Redskins Fan Revolt Thread

[Bang]

lol.. and there literally isn't anything you can do about it.

In or out.

 

Tell me the last time the NFL forced an owner to sell for losing fans.
 Nobody forced Mike Brown to sell his Bengals even though everyone in the owner's room knew he didn't care, and only cared about getting his share of collective bargaining. The man outright refused to try and no one forced him out of anything.

what are these options for non-original families, and where are these shareholders?

 

It'd be awesome if they did, but don't hold your breath.

 

 

~Bang

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Kosher Ham said:

If the two of you want clarity, that's easy, and it is certainly not my style to be cute or curt. 

 

If you are not a fan of the name or the team...why are you here? 

Self punishment? ignorance? or simply to troll and agitate? 

 

 

 

This isnt a protest against the team, a protest against the owner.  

 

Quote

 

The owner cares a lot more than most of you realize. Is he perfect? Hell no. He does however, open up every option to make this team better. 

 

Think about it. It's not vague or cute, not even snarky. 

 

I recommend reading the articles that I posted in the stadium thread (which I posted again into the twitter account) you feel that way.  The closest thing to a 5 year plan he has is not going over the cap, so he hasnt opened every option because he wont touch the one that interferes with him doing whatever he wants to do. 

 

This is the second time the front office has drafted a first round QB the coach didnt want in 7 years, and huge factor in them getting fired, what successful football organization does that?  The Tomlin trade isnt the right thing to do when you dont have a second round draft pick, that's a splashy move someone does to say they put all options on the table to make their fans happy.  Does that sound like something the Patriots would do?

23 minutes ago, Bang said:

lol.. and there literally isn't anything you can do about it.

In or out.

 

Tell me the last time the NFL forced an owner to sell for losing fans.
 

 

If human history was predicated on

Something already happening before trying to do it like a working example, it would look a helluva lot different.

[Bang]

Precedent is set. Team loses fanbase, team moves.

I'd lay my money on that being more likely than forcing him to do anything.
And if the NFL would ever step in, that would be when. But they didn't step in for anyone else when a team wanted to move.

 

~Bang

[tshile]

35 minutes ago, Bang said:

lol.. and there literally isn't anything you can do about it.

In or out.

 

Pretty simpletonesque view you got here.

 

The problem is these aren't new arguments. They've been going on for years. And it's always the same type of people trying to dictate what it means to be a true fan with these garbage arguments.

 

in or out. Yeah, sure, keep fighting the good fight here Bang. 

 

35 minutes ago, Bang said:

 Nobody forced Mike Brown to sell his Bengals 

 

Yeah? That's one view. Who you know that works in league offices? Anyone?

 

35 minutes ago, Bang said:

what are these options for non-original families, and where are these shareholders?

 

Oh what, you don't know everything about this topic? Color me surprised.

 

As the tv ratings fall, the stadium sits empty, etc, at least redskins brass can count on Bang of ES fame still being In.

[Bang]

Save your ****ing condescension. Seriously, want to talk to me like i'm an asshole? **** that.

So YES, show me one time where the NFL ever showed they might do anything ever to any of them and i might have a better view of the possible outcome. They ran out the Panthers owner for racial epithets, and he was already in sales mode. Anyone else? Leonard tose was forced to sell the Eagles to pay off gambling debts, but to my knowledge the NFL had nothing to do with forcing it. 
SHOW ME these provisions. You said they exist, i asked to be shown, you threw insults.
boycott all you want. The typical response when it causes a dent is the team moves.

fans attacking fans. 
is this rock bottom now? 

 

 

~Bang

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

19 minutes ago, Bang said:

Precedent is set. Team loses fanbase, team moves.

I'd lay my money on that being more likely than forcing him to do anything.
And if the NFL would ever step in, that would be when. But they didn't step in for anyone else when a team wanted to move.

 

~Bang

 

This is the only outcome of a fan “boycott”.  A boycott which, as others have confirmed, has been occurring for more than a decade.

 

The whole “sell the team” thing is a sports media, hot take pipe dream...and surely a very profitable pipe dream at that.  Dave McKenna thanks you for all the support!

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, Bang said:

Save your ****ing condescension. Seriously, want to talk to me like i'm an asshole? **** that.

 

Hey, you're the one telling us to be in or out.

 

If you can't handle it, don't dish it out. Be a big boy.

[Bang]

If empty seats forced sales, half the league would be in trouble. 
I think the league has reached a saturation / price point.  It simply isn't worth the price any more for most fans of most teams. Some sell out every week, but not near as many as they'd like us to believe anymore.

 it isn't like it used to be. The home experience is often better than the stadium experience, and despite those empty seats, the NFL is raking in scads of money. They stopped marketing to the hardcore hometown fan a long time ago. The NFL is very interested in attracting the fringe market, the casual fan who is more interested in his fantasy football players than his team, if he even has one.

