Coach Pete Contract Extended Through 2021

[obiken]

I am surprised not shocked, I thought Pete was gone to the Chargers, but I have been wrong before. Sometimes you can be happy to be wrong!

[idhawkman]

I am surprised not shocked, I thought Pete was gone to the Chargers, but I have been wrong before. Sometimes you can be happy to be wrong!

Interesting. Why would you think the Chargers are looking for a new coach when they share the best record in the AFC this year?

[NorthHawk]

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.

It wasn't a well thought out comment on my part. I'll rationalize it by saying it was insomnia induced stupidity but I'll forgive you if you think it's only the latter.
If I was to re make that post perhaps it should read that his will might express his intent that the next owner have some of his core values like charity in the form of local support and the
new owner have some local roots if possible. But we will probably never really know for sure what it says.

[RiverDog]

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.

It wasn't a well thought out comment on my part. I'll rationalize it by saying it was insomnia induced stupidity but I'll forgive you if you think it's only the latter.
If I was to re make that post perhaps it should read that his will might express his intent that the next owner have some of his core values like charity in the form of local support and the
new owner have some local roots if possible. But we will probably never really know for sure what it says.

No sweat, my friend!

I doubt that the league would be able to enforce any requirements on a new owner not relocate the team as a condition of approving the sale. Al Davis successfully sued the league when he moved his Raiders from LA back to Oakland w/o league approval. IMO any strings attached would be in the form of a personal pledge and not legally binding.

I can't dig up a thing regarding the potential sale of the Hawks.

[politicalfootball]

Change of ownership of an NFL franchise . That's the key right there template for all our transactions or transaction meaning the transfer of your team (owner) to the buying person or people perhaps the singular is needed to make things clear .

[politicalfootball]

Change of ownership of an NFL franchise . That's the key right there template for all our transactions or transaction meaning the transfer of your team (owner) to the buying person or people perhaps the singular is needed to make things clear .

Change of ownership of an NFL franchise . That's the key right there template for all our transactions or transaction meaning the transfer of your team (owner) to the buying person or people perhaps the singular is needed to make things clear .

[c_hawkbob]

Dude, you alright?

[politicalfootball]

You know I think that Jody Allen would be the best choice for owner of the team. There would be no upsetting of everything. Everything would pretty much stay the same. Plus all that money Paul G. Allen accumulated from Microsoft will stay with the team. Less lawyers more love
The only drawback I can see is has she already spoken out that she will not do it ? River , anyone know about that and wouldn't it be nice to have on this franchise one of the few women owners ? I really think that would be nice a bonus for everyone.

[RiverDog]

You know I think that Jody Allen would be the best choice for owner of the team. There would be no upsetting of everything. Everything would pretty much stay the same. Plus all that money Paul G. Allen accumulated from Microsoft will stay with the team. Less lawyers more love
The only drawback I can see is has she already spoken out that she will not do it ? River , anyone know about that and wouldn't it be nice to have on this franchise one of the few women owners ? I really think that would be nice a bonus for everyone.

There are currently no female owners in the NFL.

I know very little about Jody Allen other than she's obviously a Washington native and as such, would more than likely keep the team here, and in that regard, of course, I'd support her. I'd also be pleased with candidates like Ballmer and Bezos as they have in state roots as well. But whoever our new owner turns out to be, it's going to take awhile for their personality and management style to surface and for us to get a good feel of how they intend on running the franchise.

[idhawkman]

I'm not sure if Jody Allen keeping the team is even an option. I thought PA's will stated it would be sold and then proceeds distributed to the charity. Also, wouldn't it have to follow whatever his NFL succession plan states? At least that's the way I thought it was suppose to be.

[RiverDog]

I'm not sure if Jody Allen keeping the team is even an option. I thought PA's will stated it would be sold and then proceeds distributed to the charity. Also, wouldn't it have to follow whatever his NFL succession plan states? At least that's the way I thought it was suppose to be.

I have questions about that, too. I don't know how enforcable the NFL's succession plan is. It's an asset owned by Paul Allen's estate and Jody is the executor of that estate, so she essentially owns the team. What business does the league have in telling her if she has to sell or not? Does the NFL charter give the other owners rights not normally associated with personal assets?

I'm not sure how applicable my situation is with the Seahawks/NFL or if the NFL charter gives them more legal rights, but when my mother passed away, she left instructions to split her estate equally between me and my brother, but I was told that as the executor (and she could only name one person as the executor), that I was not legally obligated to follow her instructions.

[Rambo2014]

Heard he may be back! LOL too bad for your team if he does

[politicalfootball]

Rambo we finally get to see a picture of you.

Go Hawks !

[idhawkman]

I have questions about that, too. I don't know how enforcable the NFL's succession plan is. It's an asset owned by Paul Allen's estate and Jody is the executor of that estate, so she essentially owns the team. What business does the league have in telling her if she has to sell or not? Does the NFL charter give the other owners rights not normally associated with personal assets?

I'm not sure how applicable my situation is with the Seahawks/NFL or if the NFL charter gives them more legal rights, but when my mother passed away, she left instructions to split her estate equally between me and my brother, but I was told that as the executor (and she could only name one person as the executor), that I was not legally obligated to follow her instructions.

