grhqofb5 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Jon Stewart's show? He mocked Snyder's attempts to legally protect his interest in the "Warriors". In this very forum a Warriors logo has been half-jesting, placed on Skins helmets/shirts.C'mon? This 50+ year fan says our fall back is to find more respectful NA-related name BUT keep the logo , the fight song, and our GREAT history. Even more, I want the return of winning ways and the "Braves on the warpath" and the Hogs... I seem to recall about 10 years ago there was a start-up area football league, arena league 2 or something. Snyder may have registered a logo with a spear, and the team was preliminarily named the warriors. League never got off the ground, but he may still hold the registration for the logo, or perhaps the logo in conjunction with "Warriors" EDIT: Looking into this a little bit more, the team (Snyder) registered "Washington Warriors" back in 2001, then let the registration lapse in 2004. Don Terry and Carol Glass, two local anti-name people, applied for registration of the mark in November of 2013, and it went to the official gazette for publication/opposition on June 17 2014. So if no one objects within 30 days, it will be registered. However, the application basis is 1B, which means they'll have to submit a speciman showing the actual use of "washington warriors" in commerce within a certain time period or the registration will be cancelled. There's no claim to current usage, which is important. Bascially, they'll have to show that they are not squatting on the mark. Further EDIT: Looks like Snyder in late May applied for "washington warriors" as a mark for other categories of goods, like drink holders, etc. But Terry and Glass have the rights (for now) to the football related usages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 planter, I haven't read all the posts here so I might be misinterpreting your opinion, but it sounds like you believe that it's only Snyder resisting the change and that it's all his fault this is happening. The league doesn't want the name changed either. " No, much bigger much "grayer". Snyder is caught between the proverbial rock (traditionalists/loyalists) and the hard spot (changing attitudes, cultural differences, and politics, etc.). And $$$$$$. "From my understanding, the league has paid for all of the Redskins legal fees in regards to this subject" I didn't know that... All legal fees? So poorer teams & Seattle 14B Owner are "all" covering Skins' legal bills? Sponsorship loss. Picketers. The Media . Of course Snyder is allowed to and probably is spending additional monies... I would... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Snyder's recalcitance is bringing "unwanted attention" to the NFL including but but limited to,the Kansas City Chiefs and the Seattle Seahawks. The Chiefs were a target from the start, the Redskins are the first battle in a bigger war for Harjo et al. Not sure why the Seahawks would be involved in this, unless the use of Northwest NA style artwork is considered off limits (which would be a bridge too far for almost anyone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 True; however, I keep seeing that it's mostly white people crying about it. To be fair, I see black analysts like Michael Smith and Michael Wilbon on ESPN whine about it too. Now that I think about it.....it's all Mikes and Michaels crying about it? Coincidence? Or could it be........Aliens? Uh, no. I'm a Mike & I am definitely not with them. Also, to be fair, & certainly not trying to offend, but Michael Smith & Michael Wilbon, while not white, represent a "white man" mentality in this particular case. The idea that they can say something in regards to this situation is just as absurd as the white men who are all trying to speak for the NAs. And in all of this (and to be fair, I haven't heard word 1 from Wilbon or Smith about this situation) I haven't heard a single person make mention of the real problems on Reservations & the issue which real NAs face every day. All they seem to care about is winning a battle armed to the teeth with the wrong information & political correctness that is also m0isplaced. While we on the opposite side & supporting the name seem to actually recognize the real issues at hand & maybe because of this fight, have opened some of our eyes to getting more involved with those issues in some way. That said, it ain't about them being "Mikes", although they very well could be aliens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eddf45hmlk/nfl-billionaire-owners/ According to Forbes, there are 15 Billionaire owners & although Dan Snyder is not one of the highest in terms of personal value, the caption under his picture states that the Redskins are the 2nd most profitable team in the League, leading me to believe that the League is going to be on board with Snyder's decision to keep the name. I have no problem believing that the League itself would help Snyder cover legal fees & any other expenses he may need to keep this fight in his corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Saw the article below and it got me to thinking. If the chief would go for it this would be a great solution and a truly devious one.... If they are demanding a name change lets give them one. With the chief's blessing below let's become the Potomac Redskins. Drop the Washington, keep the Redskins because the chief and that tribe are fine with it. Who could complain? It's endorsed and signed off by these particular native Americans. The article just has it backwards. It'd be a heck of a kick in the teeth. http://spectator.org...dskins-after-us Hail to the Potomacs? If the owner of the Redskins wants to put the controversy over his team name to rest while keeping a Native American theme, he’ll likely have one local tribe’s blessing. “I was just telling my wife the other day, ‘Why don’t we write to Dan Snyder and suggest changing the name to the Washington Potomacs?” said John Lightner, chief of the Patawomeck tribe of Virginia. The Patawomecks (or Potomacs), native people of the region, gave their name to the river that flows through Washington, D.C. If you go back a few pages, you'll read that I beat you to the punch on this. And I agree. That way, we an keep our culture & since the chief said they would adopt the Redskins, they would be untouchable after that, like the FSU Seminoles. However, I hadn't