Reaper Skins

NYT - Redskins Cheerleaders Describe Trip to Costa Rica that Crossed the Line

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Xameil said:

Unless you have people saying Dan Snyder was one of the people who requested an escort, and touched her inappropriately, you wont have a forced ownership change

 

There have been a few who have said the cheerleaders became more sexualized under Snyder, and if it came out that it was under Snyder's directive to knowingly send the sponsors to a photoshoot where there would be toplessness and that he encourages making the cheerleaders available to big spenders on the team, it has the possibility of getting ugly for him even though it's not likely, as you were saying.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Agree except for one aspect: if this somehow turns out really bad, it has the possibility of leading to a change of ownership and/or team president. The name issue wasn't going to have that effect. But topics like this and the name issue due end up being rather political in one form or another, which fits in Tailgate.

I feel you if it comes to that.  At the rate of this thread, I'd have to say we should cross that bridge when we get there.  My hot take, NFL can't get rid of Snyder over this because the NFL already knew.  That's why they are talking about "improving working conditions".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I feel you if it comes to that.  At the rate of this thread, I'd have to say we should cross that bridge when we get there.  My hot take, NFL can't get rid of Snyder over this because the NFL already knew.  That's why they are talking about "improving working conditions".

 

Yep, the league definitely already knew how cheerleaders were seen and treated by pretty much every franchise...maybe not having women from each team feeling "pimped out" per se, but the conditions and environment cheerleaders work in leading to that feeling exists league-wide. I mean, women all over the league talk about being touched inappropriately and groped by fans, yet the Costa Rica trip apparently involved no touching of any type as far as I remember. So to me anyway, the issue is less about what happened, and more about working environments and what could possibly happen. And that is definitely not exclusive to the Redskins.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Yep, the league definitely already knew how cheerleaders were seen and treated by pretty much every franchise...maybe not having women from each team feeling "pimped out" per se, but the conditions and environment cheerleaders work in leading to that feeling exists league-wide. I mean, women all over the league talk about being touched inappropriately and groped by fans, yet the Costa Rica trip apparently involved no touching of any type as far as I remember. So to me anyway, the issue is less about what happened, and more about working environments and what could possibly happen. And that is definitely not exclusive to the Redskins.

After I had a couple days to process, I wondered why they didnt go to NFL first.  Then I thought about the way the CTE thing went down and then it hit me: they probably did. Is there any confirmation on that yet?

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

Taking the wind out of my sails man

Sorry...I'm a realist...and a wise ass...

 

But in this case..just a realist

3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

There have been a few who have said the cheerleaders became more sexualized under Snyder, and if it came out that it was under Snyder's directive to knowingly send the sponsors to a photoshoot where there would be toplessness and that he encourages making the cheerleaders available to big spenders on the team, it has the possibility of getting ugly for him even though it's not likely, as you were saying.

Is it that they became more sexualized under snyder because of his directive, or because EVERY cheerleader around that time  became more sexualized. 

Hell..I remember a sports writer who used to comment that teams did better when their cheerleaders were skimpy outfits to appease the football gods.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

No, keep it out, please.

 

 

If they're not value added, that doesn't automatically mean they are value subtracted.  If you truly viewed them as an even value you wouldn't care if they were there or not.  But no, you want them gone.  Which must mean you not value them at all.  

 

It's cool if you want them gone to cover up and get rid of issues like this instead of addressing issues.  Not what I'd prefer but to each their own.

 

I see you chose to completely ignore where I have written more than 1/2 dozen time the exact opposite, including the very post you responded to. Seriously, not a single person has said that, least of all me. I said from the minute this came out there needs to be an investigation and anyone responsible held accountable. 

 

Please do try to keep up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I feel you if it comes to that.  At the rate of this thread, I'd have to say we should cross that bridge when we get there.  My hot take, NFL can't get rid of Snyder over this because the NFL already knew.  That's why they are talking about "improving working conditions".

