A New Start! (the Reboot) The Front Office, Ownership, & Coaching Staff Thread

[Burgold]

Okay, just read the article. It's plenty bad. One thing I think about is that the Redskins' lawyers and the Post's lawyers have been wrangling for a week over this. It makes me wonder how much had to be cut. Are we reading the worst or the most gentle of the misdeeds? I have a feeling this is a somewhat sanitized piece. The Post certainly was very careful in how it proceeded. I know it's not fair to judge the team one what hasn't been written or based on speculations about what's been left out, but I also feel sure that there is more. More and worse. And frankly, what was published was bad enough.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I think one thing that may diminish the power of the story are the text messages that accompanied the story. Too many will read them and think the women on the other end were not bothered by the sexual comments and actually found them innocent at the time. I think we all know that you can't easily determine someone's tone and meaning from reading their texts--for example, my brother was always insanely boring and dry in his texts for like the first 3 years after getting an iPhone, didn't fit his personality at all...I used to think he was mad at me when I read them. So even if it "seems" like the women were responding in a way that conveyed they were ok with the comments being said to them, I don't doubt them at all when they say they actually weren't. But that won't stop people from reading them and thinking "They don't sound traumatized to me."

Edited July 17, 2020 by Califan007

[Skinsinparadise]

Washington has engaged outside counsel, not the NFL. Outside counsel always has a duty to outside counsel’s client. Here, outside counsel’s client is Washington. More specifically, the client is Snyder. Outside counsel undoubtedly will not make findings that include, for example, placing significant blame on Snyder for creating, tolerating, encouraging, and/or failing to rectify a toxic culture that resulted in these allegations.

 

Amazingly, the league has decided both to allow and to embrace this approach. Did the Saints get to hire their own lawyer to investigate the bounty scandal? Did the Dolphins get to hire their own lawyer to investigate the Richie Incognito/Jonathan Martin situation? Did the Patriots get to hire their own lawyer to investigate the Tom Brady air-pressure allegations? Far more relevant to the current situation, did the Panthers get to hire their own lawyer to investigate the allegations of misconduct that eventually forced team founder Jerry Richardson to sell?

 

The table in this case already is set for the outside counsel to find Snyder blameless, primarily because none of the 15 former female employees made accusations against him. Yes, it may take some smart lawyering to insulate Snyder without making him look like a nincompoop for not knowing what was happening under his nose, but he has hired a smart lawyer.

 

Tied closely to whether the lawyer hired by Snyder will conclude that Snyder has significant responsibility for the workplace environment in the workplace he owns comes the question of whether and to what extent the investigation will feature transparency. If/when (when) the league and/or the team decide to provide little or nothing by way of details because the situation deals with “personnel matters,” there will be no way to check outside counsel’s work in order to determine whether a fair, even-handed investigation and analysis occurred as it relates to Snyder’s role, responsibility, and accountability.

But the answer already is known. Washington, not the NFL, has hired outside counsel. The NFL has accepted and endorsed that approach. The chances of Snyder himself ultimately being responsible for anything that happened during his 21 years of owning the team are, at this point, very small.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/07/17/nfl-plans-to-defer-to-the-lawyer-daniel-snyder-has-hired/

[Est.1974]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yeah it hit me that if you are trying to get a story out and you are being threatened perhaps with lawsuits, etc.  They might have held back on other stuff that they want to vet further.

 

Heck it's also a good tactic to have two different stories, two different legs. 

 

I got no clue if this is the case here.  But I'd bet there is another story perhaps in the offing. 

There has most definitely been a third party influence on this story.

 

The severity of the story shouldn’t be underestimated. It’s disgusting. However, and sadly, that behaviour doesn’t really surprise me. I’m not shocked. Again, I’m not condoning it, I’m just not shocked that it’s been going on. Some of the individuals maybe, but as a base culture, yep I can see that happening even without reading this report.

 

Something doesn’t add up though. Power, protection, maybe the league are nervous and closed ranks in some capacity. Some BS somewhere. Maybe the lid is being put on the other stuff by the league. Whole thing is a corrupt boys club, right??? It’s a bit odd to me.

