Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

FootballZombie

Members
  • Content Count

    853
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by FootballZombie

  1. 6 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

     

    Not sure if it's already been asked, but who currently owns that trademark ?

     

     

    Basically Snyder.

     

    I think everything Wash Football/Redskins related is owned by its parent company Pro Football Inc where Snyder is the Key Principal

     

     

  2. 1 hour ago, Spearfeather said:

     

    When Dan Snyder was entertaining the idea of an Arena team, why did he attempt to secure " Warriors " ? 

    Why not just go with " Redskins " ?

     

    He probably wanted Warriors for its association to Redskins

     

    Wizards and Mystics like connection

     

    Redskins was trademarked. Any attempt to register another Redskins football team in Wash would have been blocked and the original Washington Redskins TM would be protected, whether from Snyder or anyone.

     

     

    WFT does not have those same protections around it tho.

    • Thanks 1
  3. 6 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

     

    What exactly do you mean by " claim an area " ?

     

    Another question ...

     

    If a minor league baseball team could possibly be changing its name ( Redwolves ) for fear of being " swallowed up " by the professional team, why would the XFL team want to do the opposite ?

     

     

     

    You can claim association to an area, but you can't copyright the name of a city. Being the Washington "insert name" does not stop someone else from being the Washington "insert different name"

     

    The remainder of our moniker is "Football Team". Not exactly something you can copyright either. So basically what we claim ownership over is WFT Est 1932 more so than just WFT

     

    So, if you start a football team, in Washington, and you want to be the Washington football team, there is not too much to stop you under copyright law as long as you don't ape our current branding (logo, colors, slogans, ect.)

    We'd fight the heck out of it of course, w/ an army of lawyers, but the option will be available to pivot to Wash Football Team or DC Football team and that would be pretty unstoppable. We can't own an area and they are a football team after all.

     

    Sports Name Association in common markets is a modern practice we see take place all across the country. Teams used to share the same exact names, but that has changed due to evolution in copyright constraints and exposure levels.

     

    Wizards and Mystics, Eagles and Flyers, stuff like that. Sometimes the stars align and you get massive unintended coincidences like the Hou Astros, Rockets and Comets, but the association result is still the same.

     

    It basically  would be free advertising. If there is an NFL team in the area named WFT, and you can name your new football team WFT, there would be considerable benefits to consider. If you got a chance to piggy-back one of the largest NFL teams, you have to think about it.

     

     

     

     

    As for the swallowed up Q, a large scale professional team does not share the same fears as a small scale minor team.

     

     

    A professional team in a new league will have a ton of financial backing.  An XFL team will have money coming in from TV deals, large scale advertising contracts, merch, tickets and more

     

    A minor L team probably makes 90% of its revenue off of merch and ticket sales. They have to move product to survive. A professional team, not so much.

     

    A new minor L team can utilize the similar branding approach to great success, and many obviously do, but it is most effective if done in the same market. It could have negative results otherwise.

     

    An existing minor team that already has an established and effective business model suddenly sharing the name of a nearby NFL team while in the Car Panther's market is probably not in their best interest.

     

    If they see even a 30% dip in sales due to a "Panther's rebuff" that could be catastrophic. That might be enough to cause a small organization to fold. That is not totally out of the question, as there could be some hesitancy from Washington Football fans in DC, to support... lets say a tennis team called the Ravens.

     

     

    The Florence Redwolves team knows they have a viable business model. If they can retain a unique moniker, they should be confident that they can retain their current revenue stream. They are currently building a new stadium, so this would also be a really bad time for a revenue dip.

     

     

     

  4. 49 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

    Tough call.  I'd probably lean Reaves, but I like Everett and what he has done for us. 

     

    Ev costs about $1 M more than Reeves or Apke, but between the three, Ev has 2 yrs left on his deal while the others are ending.

     

    If you keep anyone not named Ev, you will have to probably have to pay them a little more than Ev will make the following year.

  5. 1 hour ago, DCdangerous said:

    I looked at the USPTO and I see a couple of TMs of team names (not named Warriors) we all talked about that can be acquired WHILE they are waiting for review, publication or registration

     

     

    Any competent re-brand process should be trying to lock up a range of TMs. While you can certainly have one name you want/desire, you can't put all your eggs in one basket and then come up w/ nada two years later. Developing and acquiring multiple brands will be a key factor moving forward, even if you don't end up using the majority in the long run.