 

~Bang

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Hey, you're the one telling us to be in or out.

 

If you can't handle it, don't dish it out. Be a big boy.

You seriously took that as a PERSONAL shot?

it's a simple statement of fact, you have the choice. In or out.

If you boycott, you're choosing the OUT. Nobody is stopping you. 

You think you're doing something for change, but realistically all you are doing is voluntarily deciding to not support the team. If you refuse to watch, to participate in any way, i don't know what else you can call it. 

Not sure why that is so ****ing insulting to you "big boy".

 

You have a nice day.

 

~Bang

 

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

This is the only outcome of a fan “boycott”.  A boycott which, as others have confirmed, has been occurring for more than a decade.

 

The whole “sell the team” thing is a sports media, hot take pipe dream...and surely a very profitable pipe dream at that.  Dave McKenna thanks you for all the support!

Not sure where he'd move to. Is there anywhere with an appetite for the Dan Snyder Washington Redskins? We're one of, if not the, laughtinstock of all pro sports. I'm sure we could find a few we're keeping company with.

 

And I highly doubt the NFL would leave the Washington DC market teamless, but the MLB did so it's always possible. So moving the team has a solid chance of actually being a great solution. The issue is would we retain the name/history or would it move. Ravens/Browns situation suggests it could go either way, but I highly doubt Snyder would give up the team identity (though it would certainly provide a 'solution' to the team name 'issue' if someone was interested in that.)

 

I'd be curious the investor contracts and what it would mean if Snyder was presiding over a financial failure. We can't even tell how close to that he is, we see things that suggest there's a money problem but obviously we have no way of knowing. But you're not going to get him to sell the team without the NFL doing something about it, or the investors having a way to do something about it. 

 

There's always a chance he figures it out. As you've posted before, JKC was not well regarded until he was... I'm actually willing to believe he's been trying to figure it out, and just made a terrible mistake with Bruce Allen. It's hard to know what is Snyder meddling vs Allen doing it on his own.

[tshile]

12 minutes ago, Bang said:

You seriously took that as a PERSONAL shot?

it's a simple statement of fact, you have the choice. In or out.

If you boycott, you're choosing the OUT. Nobody is stopping you. 

You think you're doing something for change, but realistically all you are doing is voluntarily deciding to not support the team. If you refuse to watch, to participate in any way, i don't know what else you can call it. 

Not sure why that is so ****ing insulting to you "big boy".

 

You have a nice day.

 

No, I didn't take it as a personal shot. I'm not actually doing anything. All I did was suggest that if someone really wanted to organize something, they need to go after corporate sponsors. They need to stop reading redskins articles, listening to redskins radio shows/segments, and following redskins beat reporters. You need to make it unappealing for the people that are funneling money to the team (which, aside from league-level TV deals, is sponsorships and merchandise, all of which are driven by being in the public conversation via media and marketing)

 

I took it as a fanboi telling people who are disgruntled to the point of wanting to do something, which is completely justified, to get out if they can't figure out how to enjoy what this team has become.

 

Which is low rent bull****. So you got called on it. Now you want to play the victim card cause you're upset someone called you on such simpleton bull****.

 

Stay IN bang. Fight the good fight. Everyone's impressed.

[Bang]

Article 8 of the NFL's by-laws provides for owners to be able to force an owner to sell if the 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.

 

the last time this even came up was when Jerry Jones threatened to sue the league over Goodell's treatment of Zeke Elliot's suspension, and it never came up outside of a few columnists suggesting they could.

So long as Snyder makes his payments into the collective bargaining pool, how is anyone going to enforce this?
"We dcon't like his GM or him" does not fit into any ability by the league to throw him out.

The only way this could be possible IMO is if he threatens to move, and the NFL decides it is more important to have a team in DC...  which has been shown by other sports leagues to not really matter.

 

Pie in the sky.

 

~Bang

[Renegade7]

26 minutes ago, Bang said:

Precedent is set. Team loses fanbase, team moves.

I'd lay my money on that being more likely than forcing him to do anything.
And if the NFL would ever step in, that would be when. But they didn't step in for anyone else when a team wanted to move.

 

~Bang

 

Is that going to work when the stadium fills up with other teams fans to maintain ticket sales?  I agree NFL would block a move, theyve done that before.  They also got involved with the Giants owners were arguing so much about what to do next in the late 70s because it looked like the whole thing was about to fly apart.  If the NFL could step in as a consultant for Dan since he doesnt know what hes doing even picking who to put in charge, that is similar that what Rozell did to get the Giants owners to start having adult conversations again.

