SB Nation- DC - Washington Redskins' COO And Dan Snyder Ally Dave Donovan Resigns For 'Personal Reasons'

[Destino]

What "evidence" You have no evidence. All you have are a few fans who complained online and to a radio call in show that their shirts and/or banners were confiscated. I will grant you that that did happen. You have no evidence to suggest or prove that either Snyder or Donovan or any other high ranking Skins official made such a decision.

To be clear you originally wrote:

It was never "ordered". Donovan said so the next day. Some security guys took it upon themselves to prevent signs from entering the stadium. There was no order "from on high" as so many want to believe.

Evidence?

1 - It happened, which you admit.

2 - The fact that the Redskin sign policy was:

"Banners

Banners are permitted at FedEx Field; however, Guests may not display banners that advertise or mention products or services. Banners may not cover existing FedEx Field equipment or signage. Signs may not be made with metal or wood. Management reserves the right to remove any sign, including those deemed to be obscene, inappropriate or which obstructs the view of other Guests. For the safety of all Guests, banner poles are not permitted."

and was changed to

"Banners

Banners of any size are not permitted at FedExField."

3 - "The banners, we do have a prohibition against signs and banners in the stadium, and we don't care what they say. We take them down. They get in the way of other people viewing the game, and people get poked in the head -- that stuff happens. We have an absolute prohibition; we don't care what they say." - David Donovan on the UnWise Mike show.

Is that enough evidence?

[Cool as Crud]

Destino, I think you're ignoring the possibility that no Redskins officer "ordered" the confiscation of derogatory signs. It's possible that more signs than usual were being taken into the stadium, due to growing fan dissatisfaction. In the first instance, the security team (or individual members - doesn't matter) may have interpreted the "deemed to be. . . inappropriate" policy such that they decided, unilaterally, to confiscate the signs. In the second instance, perhaps team officials decided to invoke a prohibition because the growing number of signs was creating a larger problem, in the aggregate. The two decisions are not necessarily related.

At any rate, the only people who will ever know for sure are the ones in the room when decisions are made (or not made). My only point is that the "evidence" you point to is far from conclusive, and is largely circumstantial. There's probably enough that your opinion isn't unreasonable, but it's not an open/shut case.

[SonnyandSam]

So I'm confused:

First, people not being able to bring in signs was a result of some overzealous security guys.

Now, the reason people weren't allowed to bring them in was because there had always been a blanket policy against signs.

And then why did the Redskins amend their policy on signs for the next home game?

As for the GEICO signs, I wasn't at that particular game, but remember getting one of the signs from someone who was there. True, the signs weren't huge, but IIRC, in order to display them you had to pull them out from the ends. If someone held them at or above their head while doing so, they would have the effect of blocking the view of someone behind them.

But I was making the point to show the hypocrisy of the organization that particular night. Truth be told, anyone who holds a sign up over their head while play is in progress should be booted.

BTW, here's a thread from the wayback machine on signgate......seems like it started before the Eagles game (maybe Tampa?):

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?302533-Change-to-FedEx-Field-banner-policy-(No-paper-bags-allowed-either).

And Steinberg in the Sports Bog:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2009/10/signs_banned_at_fedex_field.html

It is quite easy to twist words when you take comments out of context. You know there have been almost no homemade signs at FedEx Field for like forever. I know this to be true for the past nine years. I've attended virutally every game over that time span as a STH. Once in a while a few signs have been seen. I have witnessed several times in the past (not counting last year) security throwing signs into the trash cans at FedEx or refusing fans entry with signs. FACT....witnessed it myself. And those I did see were POSITIVE signs. Does security get lax at times? Do they miss signs that are hidden away on someone's body? Sure. This is not a TSA pat down at the airport where they practically strip search you. A few slip through.

The Skins, to their credit, modified the ban because of the huge uproar (valid or not). I don't recall if it was the next home game but it was mid november, more than a month later. The reason for the ban originally was to avoid people being injured or blocking the vision of fans who wanted to see the game. Is that really so hard to understand? Was a complete ban unnecessary from the beginning? Perhaps. But it is much easier for security to enforce a total ban on signs and banners than to argue with customers over the size of a sign or banner or whether it is dangerous or not. They overreached maybe. So they were willing to change the policy to match the shirt/clothing policy. The original intention to protect fans was distorted by some to mean sign bans were only to protect Snyder from criticism. Yet the ban was in place for years long before "signgate" happened.

