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

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

RE: Charitable contributions

 

I'm always leary about crediting rich folks for this, particularly dudes like Dan.  Often times charitable contributions are simply a means to lessen tax burdens.

[CobraCommander]

100% Snyder leaked those emails. Without a doubt in my mind. Just thinking back to all the times he has hit back at people who have called him out for being petulant. He can't let things go. He wanted to make sure Bruce never got a job in this league ever again. 

[88Comrade2000]

What's next is easy, post a likely failed Rivera. Dan fires everyone hired in the Rivera era. He hires hi s next puppet buddy- some combo of Vinny and Bruce. 

My guess the next coach will be another Jay Gruden type. Dan will be picking players in the first round and sign more free agents, who fail with us.

[Darrell Green Fan]

So did the emails surface as a result of the "oral" report to the league? If so how would Dan get ahold of them? Or was it in the process of their own internal investigation?  

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

So did the emails surface as a result of the "oral" report to the league? If so how would Dan get ahold of them? Or was it in the process of their own internal investigation?  

 

 

The e-mails are as a result of Dan's probe into Epstein gate which somehow led him to Bruce which led to the e-mails.  

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

RE: Charitable contributions

 

I'm always leary about crediting rich folks for this, particularly dudes like Dan.  Often times charitable contributions are simply a means to lessen tax burdens.

 

 I don't know too many rich people who don't give to charity granted to different degrees depending on the person and I work with a lot of rich folks in my job who do like to talk about it and promote it.  It's commendable but there are two advantages to doing it.  A. As you mention, its a tax write off.  B.  it's one of the ultimate networking opportunities for wealthy people, it leads to more business. 

 

I have though met some of the people who work at the Redskins Charitable organization and they've all been really super nice people.    So its nice for me to know they have some cool people working there albeit Dan isn't one of those. 

 

If the WFT was United Way or some organization like that, I can deal with the nastiness and dysfunction much easier.   I know the "winning off the field" comment from Bruce supposedly was alluding to their charity work.  And that's cool and I really mean that.  But they are actually running a football organization not a 501-C3 charity.   

 

I became a WFT fan because my dad was a fan, its a long story but I have some strong emotional attachment to it.   It's the reason why you won't see me bail no matter what Dan does. Also, I like most of us here, have a lot of embedded memories about this team going way back.  The idea that Dan can single handily run this organization into the ground.  And turn one of NFL most rabid fan bases into maybe the weakest fan base in the NFL.  To turn a winning organization, known to be ahead of the curve to a losing organization, behind the curve.  To turn an organization which was known during their winning seasons as an easy team to root for because it exuded class whether it was Gibbs or Beathard, etc to an organization that is known as dysfunctional and slimy.   For me, what Dan has done to this team is unforgivable and beyond sad -- his charitable donations while is commendable on a personal basis, does nothing for me as to lessening what he's done to this fan base. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Andre The Giant said:

Sally nails it…

 

The refusal by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners who control him (those who aren’t somnambulant) to issue a written report on chronic sexual harassment in the Washington Football Team workplace is in keeping with a containment philosophy once expressed by Paul Tagliabue for dealing with scandals: “All’s well that ends.” But that philosophy assumes Snyder is just a run-of-the-mill bad businessman with nasty peccadillos, whose troubles are containable. It underestimates Snyder’s defects, and the cost of them.

 

There is no end to trouble with Snyder, as the league is discovering. It’s perpetual. He drags the pant cuffs of business partners into puddles of liquefied sleaze all along the way. The league thought it had ended the Washington scandal with the quashing of attorney Beth Wilkinson’s investigation, a fine of $10 million and the de facto suspension of Snyder. On the contrary, it is now more than 470 days and counting, and a seeping leak of noxious emails involving Snyder’s team has provoked the House Committee on Oversight and Reform to threaten to use subpoena power to pry open league communications and make Goodell explain his light handling of Snyder’s affairs.

