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

[Dissident2]

33 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Not that I’m aware of. I don’t even think bob kraft got any punishment. He got all charges dropped in September i think 

 

Jesus Christ, why do people still equate these things? We're talking about one instance in Kraft's case versus TWENTY YEARS of systematic harrassment and abuse. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just now, Dissident2 said:

Jesus Christ, why do people still equate these things? We're talking about one instance in Kraft's case versus TWENTY YEARS of systematic harrassment and abuse. 

We're also talking about a consensual transaction that raises only moral/ethical questions, not predatory criminal behavior. 

[Cooleyfan1993]

4 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

Jesus Christ, why do people still equate these things? We're talking about one instance in Kraft's case versus TWENTY YEARS of systematic harrassment and abuse. 

......equate what things? I was simply answering a question. 

[Burgundy Yoda]

6 minutes ago, Rogue Jedi said:

Over the last few years or so, it seems Snyder is damn near invincible. I'd love to see a new owner more than anyone else here, but I'll believe it until I see it. And even then I'd have to slap, pinch, fall asleep and wake up several times just to be sure

 

It reminds me of when you play the final boss really early in some games and it's essentially an un-winnable fight. We are the fans doing 1 damage to Dan while it's not even tickling him and he's just sitting there laughing. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

......equate what things? I was simply answering a question. 

Kraft and Snyder...just because they both are loosely related to "sex" a lot of people use Kraft as a precedent. 

[Cooleyfan1993]

Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Kraft and Snyder...just because they both are loosely related to "sex" a lot of people use Kraft as a precedent. 

Well i wasnt, all i was doing was answering a question 🤷🏻‍♂️ Maybe the one that asked the question was using Kraft as precedent, but that’s not my doing at all. A question was asked, i answered. Don’t shoot the messenger 😂

[Dissident2]

6 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

......equate what things? I was simply answering a question. 

 

That wasn't directed at you, but more a general comment directed at something I've seen a lot, i.e., "Kraft didn't get punished for what he did, why would Snyder?" Not even remotely the same thing between those two guys. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Dissident2

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just now, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Well i wasnt, all i was doing was answering a question 🤷🏻‍♂️ Maybe the one that asked the question was using Kraft as precedent, but that’s not my doing at all. A question was asked, i answered. Don’t shoot the messenger 😂

 

I don't think he said it was all @Cooleyfan1993 fault. Just that the topic in your post is brought up all the time and it's not apples to apples. 

[Spearfeather]

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I asked you a question in this very post you quoted? What of these allegations would be too much for you to want Snyder to continue owning the team?

 

You asked that after you had already acused me of " evading. " But, anyway ...

 

I'd say if it's proven he ordered the video, or if it's shown that he knew about the allegations all along and directed people to cover it up, or basically just said " whatever ".

 

What about you ?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just now, Spearfeather said:

 

You asked that after you had already acused me of " evading. " But, anyway ...

 

I'd say if it's proven he ordered the video, or if it's shown that he knew about the allegations all along and directed people to cover it up, or basically just said " whatever ".

 

What about you ?

I think the fact that the video was stitched together over two years and exists is damning enough. So, I think he should be gone considering a video was allowed to be produced on his watch.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, DiscoBob said:

Philosophically... Im against the idea of forcing a company owner to sell their business.  Normal businesses would just suffer the consequences of being lead by a creep... usually forcing the issue.

 

Practically... I guess I'd choose to view the "company" as the NFL... in which case, I'm 100% fine with the company "firing" Danny Boy for dragging the companies name through the mud...

 

As a fan... ditch his ***

 

yeah if it’s any help, it’s not a normal business. In fact, he agreed to the terms that allowed him to be ousted when he bought the team. This isn’t a coup - it’s a organization exercising its right to protect its brand, which is agreed upon when you purchase a team, against a vile person (if they chose to do so)
 

it’s not a public mob forcing someone out because they didn’t meet some standards set by the court of public opinion. 
 

also any idea of free market principal where Dan should instead be “allowed to lose the team if he’s so bad he cannot bring in money” just doesn’t apply here because of profit sharing. And the general demand for NFL football. 

[Spearfeather]

Just now, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I think the fact that the video was stitched together over two years and exists is damning enough. So, I think he should be gone considering a video was allowed to be produced on his watch.

 

You say " allowed ", but if he didn't know about it, is he really " allowing " it ?

[Commander PK]

1 hour ago, TrancesWithWolves said:

If true this is clearly the scoop of the year by the Junkies. Beating out not only the Post but Schefter, Priscoe, Peter King,  Stephen A. Smith and every other legitimate NFL source:

I don’t think there is any way the junks are lying.  No way they go public with something like this unless they know for certain it is accurate.  The implications (and liability) could be huge.  The only possibility is that it’s not a legit copy of the report, but I would have confirmed it as much as possible before saying a thing.  They said they sat on it for a few days which also lends credence.  I think it’s legit.  Will be interesting to see what the NFL does.  I think those that said the NFL is trying to control the narrative are exactly right for reasons I already mentioned in this thread.   

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

yeah if it’s any help, it’s not a normal business. In fact, he agreed to the terms that allowed him to be ousted when he bought the team. This isn’t a coup - it’s a organization exercising its right to protect its brand, which is agreed upon when you purchase a team, against a vile person (if they chose to do so)
 

it’s not a public mob forcing someone out because they didn’t meet some standards set by the court of public opinion. 
 

also any idea of free market principal where Dan should instead be “allowed to lose the team if he’s so bad he cannot bring in money” just doesn’t apply here because of profit sharing. And the general demand for NFL football. 