The GEICO sign is not hypocritical. If you had one in your hands, you know damn well it wasn't blocking anyone's vision like a large sign or 4-6 foot banner might. Come on....give me a freakin' break. They had total control over the approval of that item before giving it away. Something they cannot do for 85,000 fans walking into a stadium on game day.

And the "overzealous" comment from Donovan...wasn't that in answer to people being asked to remove their t shirts and or turn them inside out? I forget and can't find the quote quickly.

[Destino]

Destino, I think you're ignoring the possibility that no Redskins officer "ordered" the confiscation of derogatory signs. It's possible that more signs than usual were being taken into the stadium, due to growing fan dissatisfaction. In the first instance, the security team (or individual members - doesn't matter) may have interpreted the "deemed to be. . . inappropriate" policy such that they decided, unilaterally, to confiscate the signs. In the second instance, perhaps team officials decided to invoke a prohibition because the growing number of signs was creating a larger problem, in the aggregate. The two decisions are not necessarily related.

At any rate, the only people who will ever know for sure are the ones in the room when decisions are made (or not made). My only point is that the "evidence" you point to is far from conclusive, and is largely circumstantial. There's probably enough that your opinion isn't unreasonable, but it's not an open/shut case.

What second instance? Give me some dates. The reporting shows that at the start of the 2009 season the banner policy was as I wrote in my last post. They were allowed as long as they met certain criteria. In Oct prior to the monday night football game that spawned the media reports and fan anger the policy was changed and all banners/signs were banned. Are you saying there was an instance prior to Oct 2009 where signs were confiscated by overzealous security guards? That's a strong point if you can show it to be the case. I know that the monday night football game was Oct 26, 2009 and that's where the entire sign drama took place.

[SonnyandSam]

To be clear you originally wrote:

Evidence?

1 - It happened, which you admit.

2 - The fact that the Redskin sign policy was:

"Banners

Banners are permitted at FedEx Field; however, Guests may not display banners that advertise or mention products or services. Banners may not cover existing FedEx Field equipment or signage. Signs may not be made with metal or wood. Management reserves the right to remove any sign, including those deemed to be obscene, inappropriate or which obstructs the view of other Guests. For the safety of all Guests, banner poles are not permitted."

and was changed to

"Banners

Banners of any size are not permitted at FedExField."

3 - "The banners, we do have a prohibition against signs and banners in the stadium, and we don't care what they say. We take them down. They get in the way of other people viewing the game, and people get poked in the head -- that stuff happens. We have an absolute prohibition; we don't care what they say." - David Donovan on the UnWise Mike show.

Is that enough evidence?

You have coveniently made up sign policies with quotations around them to suggest those are actual policies. Care to provide a link for us to verify that was the language with dates when they were changed? Never seen either policy in print nor described that way by a Redskins official.

Don't call them facts or evidence when you make **** up.

[Destino]

The original intention to protect fans was distorted by some to mean sign bans were only to protect Snyder from criticism. Yet the ban was in place for years long before "signgate" happened.

This is false.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090330025154/http://redskins.bridgelinesw.net/gen/articles/Stadium_Guide_1621.jsp

That is a snap shot from March 2009 of the Redskins stadium guide thanks to http://wayback.archive.org/web/ which archives just about everything. It clearly reads:

Banners

Banners are permitted at FedExField; however, Guests may not display banners that advertise or mention products or services. Banners may not cover existing FedExField equipment or signage. Signs may not be made with metal or wood. Management reserves the right to remove any sign, including those deemed to be obscene, inappropriate or which obstructs the view of other Guests. For the safety of all Guests, banner poles are not permitted.

Prior to the monday night football game (I do not know when) all banners were banned completely. Unless of course Donovan was lying when he said:

"The banners, we do have a prohibition against signs and banners in the stadium, and we don't care what they say. We take them down. They get in the way of other people viewing the game, and people get poked in the head -- that stuff happens. We have an absolute prohibition; we don't care what they say." - David Donovan on the UnWise Mike show on October 27th (the day after the monday night football game)

You have coveniently made up sign policies with quotations around them to suggest those are actual policies. Care to provide a link for us to verify that was the language with dates when they were changed? Never seen either policy in print nor described that way by a Redskins official.