 

I would be very surprised even if this is the worst that we could imagine that the NFL could force Snyder out. His partners could, but not the NFL. That's much more difficult than people realize.

 

Specifically to the Redskins, clearly there were at the very least some misunderstandings due to poor communication. I truly hope that's what this turns out to be only because it's the easiest to fix.

 

Ultimately for me, the best outcome here is that the entire league gets a better understanding of the working conditions for the women working (almost volunteering if you consider just how little they get paid) as cheerleaders and takes steps to reduce - as much as possible - anything truly inappropriate. While the specific allegations against the Redskins appear to be more egregious, there are many other teams - maybe even all of them - that have similar issues. 

 

Having said that, my fear is that if the team does their own investigation there is no other conclusion they will come to regardless of the facts. It's not just a Redskins thing. It's never good to have someone investigate themselves for something that could ultimately be very damaging to themselves. It would be pretty difficult to convince anyone the investigation is unbiased - especially if the results are nothing to see here move along. If a wholly independent investigation comes to that conclusion it's much easier to believe. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Xameil said:

Is it that they became more sexualized under snyder because of his directive, or because EVERY cheerleader around that time  became more sexualized

 

Hell..I remember a sports writer who used to comment that teams did better when their cheerleaders were skimpy outfits to appease the football gods.

4

 

Exactly lol...some writers commented on how the Skins' cheerleaders became more sexualized after Snyder bought the team, though. It could that he saw how the Cowboys cheerleaders became a brand unto themselves and most likely brought in noticeable extra income for the team so he tried mimicking what they were doing, or it could be he didn't give any directives but gave implied approval of the moves by not saying "Nope, don't do that."

 

And I remember when an article came out that the Skins' cheerleaders were considered a major distraction to opposing players and were ranked the best in the league...almost everyone here at the time was proud and saying "America! **** yeah!" (or something like that lol)...there were mentions around here (and even in some articles) of the cheerleaders from The Replacements and it was said as a good thing. I'm not sure if too many from back then are posting on this thread, though...or even still on the site.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, goskins10 said:

Having said that, my fear is that if the team does their own investigation there is no other conclusion they will come to regardless of the facts.

Redskins should have the opportunity to investigate what happened in regards to what it didn't already know, if for anything so we can come up with our own recommendations on how to make sure this doesn't happen again.  My company does retrospectives all the time, we don't need a 3rd Party for that to be effective. 

 

NFL should also investigate to make sure we aren't completely full of ****, but like I said, I believe they already knew, so someone needs to investigate the NFL on the full-scale.  Right now, it looks like the NYT is taking it upon itself to do just that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Redskins should have the opportunity to investigate what happened in regards to what it didn't already know, if for anything so we can come up with our own recommendations on how to make sure this doesn't happen again.  My company does retrospectives all the time, we don't need a 3rd Party for that to be effective. 

 

NFL should also investigate to make sure we aren't completely full of ****, but like I said, I believe they already knew, so someone needs to investigate the NFL on the full-scale.  Right now, it looks like the NYT is taking it upon itself to do just that.

 

I guess I should have specified that any Redskins investigation not be the only one. I would assume they would want their own people to look into it. But if that's it and they call it closed I believe that is a mistake. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Exactly lol...some writers commented on how the Skins' cheerleaders became more sexualized after Snyder bought the team, though. It could that he saw how the Cowboys cheerleaders became a brand unto themselves and most likely brought in noticeable extra income for the team so he tried mimicking what they were doing, or it could be he didn't give any directives but gave implied approval of the moves by not saying "Nope, don't do that."

 

.

In all honesty I think the cheerleaders uniforms as a whole kept getting skimpier due to styles of the time. I did a quick search and you can see all teams cheerleader outfits getting skimpier and skimpier. Not just the Redskins. I doubt DS had anything to do with it. Only thing he did was to bring it in house.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alexa said:

Are people serious about an ownership change over this??   LMAO. 

