The Kevin Sheehan Show - A Commanding Response?

Episode Date: April 18, 2022

Kevin on the Commanders' response to the Jason Friedman allegations and the letter sent to the FTC by the House Oversight/Reform Committee. Neil in Rockville joined the show to discuss. Kevin also discussed the report from Adam Schefter about Terry McLaurin not working "on-field" until he gets a contract extension. Some NBA Playoffs and Colin Kapernick on the show too.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You don't want it. You don't need it. But you're going to get it anyway. The Kevin Chean Show. Here's Kevin. Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast. Rate us and review us, especially on Apple if you can. It really is a big help.

Sorry for the podcast getting out so late today. We knew there was a statement coming from the team in response to the letter that the House Oversight and Reform Committee sent to the Federal Trade Commission. and therefore we waited for that to come out before we recorded the podcast. Neil and Rockville, our legal contributor, one of two, Howard Gutman being the other, will be my guest next to go through that. The net of it is, okay, the net of it is, Washington responded to the allegations that Jason Friedman made in front of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which then prompted a 20-page letter from the House Oversight and Reform Committee to the Federal Trade Commission.

Remember, we talked about how there had not been a response and whether or not that was telling, well, the team was working on their response. And their response included 83 pages of signed affidavits, emails, and texts to go along with a 22-page letter written by the team attorney Jordan Sieve or CEV, however, it's pronounced to the FTC where they strongly disputed claims of financial improprieties, which had been spelled out by Jason Friedman in his testimony. And really, let me just tell you that essentially the case the team makes is that Jason Friedman just didn't have enough access to have the ability to make the claims that he made in his testimony to the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

They denied, through Jordan Seve's letter, not refunding customers $5 million. They denied skimming off the top. They denied two sets of books. But we'll get Neil and Rockville to weigh in and see what his thoughts on all of this is. the one thing that's made clear in the summaries of the team letter, which we've not seen the team letter yet, I don't know if we will.

What's made very clear is that the team wants you to think, whether right or wrong, that Jason Friedman wasn't a high character employee. He was the first or among the first to be fired when Jason Wright took over, and that he just did not have the access that would allow him to speak intelligently about accounting practices and the like. The other thing that's made clear by the team in their letter is that they are upset that the House Oversight and Reform Committee did not even reach out to them to get their reaction before they sent the letter to the Federal Trade Commission.

So some politics at work more likely than not there. But a lot's gone on with the team today. You know, it started very early this morning when Adam Schaefter had a report that Terry McLaren was not going to take part in any on-field activities until he got his contract extension. I'll read specifically from the Adam Schaefter tweets this morning. Shefter tweeted out that second round picks that include wide receipts, Debo Samuel, A.J. Brown, and Terry McCorn are not expected to participate in their team's on-field off-season programs because they want new contracts at a time this off-season when wide-receiver deals have exploded per league sources. And then Schefter had a follow-up tweet. As a team leader, Terry McCorn still will be reporting to the team's off-season program that opens today while his contract situation remains unreal. resolved.

So, by the way, Terry McClorn did not actually show up today for what they called a voluntary workout off-season workout program day. This is not, these are not OTA days, these are not mini-camp days. They are voluntary off-season workout programs that, the first of which was scheduled for today. By the way, the team had very, very, very. good turnout from this. The team had all but a few players show up, including, yes, Chase Young, who is recovering from the torn ACL.

But according to multiple tweets today, including from people like Nikki Javala, most of the team attended today. Just a few did not because of Easter travel-related plans. Terry McClurent was not there for the first day, but will be there tomorrow, according to Nikki Chavala's source. Even though he's not expected, as Adam Schaefter reported this morning, to participate in any on-field work during the off-season. So, by the way, Chase Young was there today, pushed a sled without a knee brace, according to Sam Fortier. Curtis Samuel went through conditioning. Carson Wentz was there. So I just want to give you my reaction to the McLaren thing.

First of all, I have no problem with Terry McLaren until he gets a contract extension for voluntary team activities, not doing anything on field. He's not going to take the risk if a contract extension is likely in getting injured before that thing is finalized. I just don't see that happening. So I'm fine with that, 100% fine with it. I think it is the more important part is that he's going to attend these things. He's going to be there attending these off-season voluntary workouts, even though he won't be doing anything on the field until his contract extension is signed, to continue to do what he's done since he got here,

and that is be an upstanding leader on this team. I think people can understand, you know, him not taking the risk. But what I think the big headline from this is, at least from my standpoint, is that Terry McClorn, through the Schefter report, is essentially saying, I want to do a contract extension with Washington. I know many of you have just assumed that he wanted to be here, but we didn't know that for sure. And now he's saying, I want the contract extension done. Sure, he wants the money, too. He wants to take advantage of this red-hot wide receiver market. But he also wants the money from Washington, it would appear.