Don't call them facts or evidence when you make **** up.

Did you just accuse me of making up sign policies? Really? When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Edit:

I found a clue as to when the banner policy was changed right here on Extremeskins!

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?302533-Change-to-FedEx-Field-banner-policy-%28No-paper-bags-allowed-either%29.

Here is the OP:

The redskins changed their policy on fan signage as of this morning and banned all signs.

I checked the FedEx Field policies last night and it said that banners were permitted but they could not be attached to the stadium itself or be mounted on poles.

Today when we went through security they told us all signs are banned and made us throw them out.

I had a sign that said "Love the Redskins, Hate the owner" and I also handed out over 100 small signs with Snyders picture with a circle and red slash through it out in the Green Lot F41.

It seems to me that they changed this policy in order to avoid bad PR.

That was posted October 4, 2009.

[SonnyandSam]

Um, Goodell had lunch with Dan Snyder the week after the Eagles games and "sign gate." Do you think they were talking about NRG solar panels? Goodell is in charge of the league keeping it's integrity. You had a bingo caller calling plays, you had an embarrassment of a season going, you handcuffed your head coach, your "GM" was embarrassing himself in the press, and you just confiscated fan's signs a week or two after a Nationally televised game focused more on the negative signs than it did on the football. Yeah. Yeah, I do. I was in stationed in the Seattle area at the time, and I got to hear the unbiased coverage (free of 980 and 106.7 the fan respectively) and that was the consensus by every big writer out there, and the easy one to draw if you are a free thinker. Show me that didn't happen.

And that particular game just happened to be picked out? Really? Really dude? Don't come at me with the "bong" crap, either. That's you copping out of a real debate. And that week before, people were kicked out of the game by said security for having anti-snyderatto regalia. Doesn't anything add up or do you have another clever drug reference to throw my way?

Really? As I said, it was either the previous week or two weeks prior to that MNF game, and there were SIGNS O' PLENTY. LOL. Nationally televised game, plenty of anti-Snyderatto signs. The next nationally televised game, all signs are confiscated. Hmmmmm. Why? Why was that game picked out by anyone in the security as THE game to enforce the policy?

Um. Just a hint, the legal world is my profession. I know a little about legal ethics. Is it legally ethical to say you are going to bankrupt a hedgefund if they don't issue an apology/retraction? Absolutely. That's what we would call a "textbook definition." And as I've said, I've never met Donovan, sounds like a fun guy to hang out with at a bar, he's probably a good family man if he wants to spend more time with them by taking his old job.

Nothing in the last 2-3 years had improved, and would not have had Snyder not had a meeting with Goodell. Just my opinion. Cerrato "resigned" three weeks after that lunch. SLAPP legislation is in front of congress, inspired by Donovan's letter and Snyder's lawsuit against the City Paper. Donovan "resigns" a few months later. Let's be real here buddy. I would give more credit to guys like Bruce Allen and Tony Wylie (even though Wylie fell on his sword for Snyder and Donovan in the whole city paper lawsuit, his record is prestine elsewhere and speaks for itself).

I am not tying to pick a fight with you, or pick on you. These are my opinions. You say that I am "hitting the bong," rather than addressing the holes in your logic. Fine with me. I don't care. But, again, if you want to PM me about real estate, let me know. : )

HAIL!

If the legal profession is your "world", you must really suck if you take a lunch between two individuals and then pick and choose whatever following event and ASSume that they are related. Really? You really want to admit that you are in the legal profession and you would connect two separate actions weeks apart and insist they have to be connected with absolutely NO PROOF? Not even some smoke? Or a tip form a jailhouse snich? Really? I got no response....never heard such an asinine comment worth responding.

And then say it is unethical to bring a defamation suit which is permitted BY LAW. You do realize he does have that right under our judicial system correct? I know as the stellar legal professional you are, you have already ruled in your own small mind that it should be dismissed before reading or hearing any of the facts or arguments to be presented before the court. Really? The legal profession is your "World" and you've already decided he loses the case because some liberal has introduced SLAPP legislation that hasn't passed Congress?