[Bang]

Just now, tshile said:

 

No, I didn't take it as a personal shot. I'm not actually doing anything. All I did was suggest that if someone really wanted to organize something, they need to go after corporate sponsors. They need to stop reading redskins articles, listening to redskins radio shows/segments, and following redskins beat reporters. You need to make it unappealing for the people that are funneling money to the team (which, aside from league-level TV deals, is sponsorships and merchandise, all of which are driven by being in the public conversation via media and marketing)

 

I took it as a fanboi telling people who are disgruntled to the point of wanting to do something, which is completely justified, to get out if they can't figure out how to enjoy what this team has become.

 

Which is low rent bull****. So you got called on it. Now you want to play the victim card cause you're upset someone had to gall to call you on such simpleton bull****.

 

Stay IN bang. Fight the good fight. Everyone's impressed.

nobody is playing any victim card, and you sound like an ass. 

You took it like a pantywaist personalizing things. I don't rightly give a **** who is in or out.. and i don't care if anyone gets out or stays in.. it's simply the state of being. You either are, or not.

 

By the way i went and looked up the thing i asked you about so you could spend more time worrying about me. Posted it up abover.
Good luck with all that.

This is my stance. From a realistic look, it's pie in the sky.

Period.

 

~Bang

[Renegade7]

20 minutes ago, Bang said:

fans attacking fans. 
is this rock bottom now? 

 

~Bang

 

 

20 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

The whole “sell the team” thing is a sports media, hot take pipe dream...and surely a very profitable pipe dream at that.  Dave McKenna thanks you for all the support!

 

If we can agree Dan is the primary problem here, this should not be turning into a fan civil war.

[nonniey]

42 minutes ago, Bang said:

Precedent is set. Team loses fanbase, team moves.

I'd lay my money on that being more likely than forcing him to do anything.
And if the NFL would ever step in, that would be when. But they didn't step in for anyone else when a team wanted to move.

 

~Bang

Let them move but force them to move like the Browns did when they moved to Baltimore. The name, records, trophies remain with Washington. (Oh and BTW the fans probably will have influence over any new stadium deals). I can see the possibility of fans twisting the arms of local governments to prevent government support of a new Stadium for Dan.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Bang said:

nobody is playing any victim card, and you sound like an ass. 

You took it like a pantywaist personalizing things. I don't rightly give a **** who is in or out.. and i don't care if anyone gets out or stays in.. it's simply the state of being. You either are, or not.

 

By the way i went and looked up the thing i asked you about so you could spend more time worrying about me. Posted it up abover.
Good luck with all that.

This is my stance. From a realistic look, it's pie in the sky.

Period.

 

~Bang

 

Yeah you seem to have a struggle with reading what you posted but that's fine.

 

I'm glad I sound like an ass to you. Don't get on your soap box if you can't handle it. 

 

You never answerd my question, who do you know in the league office that gives you such confidence in the innerworkings of how things have moved around the last few decades?

 

I'm guessing no one, and you're talking out your ass. Seems like an easy guess.

[Bang]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

Is that going to work when the stadium fills up with other teams fans to maintain ticket sales?  I agree NFL would block a move, theyve done that before.  They also got involved with the Giants owners were arguing so much about what to do next in the late 70s because it looked like the whole thing was about to fly apart.  If the NFL could step in as a consultant for Dan since he doesnt know what hes doing even picking who to put in charge, that is similar that what Rozell did to get the Giants owners to start having adult conversations again.

It already is..  i said in my first post,  i think Snyder through one of his companies actually markets in opposing cities.. bus trips, travel packages.  to me it would not be a stretch to imagine him creating a travel company and selling this way since he has poisoned the well here. 
that many Pats fans..   i know they likely have one of the largest bandwagon base out there, but that many,, would you be surprised to find out he sold ticket blocks in Boston or other places? Bruce said it's on us for selling tickets.. which i am sure some are guilty of,  but not THAT many.

 

I think the NFL did try to step in by making the Redskins hire Brian Lafemina..  suddenly our mythical 'waiting list' disappeared and he started to try and sell tickets, among other things, true reach out to the fasnbase began, IMO.. at least from the marketing perspective.. 
he got fired, and the NFL hasn't done anything else that we know of.

One of our games, i want to say it was the NE game,, the announcers DID say the NFL was concerned..  but concerned to the point of unprecedented action to a team still dropping it's money in.. I very much doubt it. 

