Hogs Haven: The Details of Dan Snyder's Complaint Against Washington City Paper

[shor4sure]

http://www.hogshaven.com/2011/2/2/1970947/the-details-of-dan-snyders-complaint-against-washington-city-paper

As reported earlier,

the Washington Post broke the news that Dan Snyder was seeking legal action the Washington City Paper for an article that was written over the years. Many fans took to Twitter and Facebook to blast the owner, but the complaint against City Paper has nothing to do with those mistakes. The :

...That's the Dan Snyder who got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications...

The reason Snyder and his legal counsel are so upset is because a.) Snyder never once forged names, and b.) forgery is a federal offense. The asked The City Paper to remove this comment months ago, and they refused - hence the legal action. Interestingly, Snyder never asked for the WCP journalist to be fired (that was falsely added in by the Washington Post). When I spoke with Tony Wyllie, he assured me that any money that is awarded to the Redskins from this will go to charity.

The last straw that pushed Snyder over the top was the City Paper's attack on his wife, Tanya, who is in remission for breast cancer and has been regularly out there promoting health and breast care awareness:

His wife, Tanya Snyder, is out selling the transformation, too. Last week she went on local TV to tell an interviewer that he is now surrounded by "better people," and that he's "grown and he's evolved."

That's a low blow. If you , Mrs. Snyder is simply doing a health promotion in front of 100 children, and at the very end they asked the off-topic question on the Redskins. Is that selling out?? Come on. The theory here applies, "You can go after me, but don't drag in my wife or kids." Completely classless on McKenna's part.

In my opinion, it's fair for Snyder to take action. People believe things so it's important that the truth is told, which is all Snyder wants. All of this could have been avoided if Dave McKenna would have returned the Redskins calls from the beginning. Stay tuned.

Sounds like in the end, We can all identify with Snyder on this, and I personally am enraged at the attacks on his wife. Classless for sure.

[Destino]

Sounds like in the end, We can all identify with Snyder on this, and I personally am enraged at the attacks on his wife. Classless for sure.

lol what?! No. In fact that is an amazingly strange statement to make.

As for the attack on his wife I'm not seeing it. I don't see a low blow nor anything that accuses her of selling out. It says that she's selling the transformation story and her quote supports that. In fact all of us on extremeskins started talking about this when Snyder appeared on ESPN, that they were taking the team PR in a new direction. Did we "sell out" for saying that? Of course not. I personally have commented on how the tone had changed and that his advice and actions had improved. We were all sold on transformation, just pick a Snyder thread on the board and see for yourself.

Every person writing those things and defending the idea of "the new Dan Snyder" is "selling the transformation" be they typing at a fund raiser or sitting in their fortress of evil.

edit: Quick question... do you know Dan professionally or personally? Your conclusion strikes me as odd and you seem new. Not accusing just asking.

[Mark The Homer]

OP - your link leads to nowhere. Could you fix that? Thanks

[Truant]

lol what?! No. In fact that is an amazingly strange statement to make.

As for the attack on his wife I'm not seeing it. I don't see a low blow nor anything that accuses her of selling out. It says that she's selling the transformation story and her quote supports that. In fact all of us on extremeskins started talking about this when Snyder appeared on ESPN, that they were taking the team PR in a new direction. Did we "sell out" for saying that? Of course not. I personally have commented on how the tone had changed and that his advice and actions had improved. We were all sold on transformation, just pick a Snyder thread on the board and see for yourself.

Every person writing those things and defending the idea of "the new Dan Snyder" is "selling the transformation" be they typing at a fund raiser or sitting in their fortress of evil.

edit: Quick question... do you know Dan professionally or personally? Your conclusion strikes me as odd and you seem new. Not accusing just asking.

In the main thread you were extremely adamant about the situation and... suddenly... the other side of the story starts to come out and you have a slightly more balanced stance. Accusing someone of a felony is a big deal. I think the OP is correct that we can all relate to the feeling of anger if accused of committing a serious crime.