     

    If you can get Hogs outright right now for example, you do it. It does not mean you gotta use it, just gotta squat on it a little while. By the time the trademark is revoked for inactivity, you'll already have your new name most likely.

     

    WFT just isn't a strong enough back-up since you can't claim an area. If an XFL team pops up in DC, I don't think you can stop them from being WFT if they have their own distinct logo and colors

  6. 5 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

    little more urgency to his cuts.

     

    You saw a cut? All I saw was a turn both before and after the catch. To be expected of course, dude is working with a base of absolute nothing. He is a multi-year project after all.

     

     

    On the promising side, I didn't know what to make of his hands before this, but if he can reach out beyond his body to make catches like he did in the above clip, he should be able to make use of his large frame to reach balls defenders can't. I hoped he had this ability, but didn't have any real reference to know for sure.

     

    • Haha 1
  7. 1 hour ago, KDawg said:

    Gotta say it kinda makes me ill that we have so many that RIGHT NOW are okay with going after Watson.

     

    I've been as big a proponent of acquiring Watson as anyone, and I would say the dude is untouchable as things currently stand.

     

    If things change, and we get a bunch of settlements, that puts it back on the table. If the Lawyers can promise things we can't hear behind closed door (like assurances of settlements) that changes things too.

     

    No team should be risking major assets, which is what Watson would return, for a QB that you can not guarantee has a future in football. I don't have to claim innocence or guilt for Watson, but I don't have to tie the future of my NFL franchise to him right now either.

     

    I believe a lot of NFL teams feel this way as we have yet to see real action on the front in spite of Hou's attempts to add QBs and recent rumblings are probably more associated with the also recent rumblings of settlements being near.

     

    But based off what we know as fact right now, it is not an option to deal for Watson. I think a lot of us are more looking towards a situation where it would be more appropriate to do so. Anyone who picks him up tomorrow would get crushed by the media

  8. 3 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

    That doesn't make sense. The precedent is from Arkansas state changing from Indians to Red Wolves. 

     

     

    Yup, and there are even more examples beyond that. History has already shown us multiple universities and organizations that have been through the process

     

    Redskins to Redwolves

    Redskins to Red Hawks

    Indians to Redwolves

    Redmen to Red Storm

     

    There are several examples of NA based mascots, some with our exact name of Redskins, changing to Redwolf or similar name structures w/ no issue. I have not seen any historical data that would suggest such a change would be problematic in any way, shape or form. The idea that it would is not grounded in any precedent.

    • Like 4
  9. I like the mid season Bye and while the ending division stretch is kind of daunting, there is a hidden advantage of reduced travel. Outside of that one trip to dallas, 4/5 are either at home or a short ride to Phi or NY.

     

    That is more than a month of a season where you almost barely have to travel . The only div team that has an easier end of season travel chart is Philly.

    • Like 2
  10. 1 hour ago, terpfan said:

    False start penalties don’t strike me as something particularly worrisome for a guy with 93 straight starts

     

    I remember people used to hammer Moses around here for that very reason. Now we realize his value after he's been with us a couple years.

     

    Plus we don't know the cause of the false starts. They were rotating QBs sometimes, could be QB cadence? Yips from playing with a suspect LG?

    A new situation could eliminate the problem entirely.

    • Like 9
  11. 26 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

    I give him a pass on the jerk

     

    If anything that walter payton award gives him immunity. Solid proof that you can hold in your hands

     

    But no, he's jerk'n em. SEA brings in impact players like Adams and sold out hard to build their roster. They take massive risks with red flag players that come cheap like Josh Gordan, Dunbar n Aldon Smith. These dudes have been throwing the kitchen sink at their problems and selling all of their time shares. As a result they went into the previous draft with only 3 picks. It is difficult to wheel and deal harder than what SEA has been doing, but any great QB want's their team to trade their next 5 #1s to get them more support now.

     

    Its not like SEAs FO has been sitting on their hands, they are just running low on ammo. But like any elite QB, Russ wants more.

  12. Almost every good QB is a diva/jerk or comes w/ baggage. The ones that don't are 99% of the time young guns, who will probably change w/ time. Honestly, that does not scare me when trying to trade for a veteran QB since they have already proven they belong in the NFL. They all get pouty and self absorbed after a while. It pretty much feels par for the course and the nature of the position. Just can't come into the NFL w/ that mindset is all.