 

FTR, I haven't bought a ticket to see a game since 2007. AND the reason why is precisely Snyder. Not for losing,, that happens.. bu the incompetence, the clinging to failed GMs, the greed on gameday, I'm just not spending it.  I have my ballcap, and I am due for another one, i do like that grey one they have been wearing on the sidelines with the name in the burgundy circle.
But i buy no gear, no ts, no sweats, no fan cave full of expensive memorabilia.. nothing like that.
I watch on TV, and TV revenue is going up and up, and is not concerned with a single team's ratings when it is the entire NFL they look at. Sunday viewing is high, and just not watching the Redskins won't matter. If you somehow got the whole city to not watch th Redskins game, they 'd watch another game or they'd watch Red Zone., and the overrall TV numbers would stay high.

 

~Bang

 

 

12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

If we can agree Dan is the primary problem here, this should not be turning into a fan civil war.

Of course he is. 100%

 

~Bang

[Bang]

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Yeah you seem to have a struggle with reading what you posted but that's fine.

 

I'm glad I sound like an ass to you. Don't get on your soap box if you can't handle it. 

 

You never answerd my question, who do you know in the league office that gives you such confidence in the innerworkings of how things have moved around the last few decades?

 

I'm guessing no one, and you're talking out your ass. Seems like an easy guess.

What the **** is your problem? You have way overstepped here, saw much more than was there.

I was busy answering the question i asked you about the possible provisions the NFL has that you chose to use as a base to launch your spit. (By the way,, no mention for " original families"
I don't need to know anyone to know that they have never done anything like what the boycott wants to force. Ever.
That is what gives me confidence. They have NEVER done anything like that.

 

Realism. That's all.

Have a nice day.

~Bang

[Sticksboi05]

On 10/14/2019 at 6:07 PM, TryTheBeal! said:

On a November 3, 2008 I went to FedEx Field to watch a 6-2 Redskins team play the Pittsburgh Steelers.  I’d say there were 40,000 Steeler fans in attendance...if not more.  This was only 9 years into Snyder’s tenure as owner.

 

So what Im saying is, y’all been boycotting for well over a decade now.  And all it’s done is hurt the team on and off the field and make most of you generally miserable.

 

As for myself, I’ve been boycotting beltway sports media, hot-take clowns for the last 5 years.  And the good times just keep on rolling in my life.  

 

Choose your path wisely, friends.

 

I get what you're trying to say but the media is not the problem, most people (not saying you) have no concept of how reporting works or the difference between a reporter and a columnist.

 

We have entered a "say something controversial" era of media for everything but that's our fault as a society for rewarding loudmouths. What's happening here is not hot take-y, this is a large sample size with demonstrable evidence and results. What is written about Bruce and Dan is quite provable and accurate.

 

But you are right - the most we can do is just not go to games and not buy merchandise. Hope that seeing the stadium full of away fans embarrasses Dan and if not, oh well. I'm apathetic, hell I forgot to root against Dallas last week that's how little they've made me care with the incompetence and mediocrity.

 

But we have teams playing for championships in this city, in CONSECUTIVE years. Who gives a **** about the football team?

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Bang said:

I don't need to know anyone

That’s what I thought. good deal. 
 

[Elessar78]

I gave up on the team close to ten years ago now. Maybe longer. Getting rid of anyone but Dan Snyder won't change a thing. He IS the institutional problem. 

[Bang]

Continuing my quest to know..  the NFL By Laws:

https://onlabor.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/co_.pdf
 

I am unable to copy the text from it.
Section 3 deals with membership.
Section 3.7: Involuntary Termination.
There are 3 things here. One is bankruptcy. One is if the team disbands during the season, and the final way they can involuntarily cancel a member is if he permanently disbands his business that holds the team.

Now, ten or so years (maybe more) ago there were reports Snyder was behind on his payments for the team, that he in effect borrowed enough from the other owners to get the cash to pay in. i do not know if they were ever corroborated, and i have never heard anything since on the subject.  Given the climate and how it is years old, i would think someone may have dug this info up, but I don't know if anyone has. You'd think it'd be huge news given how much dan is universally hated.  IF that was there, then there's leverage, but again, it's on them to decide when enough is enough. 

dan has to lose it on his own, and collective bargaining is in place to minimize the chance of that ever happening. (This is why I bought up the Bengals up above .. they actively did not try to be any better for over a decade, and just suckled off the teat knowing the NFL wouldn't force Brown out.  Jerry Jones stood up at the table and screamed at him over it at the owner's meetings once.. i think it was when Jones was changing his stadium soda sponsor to Pepsi against the "official" sponsor Coke...   and Brown still sits there. )

Section 8.13.. on Commissioner powers. i pasted this in another post above. 
Basically it boils down to gross misconduct deemed to be detrimental to the league, and the Commissioner can enter into the proceedings to throw someone out. 
I don't see where Dan has done anything to warrant that, but even if he did, years of litigation.
It would take an extraordinary situation to get the owners to throw him out. sexual misconduct, racial insensitivity.. something big and public.

