WP: Redskins owner Dan Snyder seeks dismissal of City Paper writer (Update: Links to court papers included)

[tibbidoe]

This is like the "no signs at the stadium" thing. Boy Blunder can't accept criticism when he himself is to blame.

He may do lots of charitable work, but I would guess that it’s mostly for PR and he writes it off anyway. Chump change to this guy.

A possible new motto:

When winning isn’t an option, I’ll just sue you for making comments about things that actually happened, but I don’t want lots of people knowing or talking about them.

Kinda wordy, but just feels right.

[SkinsFTW]

He also hired Shanahan, who has much too large an ego to let Snyder influence anything at all. And who didn't need the money to come into a situation he didn't like.

Use your head. Snyder isn't being consulted about anything.

So if Allen is anyone's "yes man", its Shanahan's.

Because when he worked for Davis, Davis was a competent GM. And when he worked for the cheap-ass Glazers, it was Gruden who had final say on football decisions.

Basically, nothing that you said has anything to do with an Allen-owner relationship. It's all about the Allen-coach dynamic...which has nothing to do with this.

Nice try.

Thing is, you don't know any of that. Shanahan wanted a chance to win again, he accepted the Allen/Snyder ordeal which was already in place before he got here. Remember?

Shanahan may have input but you damn well better know that Snyder does. Otherwise why hire Allen in 09 before the season ended and then find a coach who would comply with the regime's instructions?

Shanahan didn't hire Allen, even if you wanna try to twist it that way. Snyder hired Allen late in the 09 season when Zorn was still here, and then they schemed together for weeks about which coach they should go after, Cerrato was gone, it was Snyder and Allen, don't get lost in that and twist it now.

[bluekswing]

People are constantly complaining about the guy, but the truth is, we really don't know what's happened in the FO for the last 7 years..

A Snyder Apologist? :doh: Sounds like a little revisionist history here friend......

[Destino]

It's comical how the media truly controls the masses. It's easy to understand Snyder's beef with the press when you see how many folks assume they know all the facts and make sweeping judgments about things they don't research themselves.

People that say "the media" the way you are using it are modern conspiracy theorists. The "media" is a diverse group that pushes so many opinions it's hard to even keep track. Watch ESPN first take and you'll hear multiple angles on just about every story, and that's usually just two people. Take in the sports media as a whole and just about every fan can find a voice that agrees with him (and thus must be the most accurate lol).

As mentioned above, the problem is not winning enough. It takes a terribly small sac to attack Snyder after that Eagles Monday Night game. The author should least have the brains to fact check, if not the professional integrity.

What facts are you saying are wrong?

Snyder has done countless charity activities. He made use of his personal jet to fly players cross country to visit a former player when they lost their child.

Thank you PR guy. He's also been a horrible owner and couldn't have chosen a more ridiculous means of dealing with the media. Jerry Jones is a raging douchebag... and more likable across the league than Dan Snyder is. That's really saying something.

It's easy to cite someone's accolades and mistakes, but I suppose it's even easier to do it inaccurately. Personally I hope Danny sues the pants off the paper and gets this hack fired. He'd do better on a blog or as a fiction writer anyhow.

He has no case and he is making things worse for himself. I wish Dan would grow some thicker skin and stop acting like a ***** when it comes to the media.... and win. In fact just win, because frankly I couldn't care less about Dan Snyder. All I care about is the team not the stuffed suit signing checks. In a perfect world the only time I'd even see the moron is when they handed him a superbowl trophy and even then just long enough for him to hand it to someone I did care about.

[Conn]

Thing is, you don't know any of that. Shanahan wanted a chance to win again, he accepted the Allen/Snyder ordeal which was already in place before he got here. Remember?

...Yes, I remember. That doesn't change anything that I said about Allen's relationship with the owners of his former teams, and the fact that they weren't a pre-cursor to a different type of relationship here. Your original post that I responded to said specifically that hiring Allen was a sign of Snyder hiring a "yes man", because that's all he had been for his previous teams....and I argued that he had been a "yes man", but not for the owners of those teams. (Davis was the GM and owner, and used to be competent. That's different.) He was a "yes man" for those who made the personnel decisions...and still is. Davis, then Gruden....and now Shanahan. Not Snyder.