The other part of this, too, is that if Ron Rivera can get Terry McClain to sign a contract extension, you know, a four-year, spot rack had it four years, 97.5 million bucks. So basically, you know, we're closing in on 24 million bucks per year, which would put them in the top five. But if the team's able to get that done, that means in back-to-back years, they signed to an extension two of their top five players. I think we would say John Allen and Terry McLaurin are top three to top five players on the team. But more importantly, they are so representative of what Ron Rivera's wanted all along, which is a culture change. These are the two major league adults on the team.

and in the locker room. And it would be a good sign that, you know, in back-to-back years, they're two leaders, two adults on the team, two very good players who would no doubt have significant options if they made it to free agency, have chosen to sign contract extensions and stay here. Now, in the case of John Allen, he's from here. And we've talked about that, you know, before that he, you know, played out in Loudoun County, you know, grew up here. This is home for him.

But it's not home for Terry McLorn. You know, Terry McLorn was, you know, raised in Indianapolis and then went to Ohio State. So anyway, I think that would be a good sign in back-to-back years. And I think the headline to me is that at least my takeaway, way is that Terry McClorn more likely than not wants to be here. So good news, I guess, on that front for commanders fans. There's more news related to our Washington commanders football team. They have a new head athletic trainer.

His name is Al Bellamy. More on him in a moment because I have to remind everybody that Ryan Vermillion is no longer the head athletic trainer because there was this little DEA race. all the way back in October. It seems like a distant memory, and certainly that story has been superseded by so many other bongles over the last several months.

It's like we forgot about that one. He was placed on administrative leave. I don't think we have heard anything else about that particular day and what the DEA is or was investigating. I don't think we've heard it. I don't remember it off the top of my head. What was the reason that they rated that facility?

Anyway, back to Al Bellamy, the new head athletic trainer. Who is he? I'll let Martin Mayhew tell you, the general manager. This was Martin Mayhew's quote in the team's press release. Quote, Al Bellamy is one of the finest men I've ever had the privilege of working with in the NFL. He knows the rich history and tradition of this franchise. having worked here with our Super Bowl 26 team. That would be the 1991 skins.

I'm excited to get the pleasure to work with Al again, having worked with him in both Washington when I was a player and Detroit when I was in the front office. He is a true professional and one of the most well-respected men in his field, closed quote. That from Martin Mayhew. Ron Rivera said, quote, I am excited to welcome Al Bellamy back to Washington.

His experience in professionalism are both traits that we were looking for when making this higher. I'm looking forward to working with Al here in Washington, and I know his knowledge and expertise will be invaluable for our players and coaches. Closed, quote. Al Bellamy's first NFL job was as an assistant head trainer, as an assistant trainer, excuse me, for the legend Bubba Tire. He said, quote, my family and I are experienced. extremely excited for this opportunity to join the Washington commanders as its head athletic trainer.

I'm thankful and humbled by the responsibility that Coach Rivera and the organization have bestowed upon me. I'm thrilled to get the opportunity to work with a tremendous group of people and our medical staff, strength staff, and all involved in the health care and performance of our players. Closed quote. He's been at Temple most recently, but he spent 12 seasons with the Lions. 13 seasons in Washington. Al Bellamy, the new head athletic trainer. By the way, there's even more news.

In town for a visit with the team today was Kyle Hamilton, safety, Notre Dame. Kyle Hamilton, if you missed Cole Kublich, who was on the podcast with us on Friday, he was pretty high on Hamilton. Cole was great, by the way, in sort of a draft preview. So if you haven't listened to that show, it's out there and available. But we were talking about this on the radio show today, that if Kyle Hamilton is there at 11,

and the receiver that they covet, like their number one wide receiver, is also there. Let's just say it's either Garrett Wilson or Drake London, one of the two. What would Washington do? I think Washington would take Kyle Hamilton. I don't think Kyle Hamilton's going to be there. I really don't think Kyle Hamilton's going to ultimately be there. Could be wrong. I think there's a better chance that Garrett Wilson or Drake London are there.

But if quarterbacks go and there's a run-on receivers, maybe Kyle Hamilton's 40-time does drop them to number 11 overall. I've already weighed in with what I think of Kyle Hamilton. I'd be a big fan of them drafting Kyle Hamilton. Now, why do I think the team would take Hamilton over a receiver, let's say Garrett Wilson or Drake London, if that was the number one receiver on their board? Because of several factors.

Number one, this is a pretty deep receiver draft, and they probably think they can get somebody in round two. You know, if they draft Ryan, if they were to draft Kyle Hamilton at number 11 overall, you know, a guy like George Pickens from Georgia could be there at 47.