Nothing good has happened in the last 2-3 years: Really? Did you not read my post before responding? Let me repeat a few highlights since you must have had a few bong hits prior to reading and responding:

1. Two New HDTV video screens
   
2. A new state of the art digital video and audio room to control those screens and audio.
   
3. A new Stadium manager to improve the game day experience.
   
4. A completely restructured ticket office with a new manager and new customer friendly policies
   
5. New automatic ticket upgrade software and system
   
6. New ticket policy to allow more people to move to the lower level when upgraded
   
7. New band room and uniforms for the Redskins Marching Band
   
8. More involvement and focus on the Redskins Band during the game
   
9. More highlights and away scores than in the past
   
10. More food carts on the concourse offering some additional food choices
    
11. A totally renovated stadium store so that product sales could be acomplished faster and easier.
    
12. HDTV Screens and all day tailgating for the 2010 opening game with the cowgirls.
    
13. A new parking contractor and changes to parking and access routes to improve parking flow
    
14. New parking lots inside the beltway for fans; no more busses to distant office buildings
    
15. Increased number of porta potties for us tailgaters.
    
16. More golf carts to move handicapped and elderly people from the parking lots to the Stadium and back.
    
17. Lots of improvements for premium STHs, too; but I am sure you don't want to hear about that because stuff for the upper class scum doesn't interest you.
    

---------- Post added July-13th-2011 at 01:00 PM ----------

This is false.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090330025154/http://redskins.bridgelinesw.net/gen/articles/Stadium_Guide_1621.jsp

That is a snap shot from March 2009 of the Redskins stadium guide thanks to http://wayback.archive.org/web/ which archives just about everything. It clearly reads:

Prior to the monday night football game (I do not know when) all banners were banned completely. Unless of course Donovan was lying when he said:

"The banners, we do have a prohibition against signs and banners in the stadium, and we don't care what they say. We take them down. They get in the way of other people viewing the game, and people get poked in the head -- that stuff happens. We have an absolute prohibition; we don't care what they say." - David Donovan on the UnWise Mike show on October 27th (the day after the monday night football game)

Did you just accuse me of making up sign policies? Really? When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Edit:

I found a clue as to when the banner policy was changed right here on Extremeskins!

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?302533-Change-to-FedEx-Field-banner-policy-%28No-paper-bags-allowed-either%29.

Here is the OP:

That was posted October 4, 2009.

Your link does not work for me....I will go home tonight and look at all my old parking maps and stadium policies from my previous season tickets and see what is there. A post from an angy fan is not proof. A copy of the policy is what I am looking for.

[DC9]

If the legal profession is your "world", you must really suck if you take a lunch between two individuals and then pick and choose whatever following event and ASSume that they are related. Really? You really want to admit that you are in the legal profession and you would connect two separate actions weeks apart and insist they have to be connected with absolutely NO PROOF? Not even some smoke? Or a tip form a jailhouse snich? Really? I got no response....never heard such an asinine comment worth responding.

Smoke? Re-read the last post. The abortion of a franchise that the Redskins were in 2009, a lunch with Goodell, two weeks later Vinny resigns. Smoke? Re-read it brother. LOL. And again, please don't resort to personal shots....or petty "bong" references. That's just not classy.

And then say it is unethical to bring a defamation suit which is permitted BY LAW. You do realize he does have that right under our judicial system correct? I know as the stellar legal professional you are, you have already ruled in your own small mind that it should be dismissed before reading or hearing any of the facts or arguments to be presented before the court. Really? The legal profession is your "World" and you've already decided he loses the case because some liberal has introduced SLAPP legislation that hasn't passed Congress?

Wow, you are worse than I thought. I didn't say it was unethical to bring a defamation suit. Which is weird that you would file suit against a paper, protected by the first ammendment. The ethical dilema comes from the line Donovan wrote where he said, "Mr. Snyder is prepared to spend blank amount of money, which would far surpass a hedgefund supported company," or words to that effect. That's Donovan saying, apologize/retract or we will bankrupt you in court. The Redskins would've lost that case, but the goal was to bankrupt the city paper. You don't have an issue with that? Geez. LOL.

Nothing good has happened in the last 2-3 years: Really? Did you not read my post before responding? Let me repeat a few highlights since you must have had a few bong hits prior to reading and responding:

Two New HDTV video screens

A new state of the art digital video and audio room to control those screens and audio.

A new Stadium manager to improve the game day experience.