Wishful thinking from the initial rage on this, if ain't over it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to this story?  After the initial surge of coverage, reporting and conversations about it went strangely silent.  I haven't seen or heard a word on national TV/radio.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainly because the only evidence so far is an article about anonymous cheerleaders' feelings. Meaning.... no evidence. No evidence and no new people stepping forward means nothing to talk about.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2018 at 1:45 PM, Califan007 said:

 

Exactly lol...some writers commented on how the Skins' cheerleaders became more sexualized after Snyder bought the team, though. It could that he saw how the Cowboys cheerleaders became a brand unto themselves and most likely brought in noticeable extra income for the team so he tried mimicking what they were doing, or it could be he didn't give any directives but gave implied approval of the moves by not saying "Nope, don't do that."

 

And I remember when an article came out that the Skins' cheerleaders were considered a major distraction to opposing players and were ranked the best in the league...almost everyone here at the time was proud and saying "America! **** yeah!" (or something like that lol)...there were mentions around here (and even in some articles) of the cheerleaders from The Replacements and it was said as a good thing. I'm not sure if too many from back then are posting on this thread, though...or even still on the site.

 

I was here back then and remember when that article came out.  People were indeed proud of it.  Also, I think uniforms as a whole have become more skimpy; other teams cheerleaders dress downright trashy and I don't think it was the Redskins to first dress smaller.  

 

I am also curious as to why no follow up has occurred regarding this story.  It may just go by the wayside but hopefully something is done regarding the pay and conditions for cheerleaders.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 6:41 AM, Mr. S said:

 

 

I am also curious as to why no follow up has occurred regarding this story.  It may just go by the wayside but hopefully something is done regarding the pay and conditions for cheerleaders.  

 

Because the young ladies involved who were with the Redskins never actually filed a complaint.  It was part of an article.  It wasn't going to go anywhere because they never actually went after the team or the NFL.  They just told a story about how they were uncomfortable.  The NFL and the team wasn't going to rush in to start some sort of legal crossfire within itself until they were pushed to that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's another NYT article about cheerleaders featuring the Redskins (and a few other teams)...it's...um...let's just say it comes across as if the writer is trying waaaay too hard to make things sound shocking and scandelous lol...

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/sports/nfl-cheerleaders.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ffootball&action=click&contentCollection=football&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

 

there's a lot that is either flawed logic or makes things that are public knowledge sound like an exposed secret. For example, a quote from an ex-cheerleader says this:

 

“It’s a really big secret, and now you know about it,” said Jackie Chambers, 33, a model with more than a decade of experience who worked as a Houston Texans noncheering cheerleader last season. “But teams don’t want fans to know about it. All of the cheerleaders are supposed to blend in with each other.”

 

But then the article says this a few sentences later:

 

"The Ravens don’t hide the existence of a team of women — called the Playmakers — who might look and dress like cheerleaders but are actually marketers."

 

Another part of the article says this:

 

"In the Redskins’ online sales video for these suites, they feature photos of suite owners posing with the team’s cheerleader ambassadors. Having close interaction with the ambassadors is a tacit perk of the elite club. As a voice-over in the video says, “membership has its privileges,” the video pans over a photo of a woman in a bikini."

 

The mistake the writer makes is in linking to the video she's describing. Here's the link:  http://tickets.redskins.com/suites/

 

The worst thing about the video is that it needs to desperately be updated lol...the whole "membership has its privileges" part is so inconsequential, it almost makes it as if the writer is just reaching for anything to use as a criticism.

 

yet another part said this:

 

“We were made to look almost exactly like cheerleaders, but we weren’t a member of that society. We didn’t get the perks of dancing. We were just low-paid, underappreciated, exploited moneymakers in a huge moneymaking scheme.”

 

She added: “We wore low-cut tops with cutouts and your butt cheeks would be sticking out the back."

 

[...]Another former ambassador said she dreaded working at team-sponsored tailgate parties, where fans were invited to chug beer. Intoxicated men would grab them and hug them, she said, and make inappropriate comments.

