TD_washingtonredskins

@Larry You're still painting with an extremely broad brush. Referencing genders in conversations ("my husband and I...") or using genders to label things (bathrooms or locker rooms) isn't "teaching" genders. That's where I misunderstood. I took your comment to mean that anyone who isn't for the instruction of all the different gender choices that now exist to young kids must be for teaching intolerance to young kids. And that's an unfair characterization. 

What you portrayed above is that we have basic usage of genders in schools and people can't both want those to persist without wanting their kids to understand the nuances that come with it. 

23 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Please explain.  

 

I know plenty of people who think they are two completely separate topics. Being accepting and kind to everyone is expected. Being instructed about the various gender choices out there at a young age is a different topic. To accuse everyone of being a bigot or not open to acceptance is pretty obtuse. 

11 hours ago, Larry said:

I know you already know this, but the folks saying gender shouldn't be taught to little kids?  Not one of them has a problem teaching gender to little kids. 
 

What they have is a problem teaching acceptance for all to little kids. 

I don't think that's true at all. 

14 minutes ago, GhostofSparta said:

Controlling your kids' choices is one thing. Controlling the entire world to try to control the information the encounter is just a fool's errand. But damn if religious extremists aren't fools willing to try.

This is a great point, but I honestly believe that this is where many people on all sides of this topic are swinging and missing these days. The way I see it, the extreme right is trying to control what they see but the extreme left is trying to control how what is seen is labeled and defined. I don't think either is the right approach as long as people are treated well. 

@gbear thank you for sharing your personal connection to this topic. I 100% agree that acceptance and kindness should be stressed everywhere and taught. 

1 hour ago, tshile said:

@bearrocki always enjoy your posts on this subject. 
 

my takeaway from all of this, as someone who’s uninformed and inexperienced as possible on it, is that male/female and boy/girl are just labels. And people are lazy and tend to use labels to make things easy. But labels are so basic and simple they leave so much out

 

long gone are the days where a woman stays home and cooks and cleans and raises children while men work. Or girls only like pink and purple, only play with dolls and kitchen sets. 
 

if you frame those two labels the same way we use Republican/democrat, or any of the various races and the history of them being used as labels for people, you can easily see how there’s so much more. Surely plenty of people aren’t solely democrads or solely republicans. And we’ve accepted just because your skin is a certain color or your ancestors have certain roots, that doesn’t define you. 
 

if we stopped pretending being male means X and being female means Y, and start accepting people exist on a gradient, a lot of this problem goes away. And if we lived that way as a society you may see less need for altering one’s form as they don’t feel that’s required to act or be treated the way they feel they should. 
 

labels are lazy. It starts with that. To me. 

So, I agree with most of what you say...but I think you're describing gender NORMS. To me, that's a little different. If a man wants to dress in pink, wear makeup, raise the children, date other men, drink Cosmos, watch the Kardashians, etc...who cares? He's not asking society to conform to his interests and claim he is what he isn't, use facilities that he shouldn't use, win awards that are categorized for other people, etc. That's the line that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. 

7 hours ago, zCommander said:

 

Then they are not smart owners. Everyone know that most of the 50s something have deep pockets and money to burn. 

 

You want or need organic growth by making a good product to attract newer fans and bring back the kids of 50s something into the stadium who will contribute to the future of the team.

 

ALL ages need to be prioritized!

 

 

You don't know what "prioritized" means then. 

18 hours ago, Fergasun said:

As a millenial, all this gender/sexuality stuff gives me a headache.  We went from "sexuality is not a choice" to "gender is a choice" and I don't know how to square the logic on that.  Why couldn't we have agreed that "gender is not a choice" and separate it from behavior?  At least we don't have people identifying and trying to identify as animals... maybe it would be nice if I could be protected under the endangered species act - I am a bald eagle!  

 

I don't agree that "gender is a choice".  People can feel a different gender... or want to behave a different gender.   I know a family going through it and I completly get the mental health benefits that I suppose even me saying "gender is not a choice" could cause mental anguish. 

There are some of those! There's a kid in my son's school who identifies as a bird...I think it's a crow, and it pisses him off to no end. 

2 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Jason is delusional to think he would get the Gm job. Jason will be relived of his duties within 2 months of Josh taking over.

 

I think Josh will tell Ron that he intends to hire his own Gm for 24. If Ron returns in 24, it will be as coach only. If Ron returns, think he just finishes out his contract. Any long term contract for 25 and beyond, Ron would have to have a deep playoff run in 24.

I think Wright is pretty bad and has done a pretty laughable job. But I also think he's an intelligent guy. Therefore, I think it's extremely unlikely that he truly believes he's in the running for the GM position here or anywhere else. 

38 minutes ago, tshile said:

I know someone going through this with a child. The parents are totally trying to be supportive and do the right thing - whatever that actually means. It’s an incredibly difficult thing to navigate. 
 

But the worst part is that because this is now a political issue, with so much yelling and screaming about, a young child feels forced to seek help from other young children. So you have these groups of young children they are all going through stages of struggling to figure out their identity, relying only on each other and whatever communities on the internet they seek refuge in. 
 

It’s a recipe for disaster. 