thought of changing the Washington part to Potomac. I REALLY like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The Chiefs were a target from the start, the Redskins are the first battle in a bigger war for Harjo et al. Not sure why the Seahawks would be involved in this, unless the use of Northwest NA style artwork is considered off limits (which would be a bridge too far for almost anyone). The ad placed during the NBA Finals concluded with only one helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eddf45hmlk/nfl-billionaire-owners/ ..... I have no problem believing that the League itself would help Snyder cover legal fees & any other expenses he may need to keep this fight in his corner. I agree the NFL has their own legitimate interests to protect. Those interests do not always coincide with an individual Owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I agree the NFL has their own legitimate interests to protect. Those interest do not always coincide with an individual Owner. Unless said owner contributes a ton of money to their existence and without said owner's contribution many of them would find themselves in serious financial trouble. #1 league interest: Make money. #3 top moneymaker in the NFL = the Washington Redskins This is a truth that is unavoidable, tap dancing around it is pointless. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Unless said owner contributes a ton of money to their existence and without said owner's contribution many of them would find themselves in serious financial trouble. #1 league interest: Make money. #3 top moneymaker in the NFL = the Washington Redskins This is a truth that is unavoidable, tap dancing around it is pointless. ~Bang Agreed. Unless Nike & other Official NFL Sponsors start pulling away from the Redskins, nothing, IMHO, will change. And as has been mentioned, the Redskins are a money making machine. No one who benefits from that wants to mess with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Unless said owner contributes a ton of money to their existence and without said owner's contribution many of them would find themselves in serious financial trouble. #1 league interest: Make money. #3 top moneymaker in the NFL = the Washington Redskins This is a truth that is unavoidable, tap dancing around it is pointless. ~Bang I have no information supporting my belief but, I would be surprised if Dan was well liked by the other owners. They certainly didn't care about him when they bashed him over the head with a massive cap penalty. What's saving Dan is probably concern that if they cave on the redskins then the Chiefs and Bills could be next, and who knows maybe some of them buy into the whole Vikings are offensive canard as well. As for the cash, the NFL is king of the sports world. They don't need the Redskins or Dan Snyder. Certainly the money is good but the Redskins would be making money if they called themselves the Dragons (which, is horrible) so I'm not sure they are worried about revenue issues. Most of Redskins nation would complain but people willing to shell out big bucks on gear and tickets for a team that has been so bad for so long are too loyal to leave. They'd likely still make a lot of money. This area has a lot of cash to spend and it's crazy about football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Dan Stewart @thatdanstewart · Oct 7 The Washington Redskins are to change their name, due to negative associations. From now on, they will be known as the "Maryland Redskins" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Saw the article below and it got me to thinking. If the chief would go for it this would be a great solution and a truly devious one.... If they are demanding a name change lets give them one. With the chief's blessing below let's become the Potomac Redskins. Drop the Washington, keep the Redskins because the chief and that tribe are fine with it. Who could complain? It's endorsed and signed off by these particular native Americans. IMHO... a GREAT IDEA Burgold... and I think you've got the answer to all this mess. Potomac includes MD, VA, and DC. I don't mind dropping 'Washington' since ALL their politicians want to have nothing to do with the name. Boston changed to New England. The ones complaining about it would say "you're still using Redskins" in which we could just say "why are you including the name with yourself or any of your tribes?" The Redskins name would be exclusive to the Patawomeck tribe IE Seminoles with FSU. To anyone complaining we could just suggest that we can't help any of their negative associations from the past, movies, or present with the name because... the name is NOT ABOUT YOU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 The ad placed during the NBA Finals concluded with only one helmet. True, but Harjo has been explicit in her objective to eliminate NA imagery from sports from the beginning, and she met Blackhorse at a protest against both the Redskins and Chiefs. http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/sam-mellinger/article618354.html "Back in 2005, a group calling itself Not In Our Honor protested before the Chiefs played Washington. The protesters were predominately American Indians, united in their anger over what they perceived as offensive stereotypes passed off as nicknames for sports teams. An older woman, Suzan Harjo, one of the leaders of the protest, met a younger woman named Amanda Blackhorse, then a student at Kansas." Source for the Seahawks coming under fire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Unless said owner contributes a ton of money to their existence and without said owner's contribution many of them would find themselves in serious financial trouble. #1 league interest: Make money. #3 top moneymaker in the NFL = the Washington Redskins This is a truth that is unavoidable, tap dancing around it is pointless. ~Bang This is your version of NFL economics. Then there' law, media, and politics, etc. It won't happen tomorrow but watch and learn how the real world operates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 "True, but Harjo has been explicit in her objective to eliminate NA imagery from sports.." Neither side will win every argument. Elimination of all NA-related names and logos will not happen. Personally, I want to see the Skins keep their logo and fight song. It's not a coincidence the ad focused on the