 

 

The business academic Paul C. Nutt’s renowned study of infamous corporate missteps, “Why Decisions Fail,” should be required reading at the NFL headquarters right now because the league is checking every box in Nutt’s analysis of “debacles” and “blunders,” by not divesting itself of Snyder as an unfit partner. The leak of explosive emails that triggered Congress bear Washington football club addresses on them. Many were included in Snyder’s needlessly vindictive legal filings against his former executive Bruce Allen, amid his feuding with former partners. This is what the league gets for its longtime expedient tolerance of him: blooming consequences that envelope everyone.

 

...The NFL has miscalculated the cost of resisting action against Snyder. Owners don’t like to put power moves on other owners or tell them how to run their businesses lest they establish a precedent that can be used against them. After all, the league forgave Jim Irsay’s drug problems, frauds by Jim Haslam’s company, Bob Kraft’s groin massages and Jerry Jones’s photos with strippers; none faced severe penalties. There have been lots of dissolute owners with doormat teams. But no owner has ever discredited the league to this extent, or made it more vulnerable to broad external investigation.

 

The fallout from Snyder’s affairs has tainted Goodell, league counsel Jeff Pash, and all of his fellow owners with a hint of corruption, and made them seem not just indifferent to harassment, but active enablers of it. This comes just as they were trying to make headway on matters like sexism, racism and homophobia. The league committed $250 million to a public campaign on social issues, trying to build a better image. Snyder acts as a one-man wrecking crew to all of it — and begs the question to Congress of whether his club is alone, or whether actionable sexual harassment is rampant across the league.

 

The idea that Snyder’s degrading management style could be safely contained to one team was always wrongheaded. He doesn’t know how to do anything but feud and fleece, treats people as disposables and never cares who might be collateral damage. His audience in Washington is utterly alienated, his attendance now dead last. If the league isn’t careful, that alienation will spread. The NFL needs to do a better cost-benefit analysis of the price of protecting him.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Wildbunny]

15 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I became a WFT fan because my dad was a fan, its a long story but I have some strong emotional attachment to it.   It's the reason why you waon't see me bail no matter what Dan does. Also, I like most of us here, have a lot of embedded memories about this team going way back.

As you said with guys like Zorn, Gruden, LaFemina, and Dan doing what he can so people calls it quit.

Dan will have to fire us, because we're not gonna quit.

 

Everything comes to an end.

[ExoDus84]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'm always leary about crediting rich folks for this, particularly dudes like Dan.  Often times charitable contributions are simply a means to lessen tax burdens.

 

Maybe, but is a good thing, done for the wrong reasons, still not a good thing for the people in need? I don't care if rich assholes use charitable giving for their own gain if it's still benefiting people that need help.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

17 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

 

Maybe, but is a good thing, done for the wrong reasons, still not a good thing for the people in need? I don't care if rich assholes use charitable giving for their own gain if it's still benefiting people that need help.

Correct. It's good that it happens, but it's just not something we should dish out praise for. I think that's the point. 

[Conn]

42 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

 

Maybe, but is a good thing, done for the wrong reasons, still not a good thing for the people in need? I don't care if rich assholes use charitable giving for their own gain if it's still benefiting people that need help.

Of course, but this conversation wasn’t just about the outcome of charity, but the billionaire receiving moral credit for it. I think that’s what that poster was referring to.

 

There’s a much broader and deeper conversation to be had about the actual effectiveness of charity from billionaires vs programs funded by much higher taxes levied on them, but nowadays that’s political in a way that it shouldn’t be, so it’s not for this thread. 
 

To put it bluntly in a way that doesn’t pollute this thread, any ultra-wealthy person in this country would be a ****ing moron not to be heavily involved with charity—there’s no downside, in fact there’s a financial incentive. On top of it, the continued existence of their dragon hoard of wealth depends entirely on the majority of society continuing to tolerate it. So the reputational benefit of giving to charity may as well be a measurable financial asset for someone like Snyder.

Edited October 29, 2021 by ConnSKINS26

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

26 minutes ago, ExoDus84 said:

 

Maybe, but is a good thing, done for the wrong reasons, still not a good thing for the people in need? I don't care if rich assholes use charitable giving for their own gain if it's still benefiting people that need help.