There are several guys that potentially could be there at 47. And by the way, remember, let's not forget, they brought in a lot of running backs too. Ben Standig pointed this out this morning on radio to me. He said just because there's this feeling that they want to add a wide receiver,

it's really that they may just want to add a playmaker, and that playmaker could be a running back. I would be surprised if they took a running back in the second round. But anyway, I think number one as to why they would take Hamilton over their number one receiver is that there's an opportunity to get a really good receiver in the second round, and there isn't an opportunity to get a Kyle Hamilton in the second round. Number two is that I really do believe that they believe that they don't need a playmaker, that maybe they would take one if one is there and it's the highest rated player on their board

and there isn't a player of greater need. But I've told you this a million times. A healthy Curtis Samuel, a healthy Logan Thomas, a healthy J.D. McKissick, Terry McClorn, Antonio Gibson, and Diami, They like Deani Brown, and they believe with a quarterback who can make all the NFL throws, they have plenty of playmaking ability. Not that they wouldn't add more if a player was so much higher on their board than anybody else. But I just believe that if Kyle Hamilton is there, that he is more need and that if he's close with a Garrett Wilson or Drake London, that they would go with him because they don't feel like they're desperate for a play. playmaker. Third reason, I think they would go with Kyle Hamilton. He really is a player that can step in

and play right away in this all-important third of a five-year deal for Ron Rivera, as he's discussed previously. Hamilton comes in and right away becomes at the very least the landing Collins Buffalo nickel guy. He's on the field. And he is versatile. That's my fourth point. I made this point the other day. Ron loves position flexibility. And Kyle Hamilton can play multiple spots all over the field. And that's really what they're looking for in the NFL now anyway. They want guys in the back that can be moved around. He can be in the box on 1st and 10. And then on 3rd and 14, he could be their deep safety. I would not worry about his 40 time. If you watched him play at Notre Dame, his anticipation, his instincts, have him a half step ahead of the 449 guy to begin with.

He's big, he's strong, he's smart, he's mature, and he certainly has position flexibility. I just think that that would be the pick if Hamilton and, you know, Wilson were there, Hamilton and London were there. I think they would go Hamilton. And he was in visiting today. So if that goes well and he's there, it would not surprise me. But I think it would surprise me now if he is actually there. So there you go.

That's the Washington football team news for the day. I did want to just mention real quickly two things. Number one, Brooklyn Boston game yesterday was phenomenal. I didn't watch a lot of the playoff action over the weekend. There weren't a lot of competitive games. I watched the Brooklyn Boston game one because this is the series in the first round that everybody's paying attention to.

And it was spectacular. Jason Tatum with a bucket at the buzzer to win at 115, 114. Kyrie Irving, 39, 18 in the fourth quarter. He was spectacular. He did give middle fingers both hands to fans behind him on an inbound pass. He was asked about it in the press conference

and he tried to blow off the reporter. If you're going to give middle fingers, to your former fan base, you're going to get asked about it, dude. I mean, you're going to have to answer it. You can't say, let's move on to something else and act like you didn't do anything. He was spectacular on the floor. What a series this is going to turn out to be. I thought really that the key possession for Brooklyn was their defensive possession

when they were up three, and they just allowed Jalen Brown to get to the rim without any resistance. to cut it to one within literally six seconds leaving plenty of time left on the game clock. And, you know, the Nets had one more offensive possession to extend the lead to three. And they doubled Kyrie Irving. They did a great job Boston did defensively. And then Durant ended up missing after Kyrie got him the ball off the double team. But I really thought up three, man, you can't be spaced out all over the floor in that particular situation and give up an easy two like they do. did. This is going to be a hell of a series. Boston's really good. The winner of this series

can win the title. I'm not saying this because they won game one, but after watching game one, I think even if Brooklyn had held on to win it, I think I would have said today, I think Boston's going to win this series. There are a tremendous defensive team. They have so many ways to go scoring. It's not just Brown and Tatum. They've got just a super high-kew. They've got just a super high-kew. great player and smart. Horford's doing a great job. They just got a lot of ways to score, and then they're just so excellent defensively.

And I kind of feel like with Brooklyn, it's really Durant and Kyrie. And Durant was off yesterday. They only lost by one with him being off. Maybe that's a good sign for Brooklyn. But the bottom line is he needs to be on and so does Kyrie four times over the next six games. and I don't know that that's going to happen.

Not against Boston. The other thing that I just wanted to discuss real quickly, and then we'll get Neil and Rockville on here. Colin Kaepernick was on a podcast with Chad Johnson, Brandon Marshall, and Adam Pac-Man Jones. It's called the I Am Athlete podcast. And I know that he is kind of intimated this and maybe even mentioned it when he was hanging

hanging out with Jim Harbaugh at Michigan recently, his former NFL coach with the 49ers. But he wants back into the league, and he's willing to be a backup quarterback, if that's what it takes. He says, I know I have to find my way back in. So, yeah, if I have to come back in as a backup, that's fine.

