Califan007 The Constipated

Update:

I appreciate the direct response without any spin lol...kudos, sir.

So he's whining about the very same people his advertisers think they should pay attention to. Smart.

I dunno...you think Heinicke can score 38 points like that?

Then you're not gonna like hearing about the owner who came up with "Redskins" lol...

If there is one final rebramnd on the horizon, what if it's Admirals? lol...I mean, for all we know whoever the new owner is might actually think Commanders is a good name. Not sure why we think everyone feels the same way some fans do.

"if they DON'T rebrand, we'll be the laughingstock of the league. " Not even slightly is this true. Only in the minds of dispirited Washington fans does this make any sense. Nobody else is waiting feverishly for us to come up with a better name. Nobody else gives a **** now. And it's almost guaranteed that whatever the new name will be will also be met with derision and jokes about "Maybe if they change it a 5th time they'll get it right." "you'll never get back the massively large Native American fan contingent until there is at least a subtle nod to preserve the heritage." For the most part, that's gone forever. It wasn't protesters who caused the name to change, it was sponsors. Sponsors and the league have already made the statement (figuratively if not literally) that cultural appropriation is not gonna be the norm anymore. The Chiefs will end up being next, although it will be more down the road. They aren't backtracking from that without bringing on a bunch of negative press...and with everything else this franchise has gone through in terms of negative press, they aren't about to purposefully invite more over a matter they considered closed. "RedWolves is the ONLY answer" If the question is "What name could Washington give themselves that would make things worse," then yeah lol...along with Warriors, Admirals, Monuments, going back to Football Team...I know there is a small contingent of RedWolves supporters who have convinced themselves that they are actually represent an overwhelming majority of the fan base, but RedWolves has lost whatever sheen it MAY have had for those fans who weren't diehard supporters of the name. Most people accept the new name and move on. Seriously, a new name at this point along with a new logo, possibly new uniforms, new owner...we're guaranteeing we're seen as little more than an expansion team with next to no connection to the 80+ years of "Redskins"...because that connection was not rooted in Native American imagery. It was rooted in the players and coaches and the experience of consistent, sustained winning and championships. Changing the name again would be too many changes in an incredibly short time. Thinking that a new owner will result in a new name/logo/everything else is wishful thinking. The league will feel Bezos is good for their bank accounts if he's willing to have a franchise in London...not because he's willing to have a franchise called "RedWolves".

But that's what would happen if they throw their normal way of approaching franchise name changes for Bezos.

I absolutely can appreciate all that lol...

Another name change would bring with it feelings of "Not again...", and not just among our fan base but among the entire NFL. We'd start heading back down the "joke of a franchise" path, one that can't figure out what it wants to be named or what it wants as it's colors and logo. "27 different starting QBs and 4 different names" is in no way good for the NFL... Not to mention all the bellyaching from fans who most definitely will not like the new name (we'd be naive to think that won't happen). We dilute the "specialness" (for lack of a better word) of having new name merchandise when we're literally changing names every year. Again, best way of ramping up merchandise sales is to improve the on-field results.

You need to re-read that part of my post again until you understand it better lol... It goes beyond immediate costs, and even immediate costs goes way beyond merchandise in stock.

How would changing the name bring the other owners any more money?...It's not like Bezos is gonna pay each owner $1billion to get the name changed. And decades of evidence shows that what will bring a franchise more money--and thus the league more money--is more winning...not a 4th new name in 5 years. An argument could be made that it loses them money in this situation.

The absolute last thing the league will want is to willingly allow an owner to snub his nose at the rest of the league simply because he has billions.

Maybe, who knows...I don't remember Bezos having any fluency in rescuing and resuscitating sports franchises. He just has a ton of money.

You keep thinking that lol...

Re: New name with new owner: People need to give up on a possible new name if the team is sold...the other 31 owners, the league overall, the individual team sponsors and the league sponsors all have a stake in the Commanders remaining the Commanders. Wouldn't surprise me one iota if a condition of buying a franchise is that the name, logo, and colors must remain the same and that any changes must be approved by the league, with the league considering input by their sponsors. Remember, it was heat from a major sponsor that helped lead to the first name change to begin with. Here's a refresher from back in 2013: Redskins name change would have to pass muster with NFL, sponsors Daniel Snyder owns the Washington Redskins, but even he couldn’t change the team’s name without a complicated, and possibly lengthy, process that might include winning approval from both the NFL and some of its many sponsors, according to experts on the way the nation’s most prosperous sports league conducts its affairs. The financial stakes in such a move by one of pro football’s most valuable franchises would be considerable for the 32 NFL owners, who have a revenue-sharing agreement that covers much of the more than $9 billion the league generates annually. “The unique dynamic of professional sports is that teams essentially give up some of their rights as far as names and trademarks to the league as part of the joint venture,” said Gabriel Feldman, director of the sports law program at Tulane University. “While an individual team owner makes business decisions primarily affecting the one team, there are also decisions made by the league and the other owners that tend to affect the league as a whole.” [...]But the fierce debate has glossed over both the financial implications of a name change and the procedural issues that would be involved. All of those considerations would be significant, people familiar with the situation and outside legal and business experts said. According to two people with knowledge of the NFL’s policies on such matters, the league exerts great control over the use of trademarked team names, logos and colors. One of those people, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic, said he presumes the NFL would take the position that team names are set by the league constitution and any name change would require league approval. [...]Team names, colors and trademarks are subject to existing contracts with sponsors at both the individual team and league-wide levels, according to both people familiar with the NFL policies. So companies that sponsor the Redskins or the NFL would have some say in whether the name could be changed or would require notice — possibly years of advance warning in some cases — to allow existing contracts and licenses to lapse, according to those people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/redskins-name-change-would-have-to-pass-muster-with-nfl-sponsors/2013/02/24/c4fa763c-7b0b-11e2-9c27-fdd594ea6286_story.html

Annnd, if they change it, there's a 95% chance it won't be any better or received any better...which is what I said earlier lol. So the new owner(s) may like it better, but fans will far more likely just keep ****ing and moaning and saying they should have just stuck with Football Team or Commanders. Only exception is if they go back to Redskins, which ain't happening.

I hadn't considered the league having a voice in things, you're right...and especially (probably) right about the part in bold lol... They're still called the Commanders and that name still needs to be branded and used in different ways...so....

They aren't the type to come up with better names than "Commanders"...they may be "forward thinking" for how the name "Commanders" is branded and used, but you guys are deluding yourself if you think any new owner will magically come here with some NFL name that has the fan base buzzing with excitement over it. I still think going with no name and only having a symbol for a name a' la Prince would have been unique and forward thinking, and most likely hated by everyone except me lol...

The QB-WR combo will be too much for the defense... 24-16