 

Strangely, I think Dan has an ally in Rivera. His statement, including the comment re his daughter, is a perfect opening defence. We’ve been well prepared for this....

 

 

[JMUSkins]

2 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Sure, but not by having to turn off the tv or not watch a game. Again, you can. That’s fine. I, however, won’t. If that makes me not an “actual fan”, well, guess I’m not an actual fan then 😑

Since you care so deeply, I will bestow the title of “Real Fan For Life” upon you. Only you! Lol...

[DJHJR86]

There is more to this story.  There is a reason why the story seemingly took forever to publish.  

[KillBill26]

24 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

My girlfriend said it this morning, I agree...she said maybe this is the tip of the iceberg, maybe the Post was just reporting all that they could at the time.  Maybe there's more to follow.

 

If anything, maybe it helps others strike up some courage to come forward to speak up about whatever else Danny has done.  

 

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I got no clue if this is the case here.  But I'd bet there is another story perhaps in the offing. 

The author Will Hobson said in sports center last night that there are no other related articles planned now, but that his inbox filled up yesterday.

 

As SS pointed out, I would think there would be others who add information to the original report.  I would assume one of the hardest parts of coming forward would be feeling alone and vulnerable when you make those accusations, but maybe when woman see 15 others are claiming similar mistreatment, maybe that empowers them to open up.  And hopefully these women are all able to share their stories eventually without penalties from the NDA.  That would obviously open the floodgates for new info.

Edited July 17, 2020 by KillBill26

[spjunkies]

7 minutes ago, veteranskinsfan said:

If more damaging stories come out about the Redskins management the league will have to look at an exit strategy to get Snyder out.

Most people think he either stays or goes but maybe there is a third option.  What if the owners meet with Snyder and say we are going to make

you an offer you cannot refuse.  You will become a minority owner of the team and a new majority owner will take over running the team and this

person will own 60% of the team and if you want to own 40% you can or you can just sell your ownership stake to someone else and just leave the team.

 

 

 

 

His ego would never accept that. 

[bakedtater1]

3 minutes ago, JMUSkins said:

Since you care so deeply, I will bestow the title of “Real Fan For Life” upon you. Only you! Lol...

Apparently you haven't seen much of me around...and why do you still have an account here?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

Okay, just read the article. It's plenty bad. One thing I think about is that the Redskins' lawyers and the Post's lawyers have been wrangling for a week over this. It makes me wonder how much had to be cut. Are we reading the worst or the most gentle of the misdeeds? I have a feeling this is a somewhat sanitized piece. The Post certainly was very careful in how it proceeded. I know it's not fair to judge the team one what hasn't been written or based on speculations about what's been left out, but I also feel sure that there is more. More and worse. And frankly, what was published was bad enough.

 

This isn't aimed at you, I'm just using your post as a jumping off point:

 

To me, some of this "Redskins lawyers squashed the more damning parts of the story" comes across as people want to still believe the more sensational rumors and speculations, so they're coming up with reasons why the article didn't mention any of the juicier stuff they were expecting/hoping for. For example, why do we talk as if it's been verified that the Skins attorneys and the WP attorneys were spending all week arguing back and forth about what will be allowed in the article? Was that actually verified somewhere, or were the tweets from others promising the article would be dropping Monday causing people to try and find a reason why it didn't?

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, DJHJR86 said:

There is more to this story.  There is a reason why the story seemingly took forever to publish.  

 

My gut is I think there is a good chance of that.

 

Arguably if the goal is to get Dan to sell a sequel to that story might be stronger to that cause then it all coming out in one fell swoop.

 

Also, I do like the media shaming the NFL for allowing the Redskins to do their own investigation.

 

Goodell is notorious to be often about reacting to outside pressure. 

[evmiii]

You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility.  If Dan was an employee he would most certainly be fired, but he's not.  Unless this is truly just the tip of the proverbial ice burg, Dan will pay his fine and ride this wave out.  Owners do not want to set precedents that make it easier to get rid of themselves.