But that's not where I'm staying. And when I prove that I'm the starter, I want to be able to step on the field as such. I just need the opportunity to walk through the door. Kaepernick hasn't played since 2016. 2016. He's 35 years old. He's going to be 36 in November.

I don't think this is going to happen. Remember, he's already sued the league. They settled on the collusion case. I don't know what that was worth to him, but let's just say it was a couple of million bucks at least. I mean, could you? John Harbaugh, Jim Harbaugh's brother, say, come on in, incentive-laden deal, prove it to us, and maybe you can be Lamar Jackson's backup.

Look, when Colin Kaepernick had it going in San Francisco in 2012, 2013, he was really good. I mean, that was the wave of RG3 and Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick and, you know, really the true introduction to college-style dual-threat quarterbacking in the NFL. and we see obviously a lot more of it even today. He was as good as any of them. Not Wilson, obviously, but he was a more physical runner than RG3 and certainly had better vision as a runner,

and he could throw it too. I love Kaepernick during those seasons in San Francisco. But I don't know. It seems like there just may be too much baggage in this particular case. I would be surprised if somebody signs him. Neil and Rockville next. I talked about it in the open.

Now Neil and Rockville is joining us. The commanders wrote a 105-page letter to the Federal Trade Commission today, forcefully rejecting the allegations that Jason Friedman made last week, that they had illegally withheld security deposits from fans and kept two sets of books to hide revenue from the NFL. over the past decade. Before we get to each one of those charges, Neil, I think it's important for people to understand that the commanders asked the FTC in this letter not to take up the oversight committee majorities call, the Democratic majority's call for an investigation into

the club's business practices and attached three affidavits from former high-ranking executives that rebut Friedman's allegations painting him as a scandal-tarded lower-level official who would not have had access to or knowledge of the accounting scheme he alleges. So before we get to the security deposits that weren't refunded, the skimming off the top allegation, let's just start with the fact that they had two CFOs, a former general counsel, and a former chief operating officer that were quoted, at least in the Daniel Kaplan athletics story. And apparently three affidavits signed affidavits from high-ranking executives that are a part of this letter.

Tell everybody the significance of that. So the significance of these being affidavits and not merely statements from these individuals is when someone signs an affidavit, they are signing. that what they have just provided is truthful, and it is truthful to the effect that they are signing under the penalties of perjury. So to have testified under oath, and they were found to have been lying and committed perjuring, they could be subject to criminal actions. In the same way, an affidavit, which is the same thing as testimony, but only in written form, they are putting themselves out there to be subject to perjury.

also. So, Neil, do we know if Jason Friedman was under oath when he testified? It's a little unclear. The references initially were that Freeman testified through a deposition. However, there have also been intimations that it was part of an interview, which, if not formally, a deposition, he would not have been under oath. So it's a little unethical. unclear as to whether Freeman was at the time under oath that when he gave his statement. All right. Before we get to, you know, the two significant charges that were made by Friedman last week, you've laid out sort of the importance of the fact that the commanders, the organization, you know,

by the way, this would explain, right, why there wasn't an immediate response. They wanted to get affidavits. They wanted to get former employees in that sort of format, and that just took a little bit more time than just responding, you know, right out of the gate. Yeah, this was this document, which is, you know, some pages of a letter and then a lot of attachments wasn't just this general three statement denial, three line denial. This is a in-depth rebuking of the allegations made by Friedman. and more importantly, were the reference by the committee to the FTC. All right. Before again, we get to the two specific charges.

Part of this, you know, we haven't had access to the letter. The 20-page letter from the House Oversight and Reform Committee that went to the FTC was something that was linked to by the Post. We have not seen the 105-page letter. We're reading from the various quotes that Daniel Kaplan from the Athletic, and now I think the Post and others have. But part of what they were clearly trying to do as part of this letter is paint Friedman as someone who had no access. And more than that was fired right away when Jason Wright came in.

I'm going to read a couple of lines from the Kaplan letter and ask you to respond to this. First of all, David Donovan, who was the former general counsel of the team, wrote, I was struck when reading in the committee's letter that it provides no factual foundation for why or how Mr. Friedman would know anything about the CFO's office maintenance of books and records in Ashburn, including whether there was one or two sets of books. Mr. Friedman does not appear to assert he had access to the team's financial records or that he ever actually saw any such second set of books. And then further on in the Kaplan's story, it's written that Friedman was fired immediately by Jason Wright, which we've talked about when Wright got hired in 2020 for what was called, quote, engaging in intimidating and abusive behavior, closed quote. So part of this letter is to really paint Friedman.

as a no-nothing and a guy that get fired because he wasn't, you know, up to standards of at least the new group that was coming in led by Jason Wright. Oh, yeah. I mean, it's, you know, it's a very strong personal rebuke of him, not only to his personality, but then it goes much further on to explain how, due to his limitations as, you know, basically one of the ticket sellers, that he was not privy to later follow-up emails, the accounting practices, the practices actually that were done by the accounting office in response to an email that he sent.

