Daniel Snyder’s $1.6 million settlement requires a full NFL investigation

USA TODAY Sports

It took three years for it to happen, but a second NFL owner finally has been linked to a confidential settlement of alleged misconduct that, if it occurred, could trigger significant consequences for the owner. Panthers founder Jerry Richardson promptly sold his team after multiple confidential settlements came to light in 2017. Now, Washington owner Daniel Snyder finds himself the subject of a previously-confidential settlement for alleged sexual misconduct, which reportedly entailed a payment of $1.6 million.

The mere existence of the confidential settlement, which Snyder apparently has acknowledged, requires a full investigation. It also will compel Snyder to waive the confidentiality clause in order to allow the former employee who received the payment to cooperate fully with the investigation.

The threshold question becomes whether the circumstances surrounding the payment fall within the confines of the existing investigation, which was started by the team and commandeered by the league, or whether a separate investigation should be launched. Whatever it is and whoever does it and however it unfolds, the league must look into whether and to what extent Snyder violated the Personal Conduct Policy.

He claims in a declaration filed earlier this week that a “well-respected law firm” investigated the situation and “no evidence of wrongdoing was found.” Snyder contends that an “insurance carrier” decided to settle the case.

The reality is that no insurance company can settle a case without the consent of the insured. If Snyder had wanted to fight it, Snyder could have fought it, up to the limits of his insurance coverage. (Depending on the terms of the policy and the applicable law, Snyder possibly would have become personally responsible for any verdict in excess of $1.6 million.)

Regardless, the insurance company didn’t fork over that much cash to protect Snyder and his family from embarrassment. The insurance industry’s only commodity is cash; they love to take it in, and they are loathe to pay it out. An insurance company will pay $1.6 million voluntarily in settlement only if the insurance company reasonably fears paying a lot more involuntarily after a verdict is entered.

Common sense, then, suggests it’s not simply “hush money,” and that the money was meant to at least partially compensate the former employee for alleged harm suffered. Whatever the truth may be, there’s enough evidence in the public domain to compel the league to delve into the private details in order to determine whether and to what extent discipline should be imposed on Snyder.

12 responses to “Daniel Snyder’s $1.6 million settlement requires a full NFL investigation

  1. If the league looked into every owner Snyder would not be the only one. But to force the sale of a business is over the top.

  2. Leslie Nielsen, standing in front of the WFT headquarters, “Nothing to see here, move along, Nothing to see here.”

  3. Oh God!
    We know how long & “thorough” the NFL investigations are. Sounds like this settlement is already a done deal. The NFL may be within their rights to want to know the details of the settlement, but what actions will they take regarding the outcome?

  4. Forcing a sale is not going to happen. franchise values have risen so dramatically, that the immediate tax effects of the capital gain make it painful. additionally, owners can take out loans using the franchise asset value as collateral. That is immediate cash for other ventures. selling the asset backing the loans may could violate the lian agreement forcing immediate repayment. Not good alternatives.

  5. “The reality is that no insurance company can settle a case without the consent of the insured.”
    ——————-

    Settle for $1.6m or spend $5m defending and also having your name dragged through the mud regardless of guilt or innocence. Yeah, easy choice for any of us.

  6. It’s a great travesty that WFT fans have to suffer through this Owner and his disastrous tenure.

  7. No it doesn’t. It was an agreement between two people that was supposed to be sealed. It is none of our business.

  8. 12brichandfamous says:
    December 25, 2020 at 12:43 pm
    Forcing a sale is not going to happen. franchise values have risen so dramatically, that the immediate tax effects of the capital gain make it painful. additionally, owners can take out loans using the franchise asset value as collateral. That is immediate cash for other ventures. selling the asset backing the loans may could violate the lian agreement forcing immediate repayment. Not good alternatives.

    Leaugue rules pertaining to ownership of a franchise limit the amount of debt allowed to be leveraged per team.

  9. Leaugue rules pertaining to ownership of a franchise limit the amount of debt allowed to be leveraged per team.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++
    Yes, but it is a percentage not a dollar limit. As franchise valuation increases more loans are possible. I believe the Paul Allen estate still owns the Seahawks. league rules equire a majority owner and not a corporation so a sale should be coming. I suspect that is pending the new TV contracts. New TV deal for more dollars, a franchise sale occurs at even higher dollars than before. Next thing you know, they can all borrow more money.

  10. Anyone wonder why why the media is refusing to report that this is a ploy by Dwight Schar to force Snyder to sell the team?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.