Good post. This is much closer to 31 partners voting out a 32nd partner because he violated the terms of ownership. It happens all the time in business. 

1 minute ago, Spearfeather said:

 

You say " allowed ", but if he didn't know about it, is he really " allowing " it ?

I say allowed because part of his responsibility as the owner of the organization is to prevent those things. And, he is ultimately responsible for all that happens in his organization. If laws are broken that is his responsibility. He had oversight (or lackthereof) in place that "allowed" crimes to take place. That's something that is egregious negligence. 

[Busch1724]

NM, repeat from what Painkiller said. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Busch1724

[tshile]

14 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

You say " allowed ", but if he didn't know about it, is he really " allowing " it ?

The idea of whether someone is responsible for what happens under their watch or not is interesting. 
 

there are people that have firm beliefs one way or the other, and apply the standard universally. There are people that pick and choose when to apply it, likely driven by bias of some sort. 
 

I don’t know which you are and maybe it’s unfair to only be allowed to pick from those two options (seems reasonable that maybe we should consider every case on its own merits)

 

but the debate doesn’t usually go anywhere because it’s really just a matter of opinion. 
 

for me: 

there’s a 20 year pattern of abusive behavior some of which has been tied directly to him

 

he now allegedly interfered with an investigation into the specific matter at hand (and also threatened suite against the investigator, don’t forget... they dropped it but they went after her)

 

so in this one specific case I’m going to roll my eyes at the idea that he’s not responsible because he didn’t do it himself. Specific to your question - I roll my eyes at the notion that “he didn’t allow it.” At some point in time you have to stop getting caught up in semantics and technicalities and zoom out to a higher level and use your adult experience and intuition and be honest with yourself. 
 

the fact that I generally think he’s a piece of **** that he ruined my favorite sports team is just a bonus add to the opinion. It’s not required for me to feel that way. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by tshile

[CommDownMan]

49 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

We're also talking about a consensual transaction that raises only moral/ethical questions, not predatory criminal behavior. 

 

I'm not sure I agree that the individual with Kraft really had an option.

 

Not defending Synder or trying to make comparable, but I don't believe the Kraft situation is as simple as 2 consenting individuals.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, jsharrin55 said:

 

I'm not sure I agree that the individual with Kraft really had an option.

 

Not defending Synder or trying to make comparable, but I don't believe the Kraft situation is as simple as 2 consenting individuals.

I don't remember the details, but I thought he went to a rub and tug. 

[ExoDus84]

3 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

I don't remember the details, but I thought he went to a rub and tug. 

 

He was indeed rubbed, and subsequently tugged.

 

Apparently the place where he got the slippy slappy trafficked in sex workers or something along those lines.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, ExoDus84 said:

 

He was indeed rubbed, and subsequently tugged.

 

Apparently the place where he got the slippy slappy trafficked in sex workers or something along those lines.

OK, got it. If he was behind or aware of all of that, then sure he should have been hit much harder. And, I'd say it's a closer analogy to Snyder. But still, Snyder did this out of his organization (nude videos that he shared with his pals) while Kraft was a customer somewhere else. 

[tshile]

Yes he was caught because the place he visited was under a sex tracking sting operation. 
 

they don’t compare simply because one is someone doing something in their personal time

 

the other is someone instituting crap upon and entire organization. 
 

I think judging is normal and necessary. So judge how you please. I don’t care, if you think Kraft was worse that’s fine. That’s the beauty of personal opinions. 
 

but they’re not the same. 
 

and the individuals are not the same. 
 

and all that matters. 

[CommDownMan]

21 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

OK, got it. If he was behind or aware of all of that, then sure he should have been hit much harder. And, I'd say it's a closer analogy to Snyder. But still, Snyder did this out of his organization (nude videos that he shared with his pals) while Kraft was a customer somewhere else. 

 

Yeah, don't disagree with any of this, my point was meant to be more about Kraft.  The Kraft stuff in general bothers me and it seems like they can't fix sex trafficking by simply finding/punishing the lowest person of the ring.

 

Synder seems to have been part of some terrible things with his own employees.  I haven't seen evidence, but the rumors paint a very bad picture of his behavior.

Edited March 5, 2021 by jsharrin55

[Burgundy Yoda]

I don't think there would be nearly as much chatter about people wanting Dan Snyder being removed from ownership by the fans if we just won the last 3 Superbowls. Him being the orchestrator of this now losing franchise I think is the core reason that most people want Dan gone, I'm okay with admitting that myself. Him being a scumbag to other people on top of that adds fuel to the fire for me. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

12 minutes ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

I don't think there would be nearly as much chatter about people wanting Dan Snyder being removed from ownership by the fans if we just won the last 3 Superbowls. Him being the orchestrator of this now losing franchise I think is the core reason that most people want Dan gone, I'm okay with admitting that myself. Him being a scumbag to other people on top of that adds fuel to the fire for me. 

There is no doubt bias applied anyway you chop it up and you are correct, that the heat wouldn't be the same from the fanbase if he was actually a good owner.

 

That said, for me - it's more than just the losing, it's everything else that goes with it.  If he actually had a history of being a really good person and just wasn't a good owner, it would be different.  However, we have 2 decades of the dude being a pile of crap as a person that just so happens to own our favorite team.  So yeah, it's everything that goes into us wanting him to be ousted.

[Cooleyfan1993]

I cant wait for the day Snyder leaves so we don’t have to talk about him anymore. It gets tiring having to talk about all the **** that has to do with that jerk