So he saw at most the front end of what was going on and certainly had no access to the dealings by the accounting office and others in the finance office about what really was going on with all these different layers that he claimed to be wrongful doings by the team. All right. Let's get to the two charges that he made and how the team, at least according to the reports that we've read, have responded to the FTC. First, let's go with the allegation that they were holding back millions of dollars in security deposits and, you know, essentially keeping it as revenue. How did the team respond to that? I mean, the team basically responded that it wasn't their practice. Pretty much just over, you know, a general denial explaining that, you know, over a

significant period of time, most everything had been returned, that they're up to about $200,000 may not have been because those might have been some defaults or something of the like, but they even went into a little more detail just explaining the accounting principle that these aren't things that they would want to have on their books because they would actually be listed as liability in their balance sheets, which is something that you don't want in a business. And therefore, just doing what Friedman was alleging didn't, make practical sense for the team. Yeah, $200,000 based on defaults is what they claim,

nowhere near the $5 million that Friedman claimed, all due to what was called defaults, which from the last letter, you know, Friedman even mentioned that, you know, someone could lose their security deposit based on not paying, or not paying on time, or damaging their seat. was something else. So 200,000 versus 5 million and the fact that one of the former CFOs,

excuse me, a guy by the name of Sisenkki was his last name, essentially said this would not be an incentive because it would be listed as a liability. Paul Sisenkki, former director of finance, not the CFO, former director of finance, said that it would have been listed as a liability on the balance sheet. All right. So let's get to. the skimming off the top allegation. How was this addressed based on what you can tell? Well, first off, it was addressed. It was clear in some of the affidavits that the committee did not seek clarification before they sent their letter to the FTC, because one of the things they made clear is that if they had actually asked the team about these business practices,

they would have been able to provide them significant information before they sent their letter out to the FTC. But there are a couple different layers, but they got even Mitchell Gershman, who was highly named in the letter, sort of making a clarification of what the term juice was. And that was very important because there was a nefarious term used, you know, by Friedman when it came to juice.

Gershman explained a little bit more about the juice being the difference between what the face value of a ticket was and what a third-party seller might have sold it for, and I think they got some form of a cut between the two. Yeah, a ticket broker. A ticket broker, exactly. And then with regard to, you know, a lot of, you know, a lot of. the other allegations, it was clear that even though, and they acknowledged that Freedman sent this email to Choi, what it became clear is that Choi then referred the email to the

email to the accounting department, to the finance department, to auditors to look into all this, and they came to a conclusion that all this was, you know, regular business practices. Everything had been done. It just so happened that no one, of course, you know, added Friedman back as a C.C. to all the follow-up that had been done. And that internally they have, seemingly have emails and records and everything, that they looked into all these allegations and, you know, were pretty clear that certain funds were put into certain categories. They agreed to all that, and then they detailed even about the Notre Dame game,

but that nothing, you know, out of the normal business practices or nefarious, went into any of that and that everything that the NFL was to get, they got, and, you know, really undercut the underpinnings of the allegations that Friedman made and ultimately the referral to the FTC. and more importantly probably, you know, Roger Goodell looking at this thing, probably more, you know, trying to tell him like, hey, you know, no need to worry about this. We weren't, you know, trying to steal from the, not only the other owners, but also, you know, in some ways the players in the league,

as I think we talked a few days ago where you mentioned, you know, a couple of the players were coming out and saying, hey, you better keep an eye on this because they were stealing from you too. I think it was Matt Schaub or something like that. So I want to get into this in a little bit more detail because I'm reading from Kaplan's long story, which has clearly he must have had access to this letter because he writes,

Friedman's damning allegation that that team owner Dan Snyder orchestrated a scheme to hide revenue from the NFL has sparked renewed speculation about Snyder's hold on the team. Friedman's primary example is his 2014 email, which you just discussed, Neil, with a team executive, Stephen Choy. Stefan, by the way, has been their CFO recently. I don't know if he's there anymore or not, to be honest with you.

In which it appears they discuss a portioning part of the ticket revenue from the team to a college football game played at FedEx Field, seemingly shielding that revenue from the league. So, you know, you sell tickets to a game, you generate revenue, but you take some of that ticket sale for the Redskins Giants game, and you say that it was actually a ticket sold to the Navy Notre Dame game, that was Friedman's claim, in essence, and therefore that's not owed back to the league.

