Is it time to go Nuclear on Snyder???

[KillBill26]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Social media campaigns are pointless.   They’re just ignored because there’s no economic impact. 

 

I am not a social media fan, have never done it probably never will, but it is very powerful.  Many people have been influenced by the masses rallying behind a certain movement.  However, usually the allegations are far worse than being a terrible NFL owner.  The noise on social media can lead decision makers to act out of fear their reputation will be hurt if they don't act.  In this day and age of cancel culture, I think social media could have an impact on facilitating a change with the front office.  I know there has been a social media presence pushing for Allen's removal and it hasn't happened yet, but with every poor showing, the voices only grow louder and more widespread.  The combination of losing, empty stadiums, declining ticket and merchandise sales, negative media coverage, and the growing number of critical voices on social media will drive change.  I can't believe it hasn't happened yet, but if social media continues to rail on the redskins and Dan and bruce personally, on top of the rest of the mess,  change is inevitable.  It won't force dan to sell, but it will force dan to fire Bruce.  That's a start.

 

Cancel Dan Snyder.  Aim it towards him as well.  And fire Bruce Allen.  And keep shouting it from the rooftops.  

[RemoveSnyder]

7 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

I bet its just the Crown at this point.

 

[...] and ice cream.

 

Dude probably puts it in his cereal

https://es.redskins.com/topic/424439-wsj-washington-football-owner-asks-49-million-for-maryland-mansion/?do=findComment&comment=11341370

[Skintime]

10 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The nfl needs losers. So they can have winners.

Guess you don't mind us sucking then. Before you were old enough to remember how good we were, this used to be one of the winning teams. Then Snyder showed up.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

Only hope is that they never get the stadium deal because no state/county in their right minds would have the gall to subject their residents to paying for a multi billion dollar stadium for such a horrid franchise and reviled owner. Then Snyder might just sell because he’s realized that was his only hope of not being anymore 

 

but even then, it’s more likely he just threatens to move.

3 hours ago, KillBill26 said:

I am not a social media fan, have never done it probably never will, but it is very powerful.  Many people have been influenced by the masses rallying behind a certain movement.  However, usually the allegations are far worse than being a terrible NFL owner.  The noise on social media can lead decision makers to act out of fear their reputation will be hurt if they don't act.  In this day and age of cancel culture, I think social media could have an impact on facilitating a change with the front office.  I know there has been a social media presence pushing for Allen's removal and it hasn't happened yet, but with every poor showing, the voices only grow louder and more widespread.  The combination of losing, empty stadiums, declining ticket and merchandise sales, negative media coverage, and the growing number of critical voices on social media will drive change.  I can't believe it hasn't happened yet, but if social media continues to rail on the redskins and Dan and bruce personally, on top of the rest of the mess,  change is inevitable.  It won't force dan to sell, but it will force dan to fire Bruce.  That's a start.

 

Cancel Dan Snyder.  Aim it towards him as well.  And fire Bruce Allen.  And keep shouting it from the rooftops.  

Cancel culture only works against celebrities/entertainment entities/public figures that rely directly on the public for their success 

 

NFL teams are already set because they have those TV deals. No social media campaign or lack of attendance is going to make a real dent in the bottom line 

[NickyJ]

1 hour ago, Skintime said:

Guess you don't mind us sucking then. Before you were old enough to remember how good we were, this used to be one of the winning teams. Then Snyder showed up.

When you shoot the messengers, do you always bring out the sawed off shotgun, or is it just for special occasions?

[The Sisko]

16 minutes ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

Only hope is that they never get the stadium deal because no state/county in their right minds would have the gall to subject their residents to paying for a multi billion dollar stadium for such a horrid franchise and reviled owner. Then Snyder might just sell because he’s realized that was his only hope of not being anymore 

 

but even then, it’s more likely he just threatens to move.

Cancel culture only works against celebrities/entertainment entities/public figures that rely directly on the public for their success 

 

NFL teams are already set because they have those TV deals. No social media campaign or lack of attendance is going to make a real dent in the bottom line 

And who is indirectly paying for those TV deals? Advertisers, that’s who. How long are they going to pay for declining viewership? How long will the other NFL owners be patient with that state of affairs? Stop. Watching. The. Games. Please.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

18 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Sure, but should the 6th largest media market be one of them?  How much money is this going to cost everyone letting a market as large as DC completely lose its fan base?

 

 

I think not much, DC still watches football... the owners make much from TV than ticket sales.... 