I never said charity wasn't a good thing.  I said that I'm leary of considering a billionaire like Dan to be a charitable individual from the bottom of his heart vs. using it as a tax write off and the ability to say he's charitable.

[profusion]

17 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Think about it, what's the ONE thing that the NFL could absolutely not survive?  What's the ONE thing that would have Goodell scrambling to keep it all private?  The NFL has already shown that it doesn't care about women over the years, more of that would just be par for the course.  No one batted an eye in Jon Gruden's emails about him calling Goodell homophobic names. Barely made an imprint.  

 

What set this whole thing off was what he said about DeMaurice Smith.  And you can't find a touchier subject than race in America post George Floyd and 2020 right now.  

 

I wanted to highlight this, because I think you may have hit the nail on the head.

 

Think about it, too, that the WFT emails are only part of the potentially leakable info. The St. Louis lawsuit involves high-level league correspondence in terms of who decided what. That might potentially be a bigger headache than whatever Bruce and his correspondents chatted about, because owners could be directly involved.

 

Where the league is fooling itself is in thinking that this info can be contained forever.

[RandyHolt]

Yep agree the NFL is most afraid of race related issues and rest assured we are right in the middle of all of it.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm also assuming that the NFL gave the orders to Wilkinson to NOT produce a written report.  I'm assuming that a lawyer typically would produce a written report...and that the NFL told her and her team that if they found certain things to NOT put them in writing and put them in a written report that could get leaked to reporters.

 

How else can you explain that there was over 200 pages on Deflategate?  There were close to 100 pages on Bob Kraft's tug-gate.  Close to 100 pages on Ray Rice.  

 

The idea to not have a written report is so shady and weird and I don't think Wilkinson came up with that idea on her own.  

[profusion]

Whether or not there was a formal "report", Wilkinson's firm undoubtedly produced memos and such for internal use. They weren't all just talking it out!

 

And yes, the "oral report" would be highly unorthodox in any legal-oriented context. Of course, courts can order things to be kept under seal and not publicly disclosed, but having an attorney not provide a written work product to their client is not only odd, but makes it appear that there never really was an investigation to begin with.

[Darrell Green Fan]

LOL that there was only an oral report. Rodger the Dodger really overplayed his hand if he thought this would fly.  

 

So.....what can Congress do?  I'm serious.  Can they force Goodell, Wilkeson etc to testify?  

[FrFan]

4 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

LOL that there was only an oral report. Rodger the Dodger really overplayed his hand if he thought this would fly.  

 

So.....what can Congress do?  I'm serious.  Can they force Goodell, Wilkeson etc to testify?  

We will see on Nov 4th deadline, Krishnamoorthi said Congress have tools to force the League on this matter.

[profusion]

5 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

LOL that there was only an oral report. Rodger the Dodger really overplayed his hand if he thought this would fly.  

 

So.....what can Congress do?  I'm serious.  Can they force Goodell, Wilkeson etc to testify?  

 

They can issue subpoenas. Goodell or one of his flunkies will undoubtedly come before Congress to testify and spout a bunch of nothing without need for a subpoena.

 

Congress can also subpoena the documents, and that's where the action could get interesting. I'm sure that the NFL is applying high-level pressure to congressional leaders to prevent this from happening. The owners are a bunch of rich, powerful people and know a whole bunch of other rich, powerful people. They can apply levers unavailable to you and me. The two congresspeople leading this are backbenchers who don't have a lot of influence but undoubtedly have things they want in appropriations bills and whatnot, not to mention campaign contributions.

[SonnySideUp]

Keep the heat on folks. There's always hope. Dan says he'll never sell the team but he also said he would never change it's name!

 

The video at this link is worth watching as well. They seem to think that the heat on this thing has gone up in the last 24 hours. They seem to think that the fact that Congress has gotten involved is big trouble for the NFL and WFT. 

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/10/30/should-the-nfl-rid-itself-of-daniel-snyder/

 

>>Should the NFL rid itself of Daniel Snyder?

 

Posted by Mike Florio on October 30, 2021, 2:31 PM EDT

 

 

Getty Images

The NFL continues to take body blows over the chronic misconduct of the Washington Football Team on Daniel Snyder’s watch and the league’s bizarre handling of the investigation. It’s fair to wonder whether the league will realize that the easiest solution to its current problems is to simply rid itself of Snyder, once and for all.