But this is a quote from... This is a quote from the letter. Sorry, I didn't know if it was attributed to anybody. Quote, however, what the committee did not know because it never asked is that after Mr. Choi received Friedman's May 6th, 24 email, he forwarded it to the team of accounting professionals, dropping Friedman, who was not an accountant, from the chain, and the accounting professionals subsequently confirmed

that the Navy Notre Dame license fee had been properly placed in an account known as 14 Red Rev, that is, 2014 Redskins revenue. The commanders wrote the, the FTC in the letter off the commanders, sorry, the commanders wrote, this was the letter, it came in the letter. That email is included in the letter which stretches to 102 pages with exhibits. So I'm not understanding this. This is sort of they're answering something that's a little bit opposite of what Friedman described. Friedman said they were taking revenue from Redskin games and then accounting for it as if it were Navy Notre Dame revenue.

Therefore, skimming off the total amount of revenue generated from the Redskin Giant game that would be then the 40% of that would be owed back to the league. This is saying in the letter that the Navy Notre Dame license fee had been properly placed in an account. Well, what's the Navy Notre Dame license fee? I don't remember reading anything about that in the 20-page letter. I remember reading about the difference between the $55 sale and the $44 sale and the $11 delta and the accounting for $44 when actually it was a $55 ticket.

It's a little unclear, but I think it's very clear. And actually, it's discussed a little bit further down in the article. when it gets to discussions about the revenue sharing and some waivers and some waivers that Friedman would never know about, is that Freeman may be looking at it at the level of the ticket seller. But as you said, when it's in Ashburn and it's being looked at by the accountants in the finance offices, it takes on a much different tone because they know what goes into these tickets. They know the accounting practices, and they know that maybe in a $55 ticket, maybe there is something like a $10 license fee that's in there or something like that,

which is normal business practices. And it really comes to light, as I noted later on, where Steve talks about this allegation about the NFL revenue sharing and the fact that there were club seat waivers and Friedman was trying to say, well, you know, after that initial 10 years, you know, was over, that then they started, you know, keeping some money and taking some money and the like. But there's a great quote in there that starts the, unbeknownst to Freeman, but known to the team, the county and finance department, the team in fact obtained from the NFL an additional $27 million revenue.

sharing waiver for club seat revenue and certain other sales in relation to projects that were approved in 2013 and 2015. If Freeman had been in the team's accounting department, he would have known this. He was not, and his representations to the committee are not only false, but underscore that Freeman is making claims that extend well beyond his personal knowledge or professional expertise. Yeah. So, no, I'm following you. And I want to make sure that everybody listening to this is following, Neil, because you still didn't, we still didn't answer, you didn't answer the license fee for the Navy Notre Dame game. I'll come back to that in a moment because you mentioned, you know, that Jordan C.

or C.E. or however it's pronounced, the lawyer that wrote this letter on behalf of the team with all the affidavits from the three high-ranking executives. And you just read from that level from that section that identifies that, you know, the league gave them further waivers from club seat revenue. Now, just I want everybody to understand what that means. When Jack Kent Cook built the stadium in 1997, the 40% of ticket sales that go back to the league, they got like a 10-year waiver that club seat sales wouldn't be counted in that. And so they got that extended. So, Friedman didn't know that. That's fine, but that doesn't address any of the other ticket sales. And I'm not even sure that him not knowing about that really contradicts anything necessarily in his testimony.

Look, I have a feeling that Friedman doesn't know anything compared to what he sort of represented. But at the same time, in reading through this story right now, I also want to make sure that the team's response isn't just creating straw men. you know, like this, you know, back to what I said, this fee for that, you know, the answer is confirm that the Navy Notre Dame license fee had been properly placed in an account. Well, what does that mean? Does that mean that Navy and Notre Dame have to pay, that they have to pay some sort of license fee or that the league does get, but that was sent back to the league? That's not really discussing tickets from a game that got pushed.

into the Navy Notre Dame bucket. That's correct. So, I mean, one of the things also we have to remember with the letter that was sent, we have to presume also that the test, that Friedman's testimony was also sent. So obviously there was a lot more detail in his testimony about allegations regarding the, you know, Notre Dame game and stuff like that that they might be addressing that we actually really don't know about, but they might be sort of trying to cover themselves. So they're not playing catch-up.

They can actually put it out there ahead of time because this is going to the FTC. So the FTC has this. So they might be saying, you know, listen, FTC, you know, there's the letter. You have that. You need to take it into consideration all these different factors. And more importantly, I think for these allegations, this is more important. to basically tell Roger Goodell that, you know, we're not screwing with our partners. And because really the FTC, I think as everyone has said, they only care and ultimately probably

the attorneys generals really care about is the issues with regard to the seat deposits because that's a consumer protection issue versus an interplay between owners of the NFL. except for the tangential aspects with regard to monies that should be paid to the players. Where's this headed? What's next here? I think they've probably addressed the concerns, probably least of the FTC in general. Like I think we said before me and Howard had previously said, if there's going to be action taken and there's also been reporting of this, I think that's going to be at the level of the attorneys generals.