8 hours ago, Skintime said:

Guess you don't mind us sucking then. Before you were old enough to remember how good we were, this used to be one of the winning teams. Then Snyder showed up.

 

 

It’s irrelevant. My point is owners are not going to force danny to sell because his team is a loser. Because the NFL needs losers.....

[The Sisko]

23 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

It’s irrelevant. My point is owners are not going to force danny to sell because his team is a loser. Because the NFL needs losers.....

Unless you have some other reason than just retaining an on-field advantage in mind, this idea is silly for a couple of reasons. First, the NFL cares little about the on-field results. Sure, there’s some bragging rights among each other I’d imagine but as with all business people what they really care about is the bottom line and whether some owners are milking the monopoly without pulling their own weight.

Second, other than a few ties, there’s always one winner and one loser per game. The losers (and winners) take care of themselves by virtue of just playing the game so it’s impossible to create more losers. The NFL benefits more when things are more even because people tend to turn off blowouts and not even tune in to non-competitive losing teams like ours. That’s not good for ratings, growing the collective fanbase and by extension ad revenue. That’s one reason they implemented measures to create parity. They’re putting on a show and all they care about is that ever greater numbers of people are watching it on TV so they can monetize that viewership. So if you care, you’ll tune out until things change.

[Skinsinparadise]

Riggo Rag

 

https://riggosrag.com/2019/09/25/redskins-big-picture-improvement-19/6/

No. 1 – Introspect, and adjust accordingly

All this improvement is for naught, if the Redskins front office can’t fulfill the final requirement of the list.

Dan Snyder’s inability to see the bigger picture, or at least acknowledge it, has seemed almost deliberate at times, over the course of his tenure as owner. Former football executive Michael Lombardi said as much on 106.7 The Fan earlier this year, proclaiming that Snyder’s problem is quite simple: He doesn’t know how to build a winning football culture, and by extension, a winning football team.

Twenty years into the game, that’s just embarrassing. It would be too embarrassing for a prideful person to admit defeat, fire Bruce Allen, and start over. And that’s why it’s not going to happen. But Snyder and Allen, as human beings, can learn from their perpetual failure. With open minds, they could, in theory, look back and analyze how, at each step of the way, they impeded uniform progress and growth, and how their failure to construct a unified vision for their franchise cost them time, effort, and talent.

 

Snyder wants to be the hero. He wants to institute the move that saves the franchise he fawned over as a child. The move that saves the franchise he’s ultimately doomed. But like a casual fan, he doesn’t comprehend the gravity of his role, in its entirety. Or he’s at least blind to it. He doesn’t understand that turning around a football franchise takes more effort. It takes more patience. It takes more self-reflection. And it takes more structure. It takes a plan, which is more than what Snyder can offer.

But perhaps the weight of an entire generation of sorrow takes a toll on the Redskins much-maligned owner. Maybe he does use the tail end of 2019 to soul search, and self-evaluate. Maybe he starts to understand how his actions, and the actions of Bruce Allen, have stunted the team’s development and lowered their ceiling. And perhaps, with this new knowledge, he makes the requisite changes, scaling back Bruce Allen’s role as president, while taking on a more open-minded approach as the owner, and implementing a structured plan for the future.

It’s time that Snyder learns that the problem isn’t the coaching carousel. It isn’t the heavy turnover of talent each year. And it isn’t the injuries. The problem is the one thing that’s stayed the same. The problem is Dan Snyder, and if the Redskins want to improve, Dan Snyder needs to be introspective, realize that, and adapt.

[FrFan]

19 hours ago, Boss_Hogg said:

Only thing that's going to get Snyder to sell are multiple #metoo accusations. 

Pulling a Sterling will suffice

9.16.19 Hour 3: Redskins TV Ratings in the Tank

[Skinsinparadise]

59 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

I think not much, DC still watches football... the owners make much from TV than ticket sales.... 

 

 

It’s irrelevant. My point is owners are not going to force danny to sell because his team is a loser. Because the NFL needs losers.....

 

It's very unlikely fellow owners would force a sale.  You'd like have to need something else in the soup.  Like for example I recall reading an article about a questionable political donation that Dan made that might be looked into -- nothing came of it -- but you'd likely need something else pop up that has teeth.

 

The idea that Dan is unpopular with owners could come in to play.   I think the idea that the team can't draw TV ratings and fans in one of the biggest media markets in the country may eventually come into play.   If they can't secure a stadium, that might come into play.  The idea that the team is mocked as dysfunctional and are in the political capitol which is an important city to the NFL may come into play -- that point was featured in the WP articles where they quoted league sources. 