 

I'm still a little confused, what's changed since Bruce was fired?  We had damn good culture back then.

[DJHJR86]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My gut is I think there is a good chance of that.

 

Arguably if the goal is to get Dan to sell a sequel to that story might be stronger to that cause then it all coming out in one fell swoop.

 

Also, I do like the media shaming the NFL for allowing the Redskins to do their own investigation.

 

Goodell is notorious to be often about reacting to outside pressure. 

 

It's will be insane to me if the NFL doesn't step in and take over the investigation.  They have to.  

[Skinsinparadise]

From my experience, and I have plenty with reporters and at times with stories that are juicy about my clients, if anything I find actual reporters to play it conservative.  Bloggers-talking heads are typically the reverse. 

 

For example, I had one client who got embroiled in a sensational story and I talked to a reporter off the record about it.  They had so much detail about it, I was stunned.  I was called because they were going to throw me in the mix of the story (which they did)  not because I did anything wrong but because they wanted to report a narrative that I had a small part of.  So they gave me a chance to add my own quote. 

 

The upshot was maybe 50% of what they knew made the cut.   Weeks later more of it made it into a new story.

 

I can think of other examples like that.  And as i mentioned yesterday when you get lawyers involved from my experience the participants get more conservative.  That isn't because otherwise you'd put something out that isn't true (in my case it's not as a reporter but it's in the context of a campaign) but because 98% certain isn't enough, you got to be 100%.  and also on the stuff you are 100% sure about, you are covered more by playing it down somewhat with modifiers than playing it up.  

Edited July 17, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

To me, some of this "Redskins lawyers squashed the more damning parts of the story" comes across as people want to still believe the more sensational rumors and speculations, so they're coming up with reasons why the article didn't mention any of the juicier stuff they were expecting/hoping for. For example, why do we talk as if it's been verified that the Skins attorneys and the WP attorneys were spending all week arguing back and forth about what will be allowed in the article? Was that actually verified somewhere, or were the tweets from others promising the article would be dropping Monday causing people to try and find a reason why it didn't?

 

It's not necessarily "wanting to believe" as it is that it makes sense.  I'd imagine most of the truly outlandish rumors were just that - outlandish rumors.  But the fact that they say 15 ex employees and only one will put their name on it most likely prevents the report from being as juicy as it could be.  Add to that lawyers getting involved - I mean, why wouldn't they?  Perhaps there is nothing more to see here, but I think it's naive to think Dan didn't get his lawyers involved in this.

[Panninho]

 

Never heard of the Daily Caller, curious what comes out of this. Ah apparently some right-wing news outlet founded by Tucker Carlson. Well, not really getting my hopes up then.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Panninho

[Riggo#44]

9 hours ago, spjunkies said:

Fans: "Well, this isn't great but I don't see why Dan should be tossed for only allowing 15 harassment cases under his watch. Oh, that cheerleader thing was 3 years ago, that doesn't matter anymore"

 

I would LOVE if they kicked him out over this, problem is, they won't. They way he has run this organization is horrid--but it's not enough. They won't kick him out over this, because it opens the door for other owners to be kicked out over something like this. If this was any other company, you'd think there would be a class action suit, or some kind of legal action. But since they have those shady NDAs, nothing will happen.

[tshile]

13 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

There is more to this story.  There is a reason why the story seemingly took forever to publish.  

well and more important the WP releasing their article then allows all the other major media people to jump on it and start with their own reporting

 

which means the number of targets for Snyder et al to go after to squash things via lawyers grows.

 

and it means reporters will feel more protected to write certain things. 
 

so the more to the story may trickle out over weeks as this transforms from 2 WaPo journalists doing an investigative report, into every media outlet looking into it because there just isn’t much else going on and the metoo movement has gained traction as something that gets a lot of attention now. 
 

the WaPo may have just opened the flood gates and we’ll see much more. 
 