I agree with you about Snyder's wife, to some degree. I don't think she was thrown under the bus but, in my view, the writer suggests that Mrs. Snyder is out campaigning to help her husband's image. The truth is that she was speaking to children about a totally unrelated subject and was asked a question. Trying to use a quote from a woman who has recently battled cancer and is talking to kids about health is in questionable taste.

[Destino]

In the main thread you were extremely adamant about the situation and... suddenly... the other side of the story starts to come out and you have a slightly more balanced stance. Accusing someone of a felony is a big deal.

I stand by what I said in that other thread. Those blaming "the media" are indeed modern version of conspiracy theorists. I asked you what facts you disputed and until Snyder's people came out with a lawsuit you didn't know and ignored the question. Good thing they showed up to fill in those holes for you. He has been a horrible owner that has chosen a ridiculous path for dealing with the media. Even if he can prove that the writer had some facts wrong this is still a loss for Snyder. A story no one read, from a sports reporter no one knew of, is now national news. McKenna is going to be everywhere if this story continues to grow. He'd better be able to clear up more than forged signatures and board structures too because the part the fans care about isn't Dan's business history. The people reading the story are going to be reading about a terrible owner and care less about if he was thrown off the board of six flags (which continues to fail) or if he stepped down on his own.

At this point Snyder has to win, failing to win here will make him look like a total fool. I hope he has the ammunition to take down McKenna at this point because the Skins get enough bad press without the owner bending over backwards to create more. I care about the skins not Dan Snyder. Like I said in the other thread "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".

[Truant]

I stand by what I said in that other thread. Those blaming "the media" are indeed modern version of conspiracy theorists. I asked you what facts you disputed and until Snyder's people came out with a lawsuit you didn't know and ignored the question. Good thing they showed up to fill in those holes for you. He has been a horrible owner that has chosen a ridiculous path for dealing with the media. Even if he can prove that the writer had some facts wrong this is still a loss for Snyder. A story no one read, from a sports reporter no one knew of, is now national news. McKenna is going to be everywhere if this story continues to grow. He'd better be able to clear up more than forged signatures and board structures too because the part the fans care about isn't Dan's business history. The people reading the story are going to be reading about a terrible owner and care less about if he was thrown off the board of six flags (which continues to fail) or if he stepped down on his own.

At this point Snyder has to win, failing to win here will make him look like a total fool. I hope he has the ammunition to take down McKenna at this point because the Skins get enough bad press without the owner bending over backwards to create more. I care about the skins not Dan Snyder. Like I said in the other thread "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".

You stand by this? "I wish Dan would grow some thicker skin and stop acting like a ***** when it comes to the media.... and win." Still think Snyder is acting like a *****?

In one thread you'll state that the writer better be able to back up his claims but here you'll say that Snyder better be able to defend himself. It's clear that you're biased against Snyder (which you readily admit) and you couldn't wait to jump on the crucifying bandwagon.

There was no ignoring of your "questions". I wasn't on the site since last night (check my post history) so apologies for not hitting F5 and waiting for you to respond to my post. No need to make things up to make yourself feel better. Fact remains that you jumped onboard the City Paper's and Post's offerings (which are looking very suspect) and ranted on your soapbox about Snyder before the facts were in. Today you are more balanced... patience truly would have been a virtue.

The fact is that "the media" is a powerful source influence. It is not one entity that has only one point of view, but perceptions of those with the louder voices becomes reality for many other writers and readers. The point was that the author was being reckless and seemingly had an agenda, not that all media is flawed. It's a huge responsibility and when not respected it can have consequences.

I'm not saying Snyder is an angel or devil. I chastised the author for making inaccurate/unsubstantiated claims. That remains the case.