Skins. We're "the low hanging fruit" "Source for the Seahawks coming under fire?" Some local papers are vowing not to use our Team name. Currently, the dispute is NOT big news in Seattle but the stage is set Seattle area is steeped in NA tradition; much more so than D.C. and Va. It's also filled with liberals. Some like Starbucks CEO are activists as well. And the Seattle owner's wealth dwarfs that of Snyder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Bob Costas is on UP with Steve Kornacki on MSNBC. They've mentioned the name change, there may be more after the commercial break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Well Bob, we were going to change the team name to the Midgets, and make you the new mascot. Whaddya say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 ^^^LOL^^^ yeah, they never got back around to the topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Seattle area is steeped in NA tradition; much more so than D.C. and Va. It's also filled with liberals. Some like Starbucks CEO are activists as well. Could you elaborate on that? I am having difficulty understanding what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 This is your version of NFL economics. Then there' law, media, and politics, etc. It won't happen tomorrow but watch and learn how the real world operates. I hate to laugh right at you, but I'm laughing right at you. The real world operates on one principal. Money. If you think "my version" of NFL economics is incorrect, how about you offer something other than "There's Law, media and politics"... which as an answer is quite meaningless. Fact, the law cannot force them to change the name, EVEN if they vacate the trademark. they simply cannot force it in any way beyond that. they cannot sanction, arrest or in any way inhibit. Fact; the only power the media has is to sway public opinion, and the only way to win this fight is to sway enough public opinion that it hurts the bottom line. Pretending that the media is going to get people to stop watching the NFL is a pipe dream. Hell, even the media who scream the LOUDEST won't stop covering the Team They Will Not Name. If you believe that any significant number at all will stop watching the NFL, you might be interested in some prime bridge real estate i own up in Brooklyn. as far as politicians go,, lol.. these guys have a 10% approval rating,, why will anyone follow them on any issue at all, much less one that everyone sees as a waste of their time? No matter what any of them say, no matter what half the country will not only disagree, but VEHEMENTLY disagree. Politicians get nothing done. Ever. why they could magically get anything done here is a joke, especially once you realize that by the law, there's nothing they can do beyond write letters and make speeches. You may as well put all your money on a guy in a wheelchair to win the Olympic Pole Vault. You wagging your finger and pretending to be some wise old sage is ridiculous. Maybe in one of these posts you can back up any claims you're making with something other than 'you just wait n see'. You will note that in every post of "My version of NFL economics" there are links that back up every bit of it 100%. You can check every one of my numbers and claims. (And in this i admit my own stubbornness. You guys ignore facts all the time, Why I continue to make sure I prove mine out is really just a waste of time. As has been stated and as you show, the facts and realities don't really matter. when you casually dismiss them all with clasped hands and "you just wait n see".. it's like arguing with a six year old over the existence of Santa Claus. He desperately wants it to be true, so to him it is. Regardless. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Could you elaborate on that? I am having difficulty understanding what you mean. Sorry. Fair question. Trying to make points without wordiness using smartphone in the ol'easy chair aka Command Center. Have you been to Seattle? IMHO Filled with California exiles (half joke). Still strikingly beautiful. Lots of Greenies. Liberals. Strong NA presence hard to describe; visible in restaurants, tourism/recreation, native salmon,logging etc. Born in D.C. lived in northern VA on & for 30 yrs. Why the difference? Numbers? Assimilation? Don't know? I must admit that El Swami's predictions come with a certain risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 I hate to laugh right at you, but I'm laughing right at you. The real world operates on one principal. Money. If you think "my version" of NFL economics is incorrect, how about you offer something other than "There's Law, media and politics"... which as an answer is quite meaningless. ~Bang Bang, you are absolutely right & I agree 100%. In fact, as I recall, didn't the case to have the name changed go all the way to the Supreme Court...twice? And they lost both times? That is as far, legally, that this could ever go. And like you said, the bottom line is the most important thing to the League & especially with a case like this. There are still overwhelming numbers in support of the name, overall & in the NA community. The Vikings, the Raiders, the Chiefs, the Buccaneers, the Bills, the Saints....all have something to lose in the future possibly if the Redskins were to change their name because of this as I'm sure there are groups waiting in the wings to pounce on those team names as soon as the Redskins change. However, like I said, Nike is the one sponsor I would think would be the biggest concern & I seriously doubt Nike cares if people are offended because people, like me & I'm sure I'm not alone, are still buying Redskins gear. Politics & media? They're a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 The main way I think sponsors can be a problem is if they start avoiding Redskins players for shoe contracts and marketing deals. If it becomes a financial decision on the part of big time players and we start losing them, then i could see it forcing some action. But for every Nike there's an Adidas and for ever Adidas there's an Under Armour, etc. etc. it would have to go a long long way before those big time corporate entities won't compete among themselves for big name athlete to hawk their products. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Bang, If you have a coherent argument you could make it more succinctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.