A completely restructured ticket office with a new manager and new customer friendly policies

New automatic ticket upgrade software and system

New ticket policy to allow more people to move to the lower level when upgraded

New band room and uniforms for the Redskins Marching Band

More involvement and focus on the Redskins Band during the game

More highlights and away scores than in the past

More food carts on the concourse offering some additional food choices

A totally renovated stadium store so that product sales could be acomplished faster and easier.

HDTV Screens and all day tailgating for the 2010 opening game with the cowgirls.

A new parking contractor and changes to parking and access routes to improve parking flow

New parking lots inside the beltway for fans; no more busses to distant office buildings

Increased number of porta potties for us tailgaters.

More golf carts to move handicapped and elderly people from the parking lots to the Stadium and back.

Lots of improvements for premium STHs, too; but I am sure you don't want to hear about that because stuff for the upper class scum doesn't interest you.

lol, that looks like a lot of upgrades from LAST YEAR. Which would support my Tony Wylie/Bruce Allen argument. And would further support the "lunch" between Goodell and Snyder having an impact.

Do you think these changes would've taken place, do you think the train would've not gotten back on track, had it not been for that lunch?

And I am not sure where you are going with the upper class comment....come on man. What's that about?

Next?

[Destino]

Hard to argue against improvements when they added the huge screens. That was something fans have been waiting for,

[Cool as Crud]

What second instance? Give me some dates.

I have no clue about dates, and don't have the time to research it. Anyway, I wasn't referring to chronological "instances", but separate events, whenever they occurred.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just trying to reason based on the information presented by members of this board. Unfortunately, I'll have to leave the fact-checking to someone else for the time being.

By the way, if the biggest issue we have to complain about is something that happened in 2009, that's GOOD NEWS to me. Why waste energy dwelling on it? If Donovan hadn't resigned, bringing attention to it, this wouldn't even be a discussion topic. I'm sure someday Dan Snyder will write a tell-all book about his time at the burgundy & gold helm; we can settle it then.

Hail

[SonnyandSam]

Smoke? Re-read the last post. The abortion of a franchise that the Redskins were in 2009, a lunch with Goodell, two weeks later Vinny resigns. Smoke? Re-read it brother. LOL. And again, please don't resort to personal shots....or petty "bong" references. That's just not classy.

Wow, you are worse than I thought. I didn't say it was unethical to bring a defamation suit. Which is weird that you would file suit against a paper, protected by the first ammendment. The ethical dilema comes from the line Donovan wrote where he said, "Mr. Snyder is prepared to spend blank amount of money, which would far surpass a hedgefund supported company," or words to that effect. That's Donovan saying, apologize/retract or we will bankrupt you in court. The Redskins would've lost that case, but the goal was to bankrupt the city paper. You don't have an issue with that? Geez. LOL.

lol, that looks like a lot of upgrades from LAST YEAR. Which would support my Tony Wylie/Bruce Allen argument. And would further support the "lunch" between Goodell and Snyder having an impact.

Do you think these changes would've taken place, do you think the train would've not gotten back on track, had it not been for that lunch?

And I am not sure where you are going with the upper class comment....come on man. What's that about?

Next?

NONE of those things are the responsiblity of Bruce Allen or Tony Wyllie. Tony Wyllie is in charge of PR (and responsible for the City Paper suit). Bruce Allen is in charge of football operations. Dave Donovan was the Cheif Operating Officer in charge of non-football operations. All of those changes were led by and accomplished by Dave.

And this whole lunch thing is ridiculous. You have NO PROOF of any connection what so ever. You don't think the Commission doesn't talk to every single owner on a regular basis? Sure, they could have talked about the stuff you allege. But Snyder owns the team. He does not work for the commissioner. In fact, it is the other way around. The commission works for the owners and Snyder is one of the 32 primary owners.

You are wose than JLC. You make up crap and throw against the wall with absolutely no foundaton; just your imagination. If not bong hits, then you just must be senile. You have absolutely no credibility with what you are saying.

[DC9]

[

SonnyandSam;8380158]NONE of those things are the responsiblity of Bruce Allen or Tony Wyllie. Tony Wyllie is in charge of PR (and responsible for the City Paper suit). Bruce Allen is in charge of football operations. Dave Donovan was the Cheif Operating Officer in charge of non-football operations. All of those changes were led by and accomplished by Dave.

Again, Tony Wylie didn't write the letter that was signed by David Donovan did he? It was SIGNED David Donovan, Chief Counsel. Was it not?