[iXiBrianiXi]

Whats funny is, per the statements, Dan doesn't even care that someones pointing out his mistakes. He's angry over an accusation of fraud and having his families (well, his wife's) name anywhere linked to it. While it was not an overly aggressive comment, still using it to basically belittle the Snyders when she was apparently not even talking football is ridiculous. I can see why he's pissed.

[elkabong82]

In the main thread you were extremely adamant about the situation and... suddenly... the other side of the story starts to come out and you have a slightly more balanced stance. Accusing someone of a felony is a big deal. I think the OP is correct that we can all relate to the feeling of anger if accused of committing a serious crime.

I agree with you about Snyder's wife, to some degree. I don't think she was thrown under the bus but, in my view, the writer suggests that Mrs. Snyder is out campaigning to help her husband's image. The truth is that she was speaking to children about a totally unrelated subject and was asked a question. Trying to use a quote from a woman who has recently battled cancer and is talking to kids about health is in questionable taste.

I disagree. Here's McKenna's quote on her:

"His wife, Tanya Snyder, is out selling the transformation, too. Last week she went on local TV to tell an interviewer that he is now surrounded by “better people,” and that he’s “grown and he’s evolved.”

Does any of that imply she was speaking to kids about health and was asked the question about Snyder, which was unrelated to what she was even there for, at the end of it all?

Or does it imply that she went out with the sole purpose of being her husband's moutpiece and THAT is why she was on tv?

Read the last sentence of that quote. McKenna specifically implies that she went on tv for the sole purpose of pumping up Snyder's "transformation." The fact of the matter was she wasn't there for that at all.

He purposely misrepresented what she was on tv for, he drug her into his beef with Snyder as an owner eventho it was completely unrelated. And he did so knowing what she and her family recently went through. It was a BS swipe at Snyder's family, who again have nothing to do with him as owner of the Redskins, and I'd be just as pissed. You can criticize a person, but don't go after his family especially not when it's unrelated and you have to misrepresent facts just to tie it back. That's just classless.

[Coolio47]

Wow. This writer is a complete tool.

[HailGreen28]

Wow, Snyder's really changed from the jerk banning signs at Fed-Ex when the fans got testy. This lawsuit proves that Snyder "grown and he's evolved", hasn't it?

If Snyder's wife said it, why shouldn't she be called on it?

[NewCliche21]

Wow, Snyder's really changed from the jerk banning signs at Fed-Ex when the fans got testy. This lawsuit proves that Snyder "grown and he's evolved", hasn't it?

If Snyder's wife said it, why shouldn't she be called on it?

Because context matters?

[HailGreen28]

Because context matters?

Funny. I don't see any reference to kids in the statement she's quoted on. Sure does provide a lot of context on Danny going after a critic, though.

[NewCliche21]

Funny. I don't see any reference to kids in the statement she's quoted on. Sure does provide a lot of context on Danny going after a critic, though.

That's the whole point. Read on about where she was and why she was there.

[elkabong82]

Funny. I don't see any reference to kids in the statement she's quoted on. Sure does provide a lot of context on Danny going after a critic, though.

Exactly. That quote came from when she was speaking to kids about health, but McKenna's interpretation is that she was there for the sole purpose to be a mouthpiece for Dan Snyder's image. In fact, the question she answered was at the end and was completely unrelated to her purpose for being ther McKenna blatantly misrepresented it, and drug Snyder's wife into the criticism of Snyder as an owner. Classless.

[Boss_Hogg]

Read the last sentence of that quote. McKenna specifically implies that she went on tv for the sole purpose of pumping up Snyder's "transformation." The fact of the matter was she wasn't there for that at all.

He purposely misrepresented what she was on tv for, he drug her into his beef with Snyder as an owner eventho it was completely unrelated. And he did so knowing what she and her family recently went through. It was a BS swipe at Snyder's family, who again have nothing to do with him as owner of the Redskins, and I'd be just as pissed. You can criticize a person, but don't go after his family especially not when it's unrelated and you have to misrepresent facts just to tie it back. That's just classless.