Shanahan may have input but you damn well better know that Snyder does.

Again, this is what you like to think, because you hate Snyder. Its a reflex. What evidence do you have that Snyder has any input? None? That's what I thought.

Now you'll say what evidence do I have that he doesn't have any input, because that's the only rebuttal you'll have. And my answer is that Shanahan and Allen have directly addressed that. Its simply an ignorant conspiracy theory, believing that Shanahan would come here and NOT have full control, and then lie about it and cover it up to make Snyder look better. That's ridiculous. Its well-known what a control freak Shanahan is, and he had two more years of getting paid by the Broncos. He didn't NEED this job, and wouldn't have come here unless he was promised full control. Its god damn common sense. Don't make this more complicated than it is.

Otherwise why hire Allen in 09 before the season ended and then find a coach who would comply with the regime's instructions?

You ALWAYS hire the GM first. Then he finds the coach. That's how properly-run organizations work. And for once, it looks like Snyder is allowing this to be run like a proper organization. That's what this whole debate is about.

And if the regime's "instructions" were to come here, weed out those who won't follow his new team culture, and do as he likes to fix the team, with all of those decisions being his own....then yes, I guess you could say that Shanahan was hired to "comply with the regime's instructions". :doh:

Shanahan didn't hire Allen, even if you wanna try to twist it that way. Snyder hired Allen late in the 09 season when Zorn was still here, and then they schemed together for weeks about which coach they should go after, Cerrato was gone, it was Snyder and Allen, don't get lost in that and twist it now.

I didn't try to twist it that way at all...I said that it was commonly understood that this is Shanahan's show, and Allen is HIS "yes man", rather than your belief that he is Snyder's. He's more of an advisor/PR guru/cap magician. You're attempting to put words in my mouth.

I know that Allen was hired at the end of '09 by Snyder...as I said, that's what an owner is SUPPOSED to do, hire his GM, who hires his coach. That's what happened. It doesn't change because Shanahan has final say on personnel.

What people will make themselves believe so that they can continue to rant about Snyder did before the hiring of Allen is just preposterous. Use your own head.

[bedlamVR]

You want a horrible owner . I STILL point at the Bidwells, and the Glaizers and the countless other stay at home rake in the money owners that prevail the NFL and professional sports . Dan Snyder attempts to put the best product on the field . Could you imagine what people would think of the squire if the media scrutiny had been half as bright as it is now . Especially from 1961- 1981. And what about the Squires odd marriages (74 days in one case and to an ex drug runner in another) and the disowned children . . . .

There are some people who are so blind in their hatred think that somehow Marty Shottenhiemer could have built a winner in 2002 even though the offense was a joke (Raye, Banks and Kevin Locker is all I have to say) and the defensive players were in open rebellion (with most if not all free agents threatening to leave or retire in the case of Green) . Lets not forget this was a solid team before Shottenhiemer got his hand on it and he made it go 0-5 then 8-3 ( the 3 coming right when we needed wins) lets also forget Shottenhiemer also then drove the Chargers into the ground and it was not until A.J Smith lucked into the Eli trade that the Chargers started to turn around (also played in the weak AFCWest)

I remember the Cranky Redskins guide article and I seem to remember another article pointing out the inaccuracies in it, but also I think one area that crossed the line was the depiction of Dan Snyder as the Devil with horns and beard and I know in the UK there are laws about defamation based on such images .

I am surprised he chose this hack and this paper to come down on though .

[Going Commando]

Snyder is a **** who deserves no defense from the fans.

But at the same time, I refuse to be manipulated by the hacks at the Washington Post any longer. The city paper is a rag too. As far as I'm concerned, both Snyder and the local media aren't worth our trouble. Ugh, wake me up when the games start again. For now, I'm going to go back to watching college football and talking about the draft.