Also possible this is the end of the story and the rest of it is about savvy business protection tactics and a general public with a short memory and a fanbase willing to forget inconvenient facts about their favorite sports team. 

[Dissident2]

8 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

So even if it "seems" like the women were responding in a way that conveyed they were ok with the comments being said to them, I don't doubt them at all when they say they actually weren't. But that won't stop people from reading them and thinking "They don't sound traumatized to me."

 

I think in the Richard Mann texts especially, you can easily read between the lines re: the woman's reaction. Sure, she "lol"s a couple times when he talks about her breasts, but when he says TWICE that he "wants to" and "is going to" grab her butt, she explicitly says, "No" and "nope." The creep (married with kids) then goes on to say, "Come on, that's innocent."

 

Being "traumatized" in these instances -- when someone you know, maybe respect and on whom your job may depend -- doesn't have to (and doesn't usually) equate to someone immediately reacting in shock and horror to a comment like this. This is the type of reaction that's absolutely commonplace in these situations. Anyone (speaking in generalities) who would read that, consider the scenario and then come back with, "Sounds like she liked it to me" isn't paying attention. 

[SkinsFanPA]

57 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

Don't forget to put on your pink in October to show how much you care about females. 

 

What a joke!

 

Actually, that's just to show how much we love boobies!

 

(I kid, sort of...but your point has some truth to it.)

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[psu2008]

I am stupid and still have a few years left on my club seat contract. Wonder if they will let me out of it now, or if they will try to sue like they did to a bunch of people 10-15 years ago.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

It's not necessarily "wanting to believe" as it is that it makes sense.  I'd imagine most of the truly outlandish rumors were just that - outlandish rumors.  But the fact that they say 15 ex employees and only one will put their name on it most likely prevents the report from being as juicy as it could be.  Add to that lawyers getting involved - I mean, why wouldn't they?  Perhaps there is nothing more to see here, but I think it's naive to think Dan didn't get his lawyers involved in this.

 

 

How common is it for a major news publication to give their entire article ahead of time to the lawyers of the article's subject? zi know they will try and get the subject to comment for the article ahead of time, but to go over it and edit it with the subject's lawyers?...That doesn't seem realistic. Now, could the Skins' lawyers send communication ahead of time threatening legal action if (fill in the blank)? Sure. But in my eyes that's significantly different than giving the Redskins editing powers over the story.

[MisterPinstripe]

25 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

I think one thing that may diminish the power of the story are the text messages that accompanied the story. Too many will read them and think the women on the other end were not bothered by the sexual comments and actually found them innocent at the time. I think we all know that you can't easily determine someone's tone and meaning from reading their texts--for example, my brother was always insanely boring and dry in his texts for like the first 3 years after getting an iPhone, didn't fit his personality at all...I used to think he was mad at me when I read them. So even if it "seems" like the women were responding in a way that conveyed they were ok with the comments being said to them, I don't doubt them at all when they say they actually weren't. But that won't stop people from reading them and thinking "They don't sound traumatized to me."

I dont think I read them all, but the immediate impression I got from the ones I read were that they were playing along to find out more information about what was going on and trying not to act really offended. Its what I would do when getting texts like that, suck more info from the person before they get defensive so I am better aware of the situation.

 

I read those texts though and I am just blown away by the mentality. Not only do these guys have the mentality of talking about these women, their coworkers, like that. But they also think its cool to, that the women will have no problem with, them talking to them directly that way. Are they just so out of touch with reality? With decency? 

[Spaceman Spiff]

21 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

 

The author Will Hobson said in sports center last night that there are no other related articles planned now, but that his inbox filled up yesterday.

 

As SS pointed out, I would think there would be others who add information to the original report.  I would assume one of the hardest parts of coming forward would be feeling alone and vulnerable when you make those accusations, but maybe when woman see 15 others are claiming similar mistreatment, maybe that empowers them to open up.  And hopefully these women are all able to share their stories eventually without penalties from the NDA.  That would obviously open the floodgates for new info.

 

Agreed.  At the very least, I bet you see other people in other organizations coming forward.