 

My thought isn't really even that they remove Dan.  My thought is the league kicking in and pressuring him to change.  Probably a long shot but what's there to lose?    I don't think it hurts to pile on to this.    If there weren't all those other moving parts then anything done by fans would likely be irrelevant.  But Dan has a lot on his plate as for things being a mess.  And sources in the league have indicated in multiple quotes that they are watching and at least have some concern about it. 

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/11/12/owners-have-their-own-nuclear-option-for-dealing-with-jerry-jones/

A league source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that multiple owners already have been discussing the possibility, which flows from Article VIII of the NFL’s Constitution & Bylaws. Specifically, Section 8.13 authorizes the Commissioner to determine that an owner “has been or is guilty of conduct detrimental to the welfare of the League or professional football.” If the Commissioner believes the available sanction (a $500,000 fine) is “not adequate or sufficient,” the Commissioner may refer the issue to the NFL’s Executive Committee, which has the power to compel “[c]ancellation or forfeiture of the franchise in the League of any member club involved or implicated,” with a directive to sell the team.

 

[FrFan]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

My thought isn't really even that they remove Dan.  My thought is the league kicking in and pressuring him to change.  Probably a long shot but what's there to lose?    I don't think it hurts to pile on to this. 

 

Thanks for this info, but I seriously doubt that. Goodell doesn't even do anything about teams such as the Colts and Dolphins who were or are obviously tanking, so forfeiting of a franchise is clearly unlikely imo.

[88Comrade2000]

Maybe the league can help Dan hire a quality GM. Remember the league did get the Giants to hire , think it was George Young. 

[Skinsinparadise]

46 minutes ago, FrFan said:

Thanks for this info, but I seriously doubt that. Goodell doesn't even do anything about teams such as the Colts and Dolphins who were or are obviously tanking, so forfeiting of a franchise is clearly unlikely imo.

 

Maybe so but my point hasn't been all about selling the team, I flat out said it's very unlikely.   

[Skinsinparadise]

Lol, this dude covering our subject here

 

 

 

[DJHJR86]

37 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Maybe the league can help Dan hire a quality GM. Remember the league did get the Giants to hire , think it was George Young. 

 

The league helped him hire a quality FO guy in Lafemina...and we all know how that turned out.

[JSSkinz]

8 hours ago, The Sisko said:

How long are they going to pay for declining viewership?

Viewership is fine and was up across the board last year.

[Renegade7]

15 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Viewership is fine and was up across the board last year.

 

That was a Thanksgiving game, what you need to be looking at is viewership of Redskins games in the DC area.  We typically arent the most watched game anymore

 

https://thefandc.radio.com/redskins-tv-ratings-are-in-the-toilet

 

It's one thing to say we cant get Dan to sell the team, understandable but are we really in denial of just how bad this really is and why we are having this conversation finally?

[SkinsFTW]

8 hours ago, The Sisko said:

And who is indirectly paying for those TV deals? Advertisers, that’s who. How long are they going to pay for declining viewership? How long will the other NFL owners be patient with that state of affairs? Stop. Watching. The. Games. Please.

 

Or start emailing in bulk all of the Corporate offices of CBS, FOX, ESPN, and major advertisers like Budweiser telling them that you are a huge fan but after 20 years of being fed manure from a imbecile owner your done watching the NFL altogether. No picking another team to follow, no casual watching the game at the bar, etc.

[SkinsFTW]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

He doesn’t understand that turning around a football franchise takes more effort. It takes more patience. It takes more self-reflection. And it takes more structure. It takes a plan, which is more than what Snyder can offer.

 

 

 

DP: Do you have a blueprint for what you're trying to do as an owner?
DS: No. Blueprints are for Harvard MBAs. I dropped out of college. I don't have a five-year plan. There's a five-year budget for the cap purpose, but I don't have a blueprint for almost any of my businesses. Oh, look at that -- beautiful pass. There's Bruce, he's in good shape.

 

http://www.espn.com/talent/danpatrick/s/snyder.html

 

DP is Dan Patrick, DS is Dan Snyder.

[JSSkinz]

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

It's one thing to say we cant get Dan to sell the team, understandable but are we really in denial of just how bad this really is and why we are having this conversation finally?