[Chump Bailey]

I thought this was hilarious:

Bankrupt Airline Peanuts: What Snyder was selling to fans at FedExField. During the 2006 season, vendors offered shelled nuts in royal blue and white 5 oz. bags adorned with the Independence Air logo. Problem: The airline had gone under about a year earlier. The supplier told Washington City Paper that it stopped shipping the airline’s nuts “before Independence Air went out of business.” A spokesman for the Peanut Council told City Paper that to prevent rancidity, the recommended shelf life of a foil bag of out-of-shell peanuts was “about three months.”

[Probos]

Danny still using the "Kim Jong Il Handbook" on how to weld power eh? Not surprising.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Anyone already taking sides in this matter is only doing so because they either hate Snyder or hate McKenna. There is a certain segment of our fan base who absolutely can not stand to wait and see what actually transpires...they MUST react (and over react) now, dammit!! lol...

[GoCommiesGo]

It's like you're a fortune teller Conn, the war has already begun.

Anyway, I'm interested to see the lawsuit that comes up. I have no doubt that, with all the negative written about Snyder, some of it has to be questionable. At least questionable enough to make a smaller newspaper go bankrupt trying to defend their case.

I'm fairly sure, if only for financial reasons, there's no way they can win this. They'll either run out of money, or settle first. It's interesting though, it will definitely make other news sources think twice before publishing completely negative articles about the guy. Especially since he really hasn't done anything wrong this season.

People are constantly complaining about the guy, but the truth is, we really don't know what's happened in the FO for the last 7 years. Gibbs seemed very in control, Vinny seemed very in control, now Shanahan seems very in control. We really have no proof that Snyder has had much of anything to do with FO decisions for a long time, yet people are still insistent even this year that every bad decision is Snyders and every good decision is (fill in the coach's name).

Looking quickly the hedge fund that owns the Creative Loafing has about a billion in investments. Depending on their structure, capital and amount of leverage I'm pretty sure they could afford a decent lawyer themselves. In the world of wealthy people Snyder is a nat to a well managed and capitalized hedge funds.

[Wyvern]

The article left me with a very bad impression of Snyder. But I realize that it was a slanted piece and designed to leave out anything that might conflict with creating that impression. If lawyers think there are some grounds for slander -- I feel that Snyder has every right to challenge those facts. ...However, will whatever he wins justify the re-emergence of the old embarrassments of the past? ....Bringing out all the old ghosts of the past, will undermine any perceptions of how Snyder has progressed in his tenure as the Redskins' owner.

Nothing is completely one-sided. I suspect there are a lot of good things Snyder has done as well as bad things. Perhaps some of the things laid at his feet, were actions taken by associates poorly implementing what they thought his policy was. No doubt Snyder has been given bad advice by more than less-than-stellar advisors. And while I suspect Snyder has made the call on many of the bad decisions -- there were probably many times when he simply signed off on a recommendation that looked good on paper.

So while some of Snyder's embarrassing episodes in his tenure as Skins owner might be due to his own personality, others may have been the results of his approving others' decisions, or simply by how his people are running things for him. My sense is that Snyder is not one to spend too much time deliberating -- he seems more action-oriented. He's more of a "doer" and 'decider" -- and deeds and decisions are always open to valid criticism in hindsight. Especially when you rely on others to implement those decisions. It's easy to look bad in hindsight whenever you're trying to make things happen.

Frankly, being raked over the coals on decisions that went wrong, can happen to anyone in a decision-making capacity. But Snyder's problem is that he's already under a microscope, he was learning on the job, he was replacing an icon of an owner, and the media was eager to find any impulsive behavior or bad decisions that might make good copy. ...Because the early years and style of Snyder's ownership DID give the media lots of opportunities for stories.

I believe Snyder is getting better as an owner. I suspect he's always still going to try to make as much money as possible -- that's part of his personality. However, I can only hope that he's also learning to appreciate the balance between maximizing short run profits and doing things to maintain a good relationship with the franchise's fanbase. I earnestly hope that all sides might find a way to redirect the relationship in a more positive direction -- and bury these old gaffes for good.

Consequently, I wonder if his pursuit of this possible lawsuit is such a good idea.