And this whole lunch thing is ridiculous. You have NO PROOF of any connection what so ever. You don't think the Commission doesn't talk to every single owner on a regular basis? Sure, they could have talked about the stuff you allege. But Snyder owns the team. He does not work for the commissioner. In fact, it is the other way around. The commission works for the owners and Snyder is one of the 32 primary owners.

Again, Sonny, look at the timing. What does your gut tell you?

You are wose than JLC. You make up crap and throw against the wall with absolutely no foundaton; just your imagination. If not bong hits, then you just must be senile. You have absolutely no credibility with what you are saying.

Wow. Again. You've refused to answer any of my questions and gone back to name calling. Class act, Sonny.

HAIL!

[SonnyandSam]

I'm really tired of this debate and there is nothing either side is going to say to change anyone's mind. But I promised to go home and check the stadium rules that get sent to STHs every year. So here it is. None of the stadium rules guides over the years say anything about banners or signs being prohibited from FedEx Field, including the current version online at Redskins.com.

However, I know two things. One we had a member who several years ago was not permitted to bring in his Sean Taylor sign (on some cloth material) at a game. He eventually got special permission to bring it to the game and hang it behind the Skins bench on the lower level. It still appears at most if not all games. And two, I have over the years watch security turn people away with banners and signs; either the fans return to their cars or they get tossed in the trash containers. And three, the stadium has always been almost devoid of home made signs unlike a lot of NFL stadiums. Of course this changed last fall, when negative signs about Danny and Cerrato began appearing mid season. Then we had the MNF blowup.

And DC9...I addressed virtually every if not every one of your arguements; there are a whole host of pieces of information that I presented in my posts that you did not address and conveniently ignored. You talk about "gut" feelings and I talk about "facts". I guess that is why we cannot agree. People's "gut" reactions are often wrong.

I'm done with this thread. I am willing to agree that we disagree. You can have the last word....but I have no more to add to this discussion.

Damn.....I wish the lockout were over so we could discuss real football issues....

[Riggo#44]

Speaking of Donovan (and completely changing the subject):

The Redskins announced on Monday that Dave Donovan, the team’s COO for the past six seasons and one of team-owner Daniel Snyder’s top advisers, is leaving the organization after a six-year run in Washington. Donovan spoke to 106.7 The Fan about his decision to leave the team earlier this week. Snyder’s role with the team over the past half-decade was one of the many topics that came up.

“His reported role in football operations has always been overstated,” Donovan said. “I don’t think he’s been nearly as involved as a lot of commentators have suggested, at least since I’ve been here.”

But what about during Jim Zorn’s unsuccessful two-year stint? It sounds like Snyder may have been more involved in the time after Joe Gibbs and before Mike Shanahan than he has been recently.

“Right now, compared to two or three years ago – he’s got 100 percent confidence in the head coach and he’s letting him totally run the football operation,” Donovan said. “He’s completely been hands off.”

Link: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2011/07/13/dave-donovan-on-dan-snyders-role-with-the-redskins/

[Rocky21]

I'm really tired of this debate and there is nothing either side is going to say to change anyone's mind. But I promised to go home and check the stadium rules that get sent to STHs every year. So here it is. None of the stadium rules guides over the years say anything about banners or signs being prohibited from FedEx Field, including the current version online at Redskins.com.

Sonny and Sam, I know from previous posts that you don't like how people pile on Snyder and blame him for everything. But you are aware that the Skins changed the policies on signs in the stadium in '09, right? It's common knowledge and was laid out fairly well by Steinberg of the Post at the time and by Destino in this thread.

[DC9]

And DC9...I addressed virtually every if not every one of your arguements; there are a whole host of pieces of information that I presented in my posts that you did not address and conveniently ignored. You talk about "gut" feelings and I talk about "facts". I guess that is why we cannot agree. People's "gut" reactions are often wrong.

I'm done with this thread. I am willing to agree that we disagree. You can have the last word....but I have no more to add to this discussion.

Damn.....I wish the lockout were over so we could discuss real football issues....

Cool man. No big deal here. Even though you only answered about 20% of what I asked you and then tried to deflect my ethics question, by saying that it wasn't ethical to file a defamation suit. But hey, you are obviously some sort of village elder here and I am the new guy, lol. No big deal.

And I definately agree..... END THIS DARN LOCKOUT PLEEEEASE!