     

    Rodgers - Jerk

    Brady - Jerk

    Rivers - Big Jerk

    Wilson -Jerking his team

    Watson - Airport Luggage

    Wentz - Mega Jerk

    Mayfield - Omega Jerk

    Stafford  - was nice about it but still got the F outta D-town

    Cousins - Jerk

     

    If you want a good veteran QB it will be hard to get a non-diva

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Haha 4
  13. 1 hour ago, The Rook said:

     

    I feel increasing the number of games without increasing the roster and bye game numbers are going to cause some real problems moving forward for many teams and players.

     

     

    1 hour ago, carex said:

     

    the NFL probably feels the increased numbers on the PS and the ability to use some of them on game day will help mitigate that

     

    We need to keep covid injury rules.

     

    I loved the short term IR. Good for the players, good for the team, good for the fans.

     

    No reason that ever needs to go away. It was crazy it took a pandemic to be implemented

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
  14. Hooo Doggy

     

    We might just have ourselves a week 2 TNF home game against the G-Men this season. If that turns out to be true, that might just be the day we put this whole thing to bed. Perfect venue, Nat'l TV, excellent timing.

     

    The schedule makers might just be doing us a major solid w/ this one, especially if we win in week 1. As long as everything progresses smoothly w/ the virus we are almost guaranteed to have strong fan turnout.

     

    I'll be circling the game on the calendar twice. Once for a div foe, and once for the beginning of the end of the beginning... Yeah, I think that tracks (Wolf Pun)

    • Haha 2
  15. 9 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

    I believe that those who speak against it, just don't like it and are trying to sell people on why it still won't work with a W.  Sorry, don't buy it.  Can't buy it.    

     

    You don't need to not like a name to see that there is a history of multiple examples of Warriors and negative connotations with NAs and that it would probably be a very bad idea to turn around and try to rename your team with a name that has a history of being disparaging towards Native Americans when you yourself are being forced to no longer do the same thing.

     

    It is like absolutely begging for repercussions.

     

    I personally kinda like Wash Warpath, but I understand there is no way it lasts longer than a buffet of brains at a Zombie convention. Just the nature of the situation.

  16. 47 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

    Do you really think that Washington Warriors with that logo above draws a massive rally in Minnesota, because that gosh darn Dan Snyder just still doesn't get it does he?

     

     

    I think being volen-told to change your Native American associated name, that was deemed to be hurtful and unacceptable, into another name that multiple organizations have already vacated or are being pressured to vacate due to negative Native Americans connections would be a direct slap in the face towards the people who got you to change your name in the first place, regardless of associated imagery.

     

     

    I think its clear we can not be the Indians. It is also clear we can not be the Braves. They are too closely tied to NAs, even if our specific logo would be devoid of it.

     

    You can not change from a name that has been established to be hurtful towards NAs to another name with a history of multiple examples of being hurtful towards NAs. It would be downright insulting to anyone who felt negatively towards Redskins. It would be signalling they don't even matter. Yes, there would be backlash. Yes, it would be severe. Yes, it would be warranted.

     

    And all of this would be directed at the same people who already proved they have the power to make you change your name. Dangerous Game

     

    "Hey, you find our name hurtful? Okay, we will use this other name with a known history of being hurtful towards the exact same people instead" No way on Earth or any other planet this flies. You would be directly challenging the very people your working to appease.

     

    I don't think you can expect anything close to clear sailing if you choose a name with obvious NA ties. It would be like your intentionally trying to invoke a deity's wrath. With so much money on the line, sailing waters that rocky is not an option.

     

    Warriors Braves Indians Tribe Redmen Cheifs... its all off limits. We would get crushed for trying

  17. 3 hours ago, Painkiller said:

    but I don't think there is any real validity to the argument that there is nothing on the Earth or in Heaven that would make them pick this name, because Warriors with an ambiguous logo would still be seen by some as synonymous with Redskins.   

     

    Its not hard to find. You don't have to look very far. First page of google stuff.

     

     

    Other programs have been forced to change their names from Warriors in the past. I'm pretty sure Marquette University used to be the Warriors but had to change. I think Syracuse University had the same issue as well.

     

    They talked about this very topic on The Team 980 last month. There was a lot of issues presented due to racial undertones: https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/russell-warriors-name-a-losing-fight-for-washington-football/ar-BB1fJwPr

     

    There are articles by a USA today columnist and in SI that labeled it unusable for us as well for similar reasons.

     

    Examples are numerous, and easy to find.