[grego]

If McKenna's writings aren't true, then it's a good thing you showed up to set the record straight.

It sounds like you've done all the necessary research, so I hope you won't mind telling us exactly what he wrote that would lead to a successful lawsuit by Snyder?

as somone who used to defend dan, but has now grown tired of doing so (due to the combination of the team losing and the constant stories from, basically, everyone who has ever had contact with the man that he is, indeed, a bad guy), i second this.

truant, what did mckenna write that is false?

[RFKFedEx]

Maybe Snyder could make an argument that McKenna slandered him about tree cutting incident, claiming it was truly an accident since he settled with the National Park service?

I dunno, I'm just throwing ideas out there.

[Birdlives]

Snyder should just keep his mouth shut and go all the way away.

The only thing that will get him back in the good graces of popular opinion is a winning team and a disappearing act.

[Rocky21]

A free press will sometimes make uncomfortable reading for any politician. But any passing embarrassment or justified indignation must never blind us to its vital role in both the health and protection of democracy.

Those who wish to destroy democracy and its freedoms know this well. It is why their first act is often to try to muzzle the media. It is also why we must all be vigilant in safeguarding the freedom of the press at home and abroad. --Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Great Britain

[Popeman38]

Once again, a WaPost article written about Snyder. Has anyone not noticed their agenda during the offseason? Also, Dave McBLAHHHHHHH is a hack. It is a well known fact he hates Snyder. He and Junior Feinstein are on record stating that as long as Dan Snyder owns the team they hope the Redskins lose. Methinks Dan Steinberg is in trouble, as is Dave McBLAHHH. If they have email that illustrates intent to promote one another at the expense of Snyder, well there is your dynamite.

HOWEVER, Dan Snyder literally has nothing to gain from this. It will be a PR hit, and as evidenced by this thread, it provides another orgy for Snyder haters. As has been stated, by the damn paper and shutter it if you want him fired.

[A Walton]

Just when I was about to give Dan points for maturing as an owner this season......really Dan? You have time for this ****? Why give your haters more ammo? For such a bright guy, sometimes you are the dumbest guy in the room.

[Jeeb]

I completely forgot this article and writer even existed until now. What a brilliant plan Synder.

[Dan T.]

Here's the original City Paper column by McKenna, called

"The Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder

From A to Z (for Zorn), An Encyclopedia of the Owner's Many Failings":

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40063/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder/

[AdmiralWaugh]

Second, Dan Snyder is a public figure. Courts give wide first amendment leeway to negative characterizations of public figures, even when false. .

Yes, courts give wide leeway EXCEPT if the public figure can show a pattern of malice, as well as the writer demonstrating "reckless disregard" of the truth...which can be as simple as not attempting to verify the accuracy of something you report. Repeating an error someone else has reported without making some attempt to determine the truth of that report is a good example of "reckless disregard." It is no defense to say, "well I just repeated what they said."

[Boss_Hogg]

thick skin Danny Boy, thick skin.

[thewagen]

What a FREAKING CRYBABY Snyder is. What a joke!

[@DCGoldPants]

Regardless of my opinion of Snyder, the WaPa or McKenna.

This is a bad move by Snyder. Nothing good will come from it.

The only other thing I'll say is "time for a new PR team, Mr. Snyder. Replace you main counsel and your the public faces of your Redskins Media Dept. These guys should have told you this is a bad fight."

[jflow78]

Looking quickly the hedge fund that owns the Creative Loafing has about a billion in investments. Depending on their structure, capital and amount of leverage I'm pretty sure they could afford a decent lawyer themselves. In the world of wealthy people Snyder is a nat to a well managed and capitalized hedge funds.

But how many other companies do they own, and how much would they be willing to spend on saving a newspaper, since newspapers are normally money eaters anyway. I can't imagine they'd be willing to put up millions for this, if they can retract the story and don't have to spend it, while I'd imagine Snyder would be very willing to do so.

Their parent company has lots of money, but I doubt they're willing to use "billions" to go to court for one of their subsidies that are likely making very little income.. I guess we'll see.