Just another example of an echo chamber (on both sides) and how detrimental they can be. 

2 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

You're forgetting 1989 ... that team would have made the postseason using today's rules.  Final series against the Jays was essentially a playoff series, having to take 2 out of 3, but lost the first two. Dang Mark Williamson ... 

I'm talking playoffs...1989 was my first taste but it broke my heart! I have hated Toronto more than Boston or New York since...add the Camden All-Star Game show up of Mussina and the Josh Donaldson feud with Manny, and I can't stand the Blow Jays. 

On 6/3/2023 at 11:33 AM, Spearfeather said:

 

Correct, and while their numbers have diminished some over the years for various reasons, I think some people are underestimating the percentage of those fans that are still here, and have a lot of football left in "em

 

Josh Harris is one of those fans..

 

 

 

I have extremely fond memories of Redskin Sundays in the 1980s with my mom and, later, my friends. But, the fact remains that as powerful and nostalgic as anecdotal evidence is, that's all it is...anecdotal. The new ownership group is going to need to follow the metrics and the numbers. And that will lead them to younger, newer fans who are NOT in this age bracket. They might CONSIDER the 50-somethings, but they aren't going to PRIORITIZE that group when making any decisions. 

13 hours ago, TheDoyler23 said:

They won 90+ in 2012, had a winning record in 2013 and just missed the playoffs, won the division in 2014, 500 in 15 and were a playoff team in 16. 
 

That was half a decade without a losing record and (I think?) the most wins in the AL during that span. 
 

The crazy thing is - this is just the beginning. They weren’t supposed to have a winning record last year and they did. They aren’t supposed to be this good this year, but (so far) they are.

 

I’m just going to enjoy it while it happens and not stress about roster changes. 

Agreed...I'm glad they are doing this, but I wasn't expecting last year and expected (kind of still do) a little slide back this year. As for the Buck 6-year oasis, that was pretty special to someone my age. I just missed the 70s/80s teams, so before that I only really had those 2 years in the 90s. 1996 was fluky, but they were dominant in 1997. I feel like 1996 was very similar to 2012 in that it was extremely HR-driven while 1997 was much more legit like 2014 in that they could have won it all. 

I'm very excited for what's to come!

12 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

Many of the fans that remember RFK fondly are those in their late 30s to 40s now.  30 and 40 something die hards are the parents of your future die hards and given the number of die hards I know, most of us were children of die hards ourselves. Further, many of 50 something fans will definitely be both physically and fiscally capable of enjoying going to games in our 60s and early 70s and will help pass our passion on to our grandchildren. I also am sure that many of those in their late 30s and 40s will also be physically capable for another 30, even 40 years.  We represent the people with the money and connections to help get the stadium built. Stadium building is not an investment that only pays off in 30 years but one that is expected to generate current revenues that at least finance the build process if not make a profit. While die hards are not where your going to see a real large growth in your fan base, we are also those that still pony up when things are bad.

Nothing you said is untrue, but it still represents a subset of a subset of the fanbase. They should be considered, but the "diehards" are not what they were even 5 years ago, continue to shrink based on the state of the team, name change, etc., and hold a smaller and smaller role in the future significance of the state of the fanbase. 

4 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

 

They need to create an illusion of scarcity. Even having season tickets was a badge of honor previously. You had to be on a waitlist for years etc. When the product is perceived to be rare more people want it. People are not going to overpay for something that’s not perceived as rare regardless of how much money they have to burn. I don’t know how they get there in the next 5 to 10 years without winning a Super Bowl and competing at an elite level for a few years.
 

I personally as a fan prefer the reasonable prices at FedEx field than paying 5 to 10 times as much at a new stadium no matter how nice it is. I can fly to dc and have a game ticket lower level behind the Redskins bench including airfare and game ticket cheaper than it is for me to buy the same ticket at Sofi and sit lower level behind the Redskins here. 

I agree. But they can do that without being a great team. If the experience itself is fun, the location of the stadium is convenient, the brand is cool, and the team is liked...that all contributes. They do need to be a little careful...the old regime straight up lied about the scarcity of season tickets for a few years, so they can't go too far

I think a competent owner can parlay the wealth and power of Washington, DC plus a new stadium into making football games a must-attend event again. Especially at the numbers we are talking to sell out boxes and luxury seats of a smaller stadium. And I don't think the team would need to win a championship for that to happen. 

58 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

They want to build a new stadium that requires massive PSLs. Like up to 100 grand per seat PSLs are the norm now in the NFL which was the case at Sofi and Vegas and certainly will be for a stadium opening in the early 2030s. The majority of fans who can likely afford those prices will be part of the 40/50 plus year old cohort. The business decisions actually have to incentivize those fans to engage to put down that level of investment. They are the target demographic along with lobbying groups/corporations who will scoop up suites and premium seats.
 

When sideline lower levels for 4 seats cost 400 grand for the PSLs plus an additional 16 grand a year in ticket prices, you have to prioritize to get people willing to put that down. I don’t see how they do it given what tickets cost at FedEx now but that’s the new standard in the NFL. 