If they think there were some, you know, consumer protection issues, they'll deal with it. And with regard to the skimming and the other, you know, accounting and finance issues between the team and the league, not only, you know, is there going to be, you know, obviously a probably more of an accounting by Goodell, But we still have Mary Joe White. Mary Joe White, in her past, was, you know, so involved with the SEC that this is sort of under her, you know, Baileywick. And I'm sure that Roger will have her sort of look into these things and, you know, see how they play out. But at least, you know, there has been a response, as everyone was sort of saying, well, why hasn't there been a response? there has been specific denials, there has been specific responses to a lot.

Hopefully we'll see, and probably by the morning we'll probably see the leather and many of the attachments and maybe hopefully the specific affidavits that they're playing, you know, they're playing ball with them. They're responding. And, you know, in some ways, you know, it's going to be to the FTCs dealing with them. now and as some of the articles have said, they have a lot on their plate. They don't usually go into sort of these, I don't want to say low scale, but it's a pretty low scale, low priority issue, you know, at most, even in the allegations you were talking about 2,000 people, they have no real enforcement authorities. So I think they're probably going to just leave it up

to the attorneys generals to look into it and see, you know, if they think they think they that there needs to be action there. But at most, that's not going to do anything. And then ultimately, the game is still sort of in Rogers' hands and Mary Jo White's hands, and just to see, you know, was they're skimming, what they're not skimming. And as Howard also said and made it very clear, and you've made it clear, this is kind of stuff

that they can sort of figure out pretty easily with real financial auditing and some, you know, more high-level accounting. NFL will find out were they being cheated or not cheated. So I think that's just going to play out probably behind the scenes a little bit more. But with regard to the FTC, I think we've probably heard the last from them. All right, great job. I know you've got to run.

I appreciate it. Thanks. You got them in. All right. Bye. Something's just gnawing at me about the team's response. I'm going to get to that to finish up the show when we come back right after these words from a few of our sponsors. So Neil and Rockville's conclusion to all.

all of this, I think makes sense. And that is that this is ultimately going to come back to Mary Joe White's investigation of the financial improprieties and whatever she says to Roger Godell and then Roger Goodell goes from there. The FTC and even the attorney generals, they can't outstand Snyder. Only 31 other owners can do that. Okay, they can make things uncomfortable for him. They can perhaps create, you know, some big time showdown on Capitol Hill where he testifies in front of Congress along with Roger Goodell. Who knows where that part is. headed. But I agree with Neil and Rockville's overall conclusion. But there is something gnawing at me, and I just want to go through this with everybody. You know, these headlines of Washington commanders

strongly deny financial misconduct and letter to federal trade commission. That's, you know, the ESPN headline. The athletic headline, commanders rebut financial malfeasance allegations and letter to FTC. Daniel Kaplan's athletic story starts, the Washington, commanders wrote the Federal Trade Commission Monday to forcefully reject allegations that the team illegally withheld security deposits from fans and kept two sets of books to hide revenue from the NFL in the past decade. Those were, you know, the major allegations by Jason Friedman. What's gnawing at me is there are just some holes in the summary of all of this. Now, we haven't seen the 22-page letter with the 83 pages of sworn affidavits, texts, and emails

as attachments. And I'm not looking forward if we ever get a chance to read that to 105 pages of reading. I'm not. The letter was written by the team's attorney, Jordan Sieve or Jordan C.F, however you pronounce that. I think in the summaries, two things that are pointed out are certainly fair. One is that, you know, the House Oversight and Reform Committee didn't give Washington a chance to respond before they wrote their letter to the FTC. Well, that really reeks of politicism, you know, of politics, you know, out to get Snyder,

Democratic House Oversight and Reform Committee, a majority, and they don't give the team a chance to respond. It really speaks to the political nature, perhaps, of this process. Number two is the team, I think, you know, through this summary of the letter, probably did a pretty good job of painting Jason Friedman to be, A, a guy of not high character. He was the first one of the first that Jason Friedman, that Jason Wright, excuse me, fired. And secondly, he just didn't have the access. He worked out at FedEx Field with the ticket group.

He wasn't in the CFO's office. He wasn't in the accounting office. He didn't have the access. So I think in reading through these summaries, that seems to be spelled out and intuitive to me. where there is really a lack of kind of connectivity, if you will, with Friedman's testimony, there are two spots here. Like the team is trying to respond to the allegations that they didn't, you know, hold back $5 million worth of refunds from security deposits that were put down by season ticket holders.

And they weren't skimming off the top of what they owed back to the last. league. Well, let's get to the security deposit thing first. And I mentioned this to Neil. The commanders, Kaplan writes in his story in the athletic, also took issue with Friedman's allegation that they had held back millions of dollars in security deposits, booking it as revenue and made it difficult for fans to get them back. The team pointed to a 2014 correspondence sent to customers notifying them of security deposits and pointed out, quote, and this is from the team's attorney who wrote the letter, Jordan Seve. Over the last 10 years, the total amount of security deposits applied to revenue, all due to defaults, is just over $200,000.

