just 3, so he still tops Pete in terms of the total value.

The proceeds for the sale of the Hawks all goes to charity, so there's no motivation for anyone to drive up the value of the franchise.

by **idhawkman** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 8:55 am

RiverDog wrote:
Chucky's contract runs 10 years, Pete's extension runs just 3, so he still tops Pete in terms of the total value.

The proceeds for the sale of the Hawks all goes to charity, so there's no motivation for anyone to drive up the value of the franchise.

Since it is Christmas I won't blast you on this but you may want to reconsider your comment knowing how Paul Allen thinks about donating which might also be ingrained in his sister.

Yes, Chukky gets more over the long term but what do you think PC could negotiate for after the 3 years? Probably even more money.

by **RiverDog** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 9:38 am

RiverDog wrote:The proceeds for the sale of the Hawks all goes to charity, so there's no motivation for anyone to drive up the value of the franchise.

idhawkman wrote:Since it is Christmas I won't blast you on this but you may want to reconsider your comment knowing how Paul Allen thinks about donating which might also be ingrained in his sister.

Yea, I suppose, but I'm still dismissing your scenario.

idhawkman wrote:Yes, Chukky gets more over the long term but what do you think PC could negotiate for after the 3 years? Probably even more money.

I'll throw it back to you: How much money do you think Bill Belichick would have gotten? IMO there's over a dozen coaches that are worth that kind of money before Chucky. Mark Davis made a really stupid decision. Chucky should be given the NFL's Golden Fleece award.

The term of Chucky's contract is way beyond the norm. I don't have the facts, but most don't go beyond 5 years. This is likely going to be Pete's last contract, so he probably didn't want to commit to more than 3 years.

by **Hawktawk** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:31 am

I’ve heard Jeff Bezos name bandied about as a potential owner. I think it will easily be the most expensive transaction in the history of sports regardless of who it is. As for this PC signing I wonder if he’s looking at 2021 as his swan song. The microwave rebuild and young nucleus coupled with veteran stars gives him a chance to compete for another title , cement a HOF legacy and walk away at 70 . Is there any chance Paul Allen’s sister might reconsider her position on selling? It seems she was intricately involved in this signing .

by **RiverDog** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:44 am

Hawktawk wrote:I’ve heard Jeff Bezos name bandied about as a potential owner. I think it will easily be the most expensive transaction in the history of sports regardless of who it is. As for this PC signing I wonder if he’s looking at 2021 as his swan song. The microwave rebuild and young nucleus coupled with veteran stars gives him a chance to compete for another title , cement a HOF legacy and walk away at 70 . Is there any chance Paul Allen’s sister might reconsider her position on selling? It seems she was intricately involved in this signing .

Yea, Bezos name, along with a handful of others, was thrown around in the days following Paul Allen's passing, but things have been very quiet since.

I wouldn't read anything into Allen's sister's involvement with Pete's contract extension. There's no one else that could have approved that deal. For some reason, Pete wanted to get it done now, so it was incumbent on her to perform her duty as the acting team owner.

I thought that Pete's previous deal would be his last, but he decided to keep going. He's going to be one of the youngest 70-year old's I know of, so nothing he might do would surprise me.

by **NorthHawk** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:59 pm

He's on a five year play according to him.
So that takes him beyond the end of this contract.
I suppose it makes sense to him that within that 5 years he has a chance to re-evaluate
and not continue if he develops some health or family change hurdles.
All things being equal at the end of this contract, if he's still successful, I would expect
he would sign on for another couple of years after 2021.

by **Rambo2014** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 1:17 pm

What a Fiasco

by **jshawaii22** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 4:21 pm

Yeah Rambo, I'm assuming you're referring to the last few weeks of the Rams season and you're right, losing to 3 potential playoff opponents always does that --so, It's become a Fiasco. Most of us are pretty content beating the Chiefs and 'Zona and setting up a possible 3rd meeting in LA.

by **Rambo2014** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 6:26 pm

I would love a third meeting in LA! That would mean the Seahawks would have to wine a couple playoff games. Ha, not going to happen!!!!!

We will beat Ravens in the SB and if we did meet again the result would be more like the result last season in your house.

Merry Christmas

by **jshawaii22** » Tue Dec 25, 2018 6:54 pm

I'll take that to the same level I did your prediction of our loss to KC went. I also believe your prediction for our season was to be in last place in the division at 3-13 or something close. How's that working out? We know it'll take 3 wins = next trip to LA. Zona, Dallas and NO. Hard road, but you're talking about having one of the all-time best postseason QB's who's just starting to warm up, as usual. I would expect almost 1/2 the Coliseum to be Seahawk fans.

by **c_hawkbob** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:44 am

Rambo2014 wrote:What a Fiasco

by **NorthHawk** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 7:29 am

Hawktawk wrote:I’ve heard Jeff Bezos name bandied about as a potential owner. I think it will easily be the most expensive transaction in the history of sports regardless of who it is. As for this PC signing I wonder if he’s looking at 2021 as his swan song. The microwave rebuild and young nucleus coupled with veteran stars gives him a chance to compete for another title , cement a HOF legacy and walk away at 70 . Is there any chance Paul Allen’s sister might reconsider her position on selling? It seems she was intricately involved in this signing .

Here's a recent comment from Profootballrumors.com

"The Seahawks franchise is expected to be sold, but for the time being, Paul Allen‘s sister, Jody, is running the team. Allen confidant Bert Kolde is taking an expanded role during this time, Bob Condotta of the Seattle Times notes, adding that the status quo appears to be working at this point. Pete Carroll said Monday he was excited about the team’s current ownership situation, and Condotta adds indications point to Jody Allen continuing to serve as the team’s chairperson for a while."