     

     

     

    As for the GS Warriors, we know they faced pressure b/c they changed their imagery. We know they continue to face pressure b/c prominent people call for their change. Its not the kind of pressure we face for sure, but it is still there.

     

     

     

    We have been associating with NA imagery for decades, and it would be very reasonable to think that some people will see the adoption of the name warriors akin to naming Washington the Braves or the Tribe, both of which would be obviously a no-go from a social standpoint due to it being view as virtual non-action and a slap in the face.

     

    While the argument about how big the blowback will be is debatable, and whether that could create enough pressure to force another name change, there is little doubt that the rebuff would be substantial. Faced with such a prospect, there should not be a businessman or branding manager on the planet that can hit the Washington Warriors name button and 100% guarantee it will not go Chernobyl.

     

    In that sense, the debate changes. It does not matter if you would face enough pressure to withdraw the name, just the knowledge that you will face large amounts of fallout is enough. It makes the names utilization beyond inception and reveal far from guaranteed. If you are not 99.99% positive a name will not get mowed down, there is virtually no chance it can be utilized in our case. Too much money on the line and no one will risk billions of dollars like that. Not when names that are virtually assured to pass the smell test are out there for the taking.

     

    Smart logos would help change the focus a lot, but even that is likely not enough in this case. It will never be a sure enough bet to be a viable name for a billion dollar franchise that just had to drop its previous name w/ native American imagery.

     

    If a new team goes with the Warriors w/ non-descript imagery, it will pass w/ no problem. We would have to walk through a mine field to use it, and there is no guarantee you make it to the other side. Nobody with influence is signing up for that.

  18. 16 minutes ago, DCF said:

    If you're really going to sit here and tell me the vast majority of fans that like the name Redwolves, don't like it first and foremost because it carries over the name Red,

     

    Your previous posts continuously de-validated every other reason for liking Redwolves against multiple posters and paired it down to the single reason of just continuing the "Red" name.

     

    Even going so far as to say other reasons, such as saving an entire species, was "not the real reason though, it's not even a reason" Your exact words on the topic, not mine.

     

    Your stance was clearly defined as one and only one reason for wanting the Redwolves name and everything else was utterly inconsequential. That much was very apparent in your words.

     

     

     

    If you now understand that there are multiple reasons for wanting "Red" and "Redwolves" which is evident in your latest post with your newly developed "First and foremost" stance, (which demonstrates a crystal clear understanding that several factors exists and have weight) than we are now very close to being on the same page.

     

     

     

    I just wanted you to understand that some people value a lot of those other reasons, and now it looks like we are on the same general path, hunting together, which is good. Wolves always work best in packs after all.

  19. 23 minutes ago, #httr1979 said:

    That will make them look completely unreasonable

     

    Tell that to the people who still protest the Warriors, Indians, Chiefs, Blackhawks ect. I don't see any reason to expect a different result for a similar action. Especially after they have been galvanized and empowered.

     

     

    23 minutes ago, #httr1979 said:

    If Nike tries to not sell our merchandise again, Dan should sue them for breach of contract. It’s something that should’ve been done in 2020 and more directly the NFL should’ve had the integrity to do.

     

    Dan can't do squat. Nike's contract is with the NFL, not Washington. Furthermore the League probably isn't too interested in pissing off a wide swath of sponsors. As we have all seen the NFL is all about saving face and little else.

     

    While I don't have the contract in front of me, I can all but guarantee that :

     

    A. A massive company holding one of the most lucrative licenses possible would not jeopardize their own financial situation unless they were comfortable with the legal situation surrounding it

     

    and

     

    B. After fiascos such as the Mike Vick and Ray Rice situations, creators have would have worked in the ability to remove problematic merchandise at their own will if it already did not exist.

     

     

    We will not win a fight against sponsors. The second they step in, were done. People did not force us to change our name. They were fighting for decades. Took sponsors about 2 days

    • Like 1
  20. 50 minutes ago, #httr1979 said:

    General question about the dislike of Washington Football Team. Why are soccer teams not embarrassed just having city name FC? Perhaps we are just trailblazing in the NFL just being Washington FT. 
     

    Having no nickname is a paradigm shift for sure. However, our identity is our past. That’s the burgundy and gold. Football Team or even Football Club is our identity with the colors. It’s also a reminder that we were pressured by a vocal minority who werent Native Americans.