 

When the conclusions regarding the WFT investigation first emerged, with zero facts that supported them disclosed, it became obvious that the NFL was protecting not Snyder but the rest of the owners. If those facts were to come out (and they still could), it will be as untenable for Snyder to continue as the owner of the Washington Football Team as it was for Jon Gruden to continue as the coach of the Raiders. And then a roadmap will be available for any current or former employees of other teams who may want to make accusations that become formal allegations that become a critical mass of contentions that spark an independent inquiry and then that owner may end up being forced to sell, too, if the facts come to light.

 

The best protection against that outcome would have been to simply push Snyder out of the club. Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post, in a biting, insightful, and generally brilliant column, shows that the NFL is getting what it deserves for not giving Snyder what he has long deserved.

 

With Congress on the case, it may be too late for the NFL to quietly throw Snyder overboard — even if it could. (He’d surely fight, tooth and nail, any effort to oust him.) While publication of certain facts relating to the investigation could be enough to create sufficient public outcry to force a sale, the precedent that could bring down other owners would be established and irreversible.

 

Plenty of owners are likely wishing they’d gotten rid of Snyder, or had never let him join Club Oligarch in the first place. As explained by Albert Breer of SI.com, Tanya Snyder (who is running the team during her husband’s “voluntary” indefinite exile) spoke to the other owners this week, and one person who heard her comments called them “tone deaf.” Two other owners, per Breer, agreed with that assessment.

 

And while Tanya Snyder insisted that neither she nor Dan Snyder leaked the emails, Jenkins points out that Snyder’s international crusade to inflict judicial vengeance for a false story that linked Snyder to Jeffrey Epstein placed some of those emails into the public record. Although a separate and subsequent leak seemed to trigger the downfall of Gruden, it arguably would have become much easier to justify leaking emails that already are hiding in plain sight.

 

Per Breer, Tanya Snyder also claimed that Daniel Snyder doesn’t have an email account. While that, if true, would suggest that the trove of 650,000 secret Bruce Allen emails includes no messages to or from Snyder, it’s irrelevant to whether Snyder or someone working on his behalf leaked either the Gruden emails or the Bruce Allen-Jeff Pash messages, or both.<<

Edited October 30, 2021 by SonnySideUp

[Silvernon]

I read this thread with a heavy heart...

 

Many of you are so hopeful or desperate for change.

 

Snyder will still be the owner 10 years from now.

[Spaceman Spiff]

23 minutes ago, Silvernon said:

I read this thread with a heavy heart...

 

Many of you are so hopeful or desperate for change.

 

Snyder will still be the owner 10 years from now.

 

Most likely.

 

But I think that there hasn't been much of a chance to get rid of him...until now.

 

This feels like there's a bit of a chance that if these emails are really bad, that Snyder could be kicked out.  I think it's a slim chance.  It looks as if the NFL is the one who's in the crosshairs now, not Snyder.  Especially if it's true that Snyder doesn't have an email address.  

[CjSuAvE22]

39 minutes ago, Silvernon said:

 

 

Snyder will still be the owner 10 years from now.

Yup, sad but true. 

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, Silvernon said:

I read this thread with a heavy heart...

 

Many of you are so hopeful or desperate for change.

 

Snyder will still be the owner 10 years from now.

Wrong. He will still be the owner 20 years from

now and probably 30 years from now.

[JSSkinz]

Based on the rules we know the owners can oust Dan but they need a three-fourths vote.  I think its safe to say Dan has collected enough dirt on other owners over his 25 years and he's using that as leverage to keep his position.

 

If that's not it then I cant imagine why they wouldn't cut bait, just doesn't make sense unless the league is worried about several owners being purged once all the findings are disclosed.

 

Remember a woman overdosed at one of Irsay's houses, Kraft probably wasn't the only one at the rub and tug, who knows the depth of the dirt that would come out once Dan starts talking.

 

Why else would they be protecting him!

Edited October 30, 2021 by JSSkinz