Any hackers want to volunteer?

~Bang

14 minutes ago, tshile said:

That’s what I thought. good deal. 
 

I admit i expected better than this level of bull****.

 

is this your first day on the internet?

 

~Bang

40 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Let them move but force them to move like the Browns did when they moved to Baltimore. The name, records, trophies remain with Washington. (Oh and BTW the fans probably will have influence over any new stadium deals). I can see the possibility of fans twisting the arms of local governments to prevent government support of a new Stadium for Dan.

i really don't see Dan moving the team for the record.. I can easily picture him in his suite old and angry, but never having changed a thing because he can't listen to anyone. Little man syndrome seems large with him.
However, i can see him eventually doing the name change to get the major PR hug it would bring.

Desperate people and all

 

~Bang

[nonniey]

11 minutes ago, Bang said:

Continuing my quest to know..  the NFL By Laws:

https://onlabor.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/co_.pdf
 

I am unable to copy the text from it.
Section 3 deals with membership.
Section 3.7: Involuntary Termination.
There are 3 things here. One is bankruptcy. One is if the team disbands during the season, and the final way they can involuntarily cancel a member is if he permanently disbands his business that holds the team.

Now, ten or so years (maybe more) ago there were reports Snyder was behind on his payments for the team, that he in effect borrowed enough from the other owners to get the cash to pay in. i do not know if they were ever corroborated, and i have never heard anything since on the subject.  Given the climate and how it is years old, i would think someone may have dug this info up, but I don't know if anyone has. You'd think it'd be huge news given how much dan is universally hated.  IF that was there, then there's leverage, but again, it's on them to decide when enough is enough. 

dan has to lose it on his own, and collective bargaining is in place to minimize the chance of that ever happening. (This is why I bought up the Bengals up above .. they actively did not try to be any better for over a decade, and just suckled off the teat knowing the NFL wouldn't force Brown out.  Jerry Jones stood up at the table and screamed at him over it at the owner's meetings once.. i think it was when Jones was changing his stadium soda sponsor to Pepsi against the "official" sponsor Coke...   and Brown still sits there. )

Section 8.13.. on Commissioner powers. i pasted this in another post above. 
Basically it boils down to gross misconduct deemed to be detrimental to the league, and the Commissioner can enter into the proceedings to throw someone out. 
I don't see where Dan has done anything to warrant that, but even if he did, years of litigation.
It would take an extraordinary situation to get the owners to throw him out. sexual misconduct, racial insensitivity.. something big and public.

Any hackers want to volunteer?

~Bang

I admit i expected better than this level of bull****.

 

is this your first day on the internet?

 

~Bang

i really don't see Dan moving the team for the record.. I can easily picture him in his suite old and angry, but never having changed a thing because he can't listen to anyone. Little man syndrome seems large with him.
However, i can see him eventually doing the name change to get the major PR hug it would bring.

Desperate people and all

 

~Bang

I agree about not moving due to the teams record but I definitely can see him (and the NFL allowing him) moving the team if the Washington metropolitan area denies him a new stadium.  Once that occurs the area can negotiate with the broader NFL over a new stadium and team to arrive and take the Redskin name, records and history similar to what the Browns did. (Of course this would be sometime in the 2030s).

[tshile]

20 minutes ago, Bang said:

I admit i expected better than this level of bull****.

Yet I didn't expect any better from you. 

 

20 minutes ago, Bang said:

is this your first day on the internet?

 

You caught me ☺️

16 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I agree about not moving due to the teams record but I definitely can see him (and the NFL allowing him) moving the team if the Washington metropolitan area denies him a new stadium.  Once that occurs the area can negotiate with the broader NFL over a new stadium and team to arrive and take the Redskin name, records and history similar to what the Browns did. (Of course this would be sometime in the 2030s).

i don't see snyder going through a team move where he loses the team name/etc. 

 

 

[nonniey]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

i don't see snyder going through a team move where he loses the team name/etc. 

 

 

That is where the NFL gets involved remember they have to approve a move and if the Metro area makes it clear that they will deal with the NFL for a new stadium under conditions similar to how the the Cleveland franchise moved to Baltimore I can see the history and name being left with the city.