No, but NFL viewership as a whole is up so if the owners want to carve out the DC ratings and use it as leverage against Dan then Dan can do the same thing by using the Redskins profits that are subsidizing a 1/3rd of the league against them. 

 

IMO, if your gonna go after Dan you need something earth shaking to unseat him. 

[Skinsinparadise]

12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That was a Thanksgiving game, what you need to be looking at is viewership of Redskins games in the DC area.  We typically arent the most watched game anymore

 

https://thefandc.radio.com/redskins-tv-ratings-are-in-the-toilet

 

It's one thing to say we cant get Dan to sell the team, understandable but are we really in denial of just how bad this really is and why we are having this conversation finally?

 

Yep I read somewhere chicago's local rating was about double that of DC for the MNF game.   Something like that for the Dallas game, too.   Yeah nationally as long as the other team has a good market, their ratings will be fine especially when they play Dallas. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

10 hours ago, KillBill26 said:

The combination of losing, empty stadiums, declining ticket and merchandise sales, negative media coverage, and the growing number of critical voices on social media will drive change.  I can't believe it hasn't happened yet, but if social media continues to rail on the redskins and Dan and bruce personally, on top of the rest of the mess,  change is inevitable.  It won't force dan to sell, but it will force dan to fire Bruce.  That's a start.

I disagree. This is a special circumstance.  Because even if Fedex field was completely empty save for the team, the cheerleaders and Larry Michael, Dan Snyder STILL makes a ton of money on every game.  Because of revenue sharing through the TV deals.  The NFL is set up so each of the franchises are basically insulated from any economic hardship.  At least short term.  

 

Economics can force change.  Social Media campaigns typically influence behaviors which effect economics in most cases.  However, that's just really not possible in this case.   

 

Snyder won't make as much money as he could, but he already knows that. He's seen the stadiums, the merchandise sales, the ticket sales, etc.  He knows what's going on.  The problem is that he thinks it's because of bad luck with injuries and not because of anything he's doing, which includes retaining Bruce.

 

Until he realizes that it's not bad luck, there's just no amount of pressure anybody can put on him which is going to really make a difference.  Because it's not hurting him in the wallet.  

 

IF somehow Dan was LOSING money, then the formula could change.  If he was giving out more than he is taking in, then that's a different story.  But with the current NFL CBA and revenue sharing, that's just not going to happen.

The one wildcard is the new stadium.  If he just can't get a deal anywhere, then that might be the catalyst for change.

 

So maybe the social media campaign needs to be targeted at DC, MD and VA policy makers to make sure no public money goes to Dan Snyder.  The problem with that is two fold:

 

1. Once you start that movement, you might not be able to reverse it IF Dan Snyder sees the light and makes changes.

2. If everything fails, and Dan isn't going to sell the team, he might just try and move it, and blame it on the local political environment, etc.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

41 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yep I read somewhere chicago's local rating was about double that of DC for the MNF game.   Something like that for the Dallas game, too.   Yeah nationally as long as the other team has a good market, their ratings will be fine especially when they play Dallas. 

And unless I'm missing something, none of it really matters economically.  Dan's getting his 1/32nd of the TV revenue.  And also if I'm not mistaken, they split the general admin gate with the visitor. Or something.  I'd have to go look it up.  There's some revenue sharing of stadium revenue,  I think.   They get to keep all of the luxury/club/box seat revenue if I'm not mistaken.

 

The way to "win" this is to somehow get Dan to see that this isn't bad luck. And that he needs to figure out how to change things up and do things differently.

 

I'm just not sure Dan cares what we think. He's got an enormous ego, he's already struggling everywhere financially (as much as you can owning an NFL franchise), he sees the other stadiums filled with fans, he sees ours is not filled with our fans, he knows that jersey sales are down, etc.  He KNOWS all of these things.  

 

As long as he believes that it's just losing because of bad luck, and that people don't like Bruce because we're losing because of bad luck, he's just not going to change.

 

It took Vinny hiring Zorn, and then Zorn calling swinging gate twice to get Dan to fire Vinny.  As far as we've gone down the Bruce road, we haven't reached that level of complete stupidity.  That's what it took for Dan to finally realize Vinny needed to go because he "allowed me to hire Jim Zorn." That's an exact quote.

 

[Unbias]

Why would the other owners listen to us? This isn't a Donald Sterling type situation where something an owner does personally shed negative attention on the league. 

 

Besides, they want to win and a Snyder run team only makes winning that much easier. It's nice to know there's one less team to complete with.