They need some fans in that demographic for things like that...but think of how small that population is that you mention. Their major marketing decisions don't need to take 50-year old people in mind to capture the number of people it will take to fill the stadium...that's thousands. 

Plus, if they market things properly in an area with this much money and influence, some of those PSLs will be paid for by rich people who aren't necessarily fans. That's what happens in many cases anyway...if they can create a market or demand, they don't need someone who has a signed Riggo jersey AND money, just someone with money. There are plenty of those people in this area happy to flaunt it. 

On 5/29/2023 at 10:38 AM, Spearfeather said:

Just taking someone who is 40 years old for instance; these people still have memories of at least one, if not two of our Super Bowl appearances, Joe Gibbs, along with about 15 years of us playing our games at RFK.

Playing the odds, these fans still have close to 40 years of football watching still in them. 

I don't think a new stadium that we most likely won't be playing in for another seven, eight, nine years, is going to be something that keeps them around or draws them back in. 

I think it would be a big mistake for Harris & Co. to disregard these fans, the ones that have been with us the longest, in any attempts to rebuild or rejuvenate the fanbase.

I doubt the ownership group plans to completely disregard that group of fans, but the wise business decision would be to deprioritize them more and more. Eventually, they need to realize that even those with fond memories of this team are aging out of ever having the same passion and dying off. That population is shrinking every day/month/year that goes by. 

2 hours ago, balki1867 said:

Given how close Jerruh is to Snyder, I actually doubt that. If the NFL owners were a high school lunch room, I doubt either one of them was sitting at the cool kids’ table. Jerruh’s got his own history of sexual misconduct within the Cowboys organization too— just not as egregious as what happened in DC.

Oh, I disagree. I think Jerry Jones is near the top of the NFL (and North American sports) pecking order. I don't really know about actual cool factor, but the other owners care about the partnerships and revenue-generating...and that's what Jones has always done well. He more than pulls his weight and has been GREAT for the NFL. If he's not the alpha of the NFL, he's very, very close to it, possibly behind some of the long-time families like the Maras, Rooneys, and Hunts. 

4 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

There is more risk associated with the smaller transaction in this example.

Interesting...I didn't realize that. 

17 hours ago, Conn said:

It’s not really that long at all, you just have unrealistic expectations. We’re talking about a multi-billion dollar transaction happening between dozens of billionaires.  There’s nothing simple about it and not doing strict, deep due diligence is not a precedent you can set just on the honor system lol. It’s super serious business and there’s nothing unusual about it taking a couple months. That’s still really fast as far as large corporate transactions go! 

My company is valued in the tens of millions of dollars and purchased another similar-sized company...each had just 1-2 owners. So we are talking about an exponentially simpler transaction that took place. And that still took a few months of due diligence. I can't imagine the level of difficulty that billions of dollars and vetting 15-20 different owners would entail. 

After reading the article I posted though...even though the lady had been there for 20 years, I'm not sure "beloved secretary" is quite the right description of her. She was a fired person's personal secretary, so being fired seems pretty standard. I must have been blending those two stories in my head. 

5 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

 

I think that was in the middle of Mr. Snyder's reign of terror. 

Just found it...July of '99

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1999/07/17/snyder-fires-about-25-from-redskins/3a44b31c-1df5-468e-91e3-add520c45b00/

The Washington Redskins' new owner, Daniel M. Snyder, fired approximately 25 of the team's front-office employees yesterday, mostly in the stadium operations, public relations and marketing departments.

The firings came two days after Snyder, a Bethesda marketing executive, and his partners, Mortimer Zuckerman and Fred Drasner, closed on their $800 million purchase of the Redskins and Jack Kent Cooke Stadium from the Cooke estate.

"We're beginning a new era with the Washington Redskins and are anxious to have our own people in key positions," Snyder said. "We're very excited about what's happening with the franchise."

.....

Also released were public relations director Mike McCall and all but one member, Chris Helein, of his staff. It was learned that McCall would be replaced by onetime Redskins public relations staff member John Konoza and that a former Snyder Communications staffer, Casey Husband, would join the public relations staff.

"Any owner has the right to do whatever he wants with his company," said McCall, who was about to enter his 10th season with the organization and whose secretary, Phyllis Hayes, was fired after being with the team since 1976.

2 hours ago, mojo said:

Just waiting for the Harris group to announce their first order of  business is to reimplement Snyder's policy of charging to see training camp and watch fans line up to jump off the Key Bridge.

Doesn't he have to fire a beloved secretary first? For some reason, I feel like that was the first reported thing he did to leave his mark. 

What I liked about The Process (at least from what I know about it) is that it showed that Harris is open to an outside-the-box mindset to trying to win. It was almost a new version of Moneyball or New England's Gronk/Hernandez 2-TE studs, where you just try to zig while the rest of the league is still zagging. You can't always control results, but unless he imposed some of those draft choices on his basketball people (which it doesn't sound like he did), I have no issues whatsoever with trying something new and different to gain an competitive advantage. 

11 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Was it Harris who fired him or the GM/Team President etc?

 

 

That's a valid point, but as we said with Snyder the mission or culture of an organization comes from the top. So, if ownership demands excellence, class, etc. from its coach then the GM will too.