 

One of the former ambassadors said: “It was like, if you want to make the cheerleading team, you’d better do all this stuff, and that included going to parties where there was a lot of drinking...It might not be the best experience for the ladies, but you just shut up and do it because you want to be a cheerleader.”

 

Um...didn't this same writer just spend 2 or 3 articles saying this is exactly what being a cheerleader is like? All the things the non-cheerleading cheerleaders experience are part of being an actual cheerleader: the pay doesn't skyrocket, the fans are just as drunk, the touching is still just as inappropriate, and the outfits are just as skimpy. And they still have to mingle. They won't leave any of this **** behind by becoming an actual cheerleader. If they hate it now, they shouldn't try to become cheerleaders at all.

 

 

The worst part of the article (imo) in terms of the Skins--outside of sayiong there were underage ambassadors, which gets glossed over for some reason--was saying Dennis Greene, the head of bidniz operations, would line up the non-cheerleading cheerleaders  (the ambassadors), "look them up and down" and then pick two to accompany him during games to suites.

 

Well guess what...Greene resigned lol:

 

Redskins executive linked to cheerleading scandal resigns

 

A Redskins executive named in the team’s cheerleading scandal has resigned.

 

Dennis Greene, Washington’s former president of business operations, is no longer with the team, according to 106.7 The Fan.

 

On May 2, the New York Times reported some of the team’s cheerleaders felt uncomfortable and exploited over a 2013 trip to Costa Rica, where suiteholders were allowed to attend topless photoshoots among other controversies.

 

Greene, who had been with the Redskins since 2001, attended a nightclub with some of the suiteholders and nine cheerleaders, who were handpicked by the men to be personal escorts for the evening.

 

“The issue was that management seemed to condone all of this,” one cheerleader told the New York Times.

 

Two weeks ago, the Redskins hired Brian Lafemina to be their COO and the president of business operations. Greene was quietly moved to the president of hospitality before eventually stepping down. 

Edited by Califan007
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

She added: “We wore low-cut tops with cutouts and your butt cheeks would be sticking out the back."

 

Finally, some good news. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

Finally, some good news. 

 

Well, the good news for her is that once she becomes an actual cheerleader she won't have to wear outfits like that anymore...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was clearly a failed "me too" attempt... The day after the story was released the journalist was interviewed and the agenda pushing shined through. Then when the x-Skins cheerleaders said this was nonsense, it solidified the invalidity. And then the Redskins-hating media dropped the story by the end of the week... I know that I'm late to the thread, I wanted to interject when this was released with the below opinion, but I know many would have gotten overly upset.

 

There was nothing about this trip that was any different than the other 31 teams who did their island photo shoots. Whether you approve or not, the truth is that all calendars have pictures of topless cheerleaders with only seashells for cover; this isn't a Redskins thing. But the points that really struck me as unbelievable were the journalists main criticisms; that the girls were "forced to turn over their passports" and "forced to accompany suite owners out on a night on the town." This is real life, if someone ever demanded that I turn over my passport, I would be on the phone with police immediately. Clearly the truth is what the x-cheerleaders said, and what my initial assumption was, in that the team offered to hold them for safekeeping. And, in regard to accompanying high rollers out on the town- I'm friends with a Caps cheerleader who told me about a similar offer that the team received years ago; some girls gladly volunteered. These are young girls looking to have a fun, expensive night out at places they may not be able to afford all on someone else's dime. Of course a bunch of them would want to go...

 

It's all just so obvious that the story was twisted. Is the treatment and minuscule pay for cheerleaders wrong, it very well may be. I personally don't care, when I go to watch a football game, that's what I'm watching. If they did away with cheerleaders, fine by me. If someone signs up to be a cheerleader, they know exactly what that entails; you'll be practicing a lot and dancing around in skimpy clothes in front of millions of people. 

 

I hate to sound cold-hearted, I just don't appreciate that this was aimed at our team, when the problem, if it indeed is a problem, is league-wide. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.