     

     

    Well, that is multi-pronged

     

    For starters it is as you said, a reminder. Looking at the Golden State Warriors and Clev Indians case studies, it is clear that pressure remains when shifts to either non-de script imagery, or even no imagery at all occur. The lack of adopting a new identity leaves a link to the past. That pisses off a lot of people, people who have already proven influential enough to change your name. The only thing holding them back now is the temp status. There are multiple examples in history that show us if we move WFT or something similar to full status, you should expect to face monumental blowback and possibly enough to force us to change our name again. We saw some of that when we announced WFT in the first place.

     

    We hold no authority here. Its not what we say goes. If we piss off enough people, we will be changing our name again. You can not expect to slap those very people who already have established their influence in the face w/ virtual non-action and expect to get away scott free.

     

     

    the rest I'll keep brief. These are more personal opinions

     

    -For me it is very awkward

    -Inconvenience - It is much more difficult and time consuming to talk about the team ever since we picked up WFT

    -Paradigm Shift - Change is scary, and that is a BIG change. Breaks all NFL naming conventions

    -Branding nightmare. limited upside

    -Being reminded about what you don't have every time you see Team X vs... the Washington Football Team!

    -Problematic for tickers and breaking news when we are only refereed to as Football Team

    -Annoying for various markets where soccer is big as FCs are associated with Soccer teams

    -Since method is heavily associated with soccer, has a very soccer feel to it. Almost like naming a football team the fastballs.

     

     

    I can put up with all that in the short term, but that really is only b/c I know it is a temp status and it will be replaced. No use crying over spilled milk scenario.

    • Like 1
  21. 5 minutes ago, DCF said:

    I already said I would work with the name Redwolves and howl with my kid. I'm focusing on the aspect I don't like because it's a forum and that's what we do. I see the marketability aspect, and the fun in it (though I disagree that you can't get most of what you can from just Wolves). I don't get this "let them be" list, as if this is about inappropriately attacking a group. Are you being attacked?

     

    You came in here and planted a flag that read Wolves is pretty great and I'd be cool w/ Redwolves, but anyone that supports the name Redwolves is lying to themselves and just trying to hide behind an endangered species so they can continue to use the Red naming convention and grasp at straws of the past.

     

    Yeah, that is pretty disrespectful and condescending to those of us who value everything around the Redwolves name. Especially when there are pages upon pages of content pointing to other directions.

     

    All you did was come in here and throw a massive backhanded complement.

     

     

     

    If hiding behind an endangered species is your truth behind your personal support of Redwolves, so be it. Your feels are yours bro and I can not change them. Just don't think everyone is on that same page and that you can paint a whole community with your own brush because that is how you see it. You might be, but I'm not here just for Red.

     

    https://i.redd.it/3uq4c91haauz.jpg

  22.  

    1 hour ago, DCF said:

    That's a purposeful misrepresentation of my example to fit this narrative that I'm somehow shaming anyone that wants to help animals

     

     

    Its a simplification, and in no way disparages those who want to go with option A, just clarifies someone does not acquire condescending traits for wanting option B, which your example heavily implied. Your example was a textbook case of shaming anyone who wanted option B

     

    "That's not the real reason though, it's not even a reason, it's a feel good bonus. You just like red cars and everyone already knows that, so hearing this homeless stuff comes off as a little "eye-rolley"."

     

    If part of the reason people like Redwolves is b/c it helps a species in a big way more power to em.

    If people like it b/c it keeps familiar alliteration, is that some kind of crime? Let em be

    If some people are really attached to HTTR and the fight song, why would they not want to persevere it.

    If having Red in the name helps some people feel more connected to their past, and it does not offend anyone (Redwolves has passed the censor test) who does it hurt?

     

    or maybe people like all those reasons and more.

     

    Many of us don't need to act like we are hiding behind an endangered animal to use the name Redwolves. There are a metric ton of other reasons to justify the name, your just focusing on one and acting like we will use it as a shield to justify the use of "Red" like we are lying to ourselves and everyone around us. 

     

    I would absolutely love to use a name that helps save a species

    I would also be ecstatic with a name that preserves our history and traditions in an acceptable way

    I can have a name that lets me do both. Pretty easy to see why someone in my position would like it.

     

     

    Many of us have a multitude of reasons to get behind Redwolves and to boil it down to hide behind the endangered doggos is in itself a purposeful misrepresentation

     

    • Like 1
    • Confused 1
×
×
  • Create New...