Califan007 The Constipated

^^^ One more in relation to the above:

This was an interesting read: Here's the rest in case, for some reason (heh), the tweet/thread gets deleted and the user gets suspended lol... 2/ Back Twitter (like a lot of digital companies) participates in an event called new fronts. At this event, they sell large chunks of ads for the following year. Typically, Twitter sells like ~600-900M in ads at new fronts. That's guaranteed revenue for following year. 3/ This year, they didn't sell much of anything. A coalition called Stop The Deal spent time educating and using media buyers and big advertisers at the event to ask Twitter some basic questions about potential Musk takeover before giving him a guaranteed income for 2023. 4/ Media buyers did ask those questions. Twitter had zero answers or assurances, the presentation imploded and ended shockingly early. Twitter from what I understand basically sold almost nothing and locked in extremely little 2023 revenue. 5/ This means that instead of heading into 2023 with 15-20% of 2023 already secured as they typically would have, Twitter heads into next year with almost none of that. All because of Musk's red pilled edgelord approach. 6/ @elonmusk has had months to address these concerns or even learn about them. But instead, he's insisted on antagonizing the very businesses and people that sustain Twitter. Back in May, the groups and companies weren't calling for a boycott, they were asking basic questions. 7/ My point here is: It's actually worse than that I think a lot of people even appreciate all because Musk's conduct and commitments to roll back brand safety and community safeguards essentially obliterated Twitter's new front sales event that woulda secured 2023 revenue. Some of the better responses: $220 billion man who just fired 3700 Americans needs your $8 to turn a profit. Can you spare the price of one cup of coffee to help a billionaire sell your free speech back to you? Luke Zaleski @ZaleskiLuke Never fear, Elon is smoothing everything out with the advertisers... Jon Farrington @CalvertCrest (see below lol)

Elon:

Dave Butz was the first defensive lineman who I became a HUGE fan of...and the story of him running over roadkill for mental preparation and good luck on the way to the stadium just fit him so perfectly lol. RIP to a Redskins legend. ✊

The number of young voters doubled from 2016 to 2018, and then increased another 11 percentage points between 2018 and 2020. Sounds like they were doing exactly what you wanted them to do.

^^ Purbeast hates everything lol... I saw Barbarian. I'd give it a B-. What I liked: entertaining enough, creepy enough, some good laughs, some way out there violence, nice mixing up of timelines so that it's not just straight linear, had just enough twists and turns, having the setting be a derelict neighborhood with one nice house instead of the other way around (a derelict house in the middle of a nice neighborhood...think "It" for example), said "holy ****" more than once lol... Did not like: decision making of some characters, none of the people who could have helped bothered to lift a finger (emergency phone operator, the police, the management rep for the house...all of them were rude and dismissive in service of moving the plot forward), a few cliches that didn't feel natural (especially the "convention in town so no rooms available"), no real explanation for the...um..."thing" to exist the way it did other than wanting to make it unnerving, not sure how the homeless guy knew as much as he did, and they did not stick the landing at the end.

Film Room: Commanders Defense Will Put Vikings Offensive Line & Kirk Cousins to the Test

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.