So it seems there isn't much urgency to sell the team.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 8:52 am

Hawktawk wrote:I’ve heard Jeff Bezos name bandied about as a potential owner. I think it will easily be the most expensive transaction in the history of sports regardless of who it is. As for this PC signing I wonder if he’s looking at 2021 as his swan song. The microwave rebuild and young nucleus coupled with veteran stars gives him a chance to compete for another title , cement a HOF legacy and walk away at 70 . Is there any chance Paul Allen’s sister might reconsider her position on selling? It seems she was intricately involved in this signing .

NorthHawk wrote:Here's a recent comment from Profootballrumors.com

"The Seahawks franchise is expected to be sold, but for the time being, Paul Allen‘s sister, Jody, is running the team. Allen confidant Bert Kolde is taking an expanded role during this time, Bob Condotta of the Seattle Times notes, adding that the status quo appears to be working at this point. Pete Carroll said Monday he was excited about the team’s current ownership situation, and Condotta adds indications point to Jody Allen continuing to serve as the team’s chairperson for a while."

So it seems there isn't much urgency to sell the team.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the succession plan filed with the NFL, Paul Allen stated that upon his death that the team would be sold and the proceeds donated to charity. Doesn't this legally prevent Jody from owning the team on anything more than an interim basis until a buyer can be found and approved by the league?

by **NorthHawk** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:04 am

I guess it would depend on what interim means.
It could be a few years if looked at from a league history point of view.
There might also be other clauses about what the new owners must commit to such as
keeping the team in Seattle and/or giving a % of profits to charity or community projects.
Such clauses might mean it will take longer to execute the will as laid out.

On the other hand it may be as simple as we've been assuming and they are just taking their
time finding the right owner.
It's difficult to know what is really going on for us on the outside.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 11:28 am

NorthHawk wrote:I guess it would depend on what interim means.
It could be a few years if looked at from a league history point of view.
There might also be other clauses about what the new owners must commit to such as
keeping the team in Seattle and/or giving a % of profits to charity or community projects.
Such clauses might mean it will take longer to execute the will as laid out.

On the other hand it may be as simple as we've been assuming and they are just taking their
time finding the right owner.
It's difficult to know what is really going on for us on the outside.

I'm pretty sure that the league doesn't want to take up the ownership issue until after the Super Bowl. I've been trying to find out when the next ownership meeting is but haven't been able to see if they have one scheduled. The last I heard, there were several interested parties that were preparing offers.

I'm also not clear on how many, if any, strings an owner can attach to the sale. Adding stipulations like restricting where they can play or how much money must be donated to charity reduces the value of the franchise.

by **c_hawkbob** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 11:39 am

I totally fail to see how what the seller does with the proceeds of a sale could effect the sale price.

by **politicalfootball** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:34 pm

Good point, does that mean Jeff Bezos no ? :shock:

Go Hawks !!!!!!

by **idhawkman** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:43 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:I totally fail to see how what the seller does with the proceeds of a sale could effect the sale price.

Exactly! Maximize the sale price regardless of who or what benefits from the sale.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:21 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:I totally fail to see how what the seller does with the proceeds of a sale could effect the sale price.

It wasn't the proceeds of the sale that I assumed that I was responding to, it was this statement by North Hawk:

...keeping the team in Seattle and/or giving a % of profits to charity or community projects.

North Hawk would have to chime in, but since he used the plural "profits", I took that to mean future profits from operations, not the singular profit from the sale of the franchise.

by **c_hawkbob** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:51 pm

That's a pretty wide stretch, especially for someone that I know follows the team better than that. That's parsing the words over discussing the subject don't you think?

by **RiverDog** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:58 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:That's a pretty wide stretch, especially for someone that I know follows the team better than that. That's parsing the words over discussing the subject don't you think?

I'm not following you. Are you replying to my comment about strings being attached to the sale of the Hawks?

by **politicalfootball** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:07 pm

[quote="c_hawkbob"]That's a pretty wide stretch, especially for someone that I know follows the team better than that. That's parsing the words over discussing the subject don't you think?[/quote]

The proceeds plural of the financial proceedings. That's the key right there. Following the money. :roll:

by **c_hawkbob** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:14 pm

Sort of I guess. My point is nothing was said of strings until you managed to make it seem as though there could be strings based on the pluralization of the word profits by another poster.

It's been widely reported and discussed that the proceeds from the sale of the Seahawks were to go to charity. Because the word Profits was used instead of proceeds in no way (to my mind at least) suggest that there would be future obligations on the buyers part beyond the actual transaction and I found it to be pretty big leap to even make such an assumption based on so little.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Dec 26, 2018 4:23 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:Sort of I guess. My point is nothing was said of strings until you managed to make it seem as though there could be strings based on the pluralization of the word profits by another poster.

It's been widely reported and discussed that the proceeds from the sale of the Seahawks were to go to charity. Because the word Profits was used instead of proceeds in no way (to my mind at least) suggest that there would be future obligations on the buyers part beyond the actual transaction and I found it to be pretty big leap to even make such an assumption based on so little.

I did not agree that ANY strings are attached to the sale of the Seahawks outside of those we know are in the succession plan left by Paul Allen. I simply made a mistake in that I thought that North Hawk, by use of a plural term rather than a singular one, was referring to post sale operations. This would include things like relocation, where profits had to be spent, and so on. My bad.

But just so you know where my train of thought was leading me, I know that there are corporations where their deceased owner left specific instructions regarding operations after their death. For example, Chic-Fil-A's founder, Truett Cathy, left several, including not going public (no sale of stock) and not operating on Sundays. I do not know how legally obligating these instructions are or if a similar situation could exist regarding the change of ownership in an NFL franchise.

HawkShack.com

Who is online