An immaterial amount in comparison to the team's overall income, closed quote. Sisenski, the former director of finance, also said in his affidavit, he noted that it made little sense for them to hoard security deposits because the money is kept on the balance sheet as a liability. back to the $200,000 over the last 10 years. Well, that takes us back to 2012. What about from 1999 through 2012? Really more importantly, from like 2007 through 2012, because when the stadium was built in 1997, people had to put down security deposits.

They also had to buy, you know, licenses to purchase the seats in some cases. But they had to put down security deposits then, and then that practice was maintained as Friedman spelled out in his testimony to the House Oversight and Reform Committee, they had to, you know, that was a process for a while, the security deposits. So the leases were, you know, I don't know, five years, ten years. I think a lot of them were ten years. So really the important time would have been like from 2007 through the end of 2011

when the leases were coming to an end and security deposits were just kind of hanging out there. the last 10 years are probably less significant in terms of the security deposits. So I don't know, maybe I'm grasping at straws there. You know, maybe I'm just hoping that they're, you know, kind of, you know, playing some sort of sleight of hand here. But I would think that over the last 10 years isn't as significant as perhaps like the four or five years that came before 2012. So they don't really answer the $5 million claim.

And again, by the way, I want to make one thing clear. I've said all along the refund thing from the jump for me was, I think a lot of businesses. A lot of businesses in this country make it hard for customers to get their security deposits back. You know, it's not an easy process. And so I doubt that they are truly unique in business. and they're probably not even that unique in the league. But the point here is they answer the allegation by talking about the last 10 years and they've got about a $200,000 outstanding amount,

and those are due to defaults. Okay, what about the years before that? And then we get to the skimming off the top, you know, thing. This is the part that I really think, again, the 22 pages and all of the 83 pages that follow it may clear. this up. We're just reading from summaries right now. But Friedman's, Daniel

Kaplan and the Athletic, Friedman's damning allegation that team owner Dan Snyder orchestrated a scheme to hide revenue from the NFL has sparked renewed speculation about Snyder's hold on the team. Friedman's primary example is his 2014 email with team executive Stefan Choi, in which

it appears, Stefan Choi, by the way, was the CFO, in which it appears they discuss a portioning part of the ticket revenue from the team to a college football game played at FedEx Field, seemingly shielding that revenue from the league. Okay, so that was the Friedman allegation, right? You know, there's a game between Washington and the Cowboys, and they sold 50,000 tickets, but really they only are reporting that they sold 46,000 tickets,

and the rest of them were apportioned to the Navy Notre Dame game, which the league doesn't have the right to take a cut of the revenue from. Essentially, you know, there was the difference between the $55 sale and the $44 sale, how it was reported, et cetera. But that's not what the team answers here in summary form in the Kaplan story in the athletic. What's written here is from the attorney, Jordan Seve, quote, however, what the committee did not know because it never asked is that after Mr. Choi received Friedman's May 6th, 2014 email, he forwarded it, forwarded it to the team of accounting professionals dropping Friedman who was not an accountant from the chain. And the accounting professionals subsequently confirmed that the Navy Notre Dame license fee had been properly placed in an account known as 14 Red Rev, that is 2014 Redskins

Revenue. The commanders wrote the, the commanders wrote to the FTC. This was part of their response. Well, he wasn't talking about some sort of Navy Notre Dame license fee, was he? I this is like like I said to Neil kind of straw man here I don't remember anything mentioned about a Navy Notre Dame license fee and the license fee I don't even know what that is but that's separate from like you know taking skins game ticket sales and then apportioning those ticket sales to a Navy Notre Dame game I think that's different maybe I'm wrong You know, and then it goes on, according to the letter of the accounting for that game and a Kenny Chesney concert, also singled out by Friedman as an example of the revenue sharing scheme, where the subject of an internal audit and were found to be satisfactory, an internal audit.

Steve wrote, quote, the team's auditors, unsurprisingly, did not find anything amiss with the revenue generated by the Navy Notre Dame game and the Kenny Chesney concert because the team booked the revenue for each event appropriately, close quote. Okay. So he does say there that, you know, they accounted for it and booked it properly. That's not a sworn affidavit comment. That's the part of the 22-page letter from the attorney. I don't know. Maybe I'm reaching and grasping for something. And maybe the team's response is legitimate.

It certainly seems like Friedman didn't have CFO level or accounting level access. And it does seem like the House Oversight and Reform Committee, not asking for Washington to respond before they sent the letter to the FTC, is a little bit political. But we'll see where it goes. I'm sure there will be more information coming out with respect to this letter. And we will be here tomorrow. Tommy and I will be to discuss it.