This.

Snyder has a legit case. Especially since the City Paper refused to make the corrections last November.

[HailGreen28]

That's the whole point. Read on about where she was and why she was there.

Good for her if she was promoting a good cause. Even good for her standing up for her husband, it's understandable. But what's wrong with pointing out that she's dead wrong about Danny? It's a public statement, for crying out loud.

[elkabong82]

Good for her if she was promoting a good cause. Even good for her standing up for her husband, it's understandable. But what's wrong with pointing out that she's dead wrong about Danny? It's a public statement, for crying out loud.

That's not what McKenna did though. The language of his quote implies that she was there only to promote Snyder. That is blatantly false. Heck, you yourself said there's no indication she was talking about health to kids in that quote McKenna provided. The quote was a response she gave to a question at the end of the segment. It was completely unrelated to her purpose for being there, yet cKenna asserts it's the only reason she was there.

[Destino]

That's the whole point. Read on about where she was and why she was there.

What does that have to do with anything. If you're at work and I ask you "who do you think will win the superbowl" should I tell anyone that asks "before I answer, let it be noted he was not talking to me at a sports related event, he was working at the time."

She was asked a specific question that had nothing to do with the event and quoted on her response, which also had nothing to do with the event.

[Boss_Hogg]

Good for her if she was promoting a good cause. Even good for her standing up for her husband, it's understandable. But what's wrong with pointing out that she's dead wrong about Danny? It's a public statement, for crying out loud.

McKenna made it sound like Mrs. Snyder is on a propaganda tour to promote her husband rather than working for a good cause.

[NewCliche21]

What does that have to do with anything. If you're at work and I ask you "who do you think will win the superbowl" should I tell anyone that asks "before I answer, let it be noted he was not talking to me at a sports related event, he was working at the time."

She was asked a specific question that had nothing to do with the event and quoted on her response, which also had nothing to do with the event.

Please find your answer sandwiched around your question. Thanks.

[HailGreen28]

That's not what McKenna did though. The language of his quote implies that she was there only to promote Snyder. That is blatantly false. Heck, you yourself said there's no indication she was talking about health to kids in that quote McKenna provided. The quote was a response she gave to a question at the end of the segment. It was completely unrelated to her purpose for being there, yet cKenna asserts it's the only reason she was there.

No, he said she was "selling the transformation". Regardless of what else she was doing, her quote isn't above criticism. ESPECIALLY since this threat of a lawsuit is pretty strong evidence to the contrary.

[NewCliche21]

No, he said she was "selling the transformation". Regardless of what else she was doing, her quote isn't above criticism. ESPECIALLY since this threat of a lawsuit is pretty strong evidence to the contrary.

Huh? I think that you're jumping into this pretty late, HG. Go back and read the threads about it.

[HailGreen28]

Huh? I think that you're jumping into this pretty late, HG. Go back and read the threads about it.

I have. Why is her answer about Snyder above criticism?

[Destino]

Huh? I think that you're jumping into this pretty late, HG. Go back and read the threads about it.

No he's spot on and nothing that has been said since changes that. Shockingly he doesn't agree with you position that context regardless of relevance must be described in detail.

[elkabong82]

"His wife, Tanya Snyder, is out selling the transformation, too. Last week she went on local TV to tell an interviewer that he is now surrounded by "better people," and that he's "grown and he's evolved."

Destino, Hailgreen28: Is that really why she went on local tv? Because I could have sworn it was to promote health to kids.

The suggestion/implication from McKenna is that she was there just to promote Snyder and that is why she was talking with the reporter. We know this is patently false.

Her answer about Snyder is not above criticism, but that's not the only thing McKenna was doing. He was clearly distorting her purpose for even being there to suit his anti-Snyder agenda when in reality Daniel Snyder had nothing to do with why she was there.