Well one thing I do know is that in a business you can set instructions. E.g. if you are in a partnership with 4 other dentists in an office and one of them dies, the inheritor does not have a voting voice in the company and the corporate documents rule. You can't force that spouse/inheritor to sell their part of parntership shares but you can definitely restrict their voting power on corporate matters.

So if I extend this to the NFL since the franchises are all part of the main company, they could lock her out of any votes or even owner meetings based on the articles of incorporation no matter if she owns a share in the group or not. E.g. her ownership becomes non-voting shares in the NFL. I'm not saying this is how it is setup but I could imagine something like this being setup especially if she refuses to abide by the plan Paul put forward and got approved.

[RiverDog]

I have questions about that, too. I don't know how enforcable the NFL's succession plan is. It's an asset owned by Paul Allen's estate and Jody is the executor of that estate, so she essentially owns the team. What business does the league have in telling her if she has to sell or not? Does the NFL charter give the other owners rights not normally associated with personal assets?

I'm not sure how applicable my situation is with the Seahawks/NFL or if the NFL charter gives them more legal rights, but when my mother passed away, she left instructions to split her estate equally between me and my brother, but I was told that as the executor (and she could only name one person as the executor), that I was not legally obligated to follow her instructions.

Well one thing I do know is that in a business you can set instructions. E.g. if you are in a partnership with 4 other dentists in an office and one of them dies, the inheritor does not have a voting voice in the company and the corporate documents rule. You can't force that spouse/inheritor to sell their part of parntership shares but you can definitely restrict their voting power on corporate matters.

So if I extend this to the NFL since the franchises are all part of the main company, they could lock her out of any votes or even owner meetings based on the articles of incorporation no matter if she owns a share in the group or not. E.g. her ownership becomes non-voting shares in the NFL. I'm not saying this is how it is setup but I could imagine something like this being setup especially if she refuses to abide by the plan Paul put forward and got approved.

I think you are talking about a publicly traded company, of which the Seahawks are not. Additionally, I know that these things can vary from state-to-state, and the Seahawks are a Washington state based business.

In any event, I'm not at all certain as to the legal strings the NFL can attach to the ownership of their franchises or whether my examples (or yours) are relevant or not.

[savvyman]

Maybe the only thing everyone here will ever agree on is just what a magnificent job that Pete and John and the entire coaching staff did this year.

And Maybe their best ever?

[RiverDog]

Maybe the only thing everyone here will ever agree on is just what a magnificent job that Pete and John and the entire coaching staff did this year.

And Maybe their best ever?

If you ask me, this was the single best season Pete's had as an NFL head coach. Not sure how big of a role JS played. We never pulled the trigger on a deal for Earl and we didn't get anything for Sherman, so I have to give JS low marks for those failures.

[idhawkman]

I think you are talking about a publicly traded company, of which the Seahawks are not. Additionally, I know that these things can vary from state-to-state, and the Seahawks are a Washington state based business.

In any event, I'm not at all certain as to the legal strings the NFL can attach to the ownership of their franchises or whether my examples (or yours) are relevant or not.

I don't think I know of any publicly traded dental partnerships. I know all of them though don't want a surviving spouse coming in and telling them all to sell the partnership or making decisions on how to run the place. Pretty sure every state in the union abides by these concepts.

[idhawkman]

If you ask me, this was the single best season Pete's had as an NFL head coach. Not sure how big of a role JS played. We never pulled the trigger on a deal for Earl and we didn't get anything for Sherman, so I have to give JS low marks for those failures.

Interesting take River. I don't think Pete could do near as well as he did if Sherman and Bennett, etc. were still here. Kinda like Percy, the biggest benefit was cutting them loose and ridding the locker room of the bad apples. Managing the cap space and bringing in talent to replace their production AND getting rid of the bad attitudes was a great job - again, I have to mention given the cap hits we took. "IF" he could have gotten money for them, that would have been the cherry on top but nothing more than that.

[jshawaii22]

If you're talking about Sherman, ET, Bennett players of the SUPER BOWL year, yeahhhh, that would be great. But we're not. They no longer 'bought in' to Pete's system and basically gave up on the 'team'. No, we wouldn't be better with those players at all.
Once again, we've replaced a group that had issues (heath / age / talent / desire) with a group that is learning Pete's system on the run this year and is doing a great job. Sorta like the first couple years Pete was here.

[RiverDog]

If you're talking about Sherman, ET, Bennett players of the SUPER BOWL year, yeahhhh, that would be great. But we're not. They no longer 'bought in' to Pete's system and basically gave up on the 'team'. No, we wouldn't be better with those players at all.
Once again, we've replaced a group that had issues (heath / age / talent / desire) with a group that is learning Pete's system on the run this year and is doing a great job. Sorta like the first couple years Pete was here.

I was not suggesting that we'd be better off with Sherman and Bennett, to the contrary. I was being critical of John Schneider for not getting something more for them in a trade for them, at least as it applies to Thomas. I was separating out his performance from that of Pete's.