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

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

5 minutes ago, srtman04 said:

 

Dan Snyder is at such an unbelievable level of narcissism, that nothing will bother him.  This is all a game to him,  and I bet you're correct that he takes personal satisfaction from people hating him.  In his mind,  it's the reason for his sole existence.  Dan Synder truly is a human form of cancer, I don't say that lightly. 

 

   

From what I've gathered over the years, I don't even think it's so much that he actually gets satisfaction from being hated - but that he thinks the hatred is misguided and only as a result of the team not being successful on the field, and he thinks the lack of success on the field has little to do with him.  It's almost like he's insulated from the fact that we actually hate him as a human being, not just as the owner of our beloved team.  It feels like maintaining ownership of the team is a game to him, a game he doesn't want to lose.  I'm sure he's promised his family that it would be passed down to future generations and what a failure he would look like selling it.  I imagine the thought that he could sell it and a new owner could make drastic improvements quickly would burn his soul, so much that he'd rather just keep playing this game.

[Dissident2]

5 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

IF there were a direct linkage to Dan of the video, the direct linkage would almost have to be he "ordered it."  Not that Scumbag Larry walked into his office and showed it to him.  Seeing it isn't criminal enough.  Asking for it might be. 

 

Well, that's the whole accusation, that Snyder ordered it. You have two former employees on record now saying it was ordered by Snyder. (Someone new came forward on that recent HBO podcast.) One was told that by Larry in 2008, the other was told that by an editor in 2010 when he walked into an editing booth and saw topless women on the screen. Videos supposedly tracked to Snyder's favorite bands, U2 and the Stones. There have to be more of these. I bet they were made every single year. To me, that is what should be the main focus of any investigation at this point, aside from any new sexual harassment claims that DIRECTLY implicate Snyder. No amount of "toxic workplace" stories are going to cut it at this point. If the video thing can be directly linked to Dan, he is DONE. Period. I'm sure he probably paid Larry millions to keep his trap shut, but there have to be others there who know. They're in a bad spot, though, because if they come forward and were actually involved in making the videos, their careers are probably done, too. 

 

Again, sounds like they HAD the videos and could've taken this to trial, but the cheerleaders decided to settle. So far, that's been the best chance we had to really make something happen. Hoping there's more to come with this story, because I personally think that those two videos are just the tip of the iceberg. 

[srtman04]

15 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I imagine the thought that he could sell it and a new owner could make drastic improvements quickly would burn his soul, so much that he'd rather just keep playing this game.

 

You are probably not far off from the truth on this point, and it re-enforces why we are...and will...probably be stuck in this very terrible and sad situation.  

[redskinss]

2 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

Looking more and more like blustering and bloviating from Congress, but little actual action or effect. Snyder will be here for the long term

[spjunkies]

I just can't understand why he won't just sell. He purchased the team for 700 million, had his fun for 20 years.

 

Now his fanbase can't stand him, the team honestly isn't looking up and he can still pocket a cool $5-6 BILLION and hang out with his pal Jerry in Texas forever. 

 

The other option is to hold onto the team and keep running into headaches year after year. It really makes no sense.

[Mrshadow008]

47 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I don't even think they'd have to be all that sneaky about it.  The league rep could literally call the sponsor and say, "You're upset about Dan and the Commanders, right?  Would you be ok if we put out a statement saying the NFL, in communication with our league sponsors, believe it is in the best interest of our combined business if we sought new ownership for the Washington NFL Franchise."  

 

And EVERY SINGLE sponsor would say, "sure, do it."

 

I really hope this is true.  I hope this happens.  I remain skeptical it WILL happen because I don't trust the other owners to "do the right thing" if it's not squarely in their best interest. 

Sad thing is from a business perspective it probably is in their best interest. I was looking at it yesterday and yes the teams net worth is growing year over year. However, it seems be slowing down at a pretty significant clip. In 2011 Forbes had us ranked as the 4th most valuable sports franchise in the entire world. Last year the team was tied at 14th. This year they’ve dropped down to 19th. So while 19th most valuable franchise in the world is nothing to sneeze at the fact that they were 4th 10 years ago is very telling. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

45 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

Again, sounds like they HAD the videos and could've taken this to trial, but the cheerleaders decided to settle. So far, that's been the best chance we had to really make something happen. Hoping there's more to come with this story, because I personally think that those two videos are just the tip of the iceberg. 

There is a difference between criminal and civil.  

 

They could have gone to the police, which would have made it criminal.  Then they also could have filed in civil court for a settlement.

 

By settling, they eliminated the criminal component and settled the civil component.  

 

That's the problem.  

 

I don't know if, after all these yeas, they could go to the police and try and get them to charge Dan with a crime. Dan wouldn't do jail time, most likely he would take a plea deal, pay a fine, and it wouldn't go to trial.  But it would be in the criminal justice system, not the civil justice system.   

 

What they really need is for Larry to flip on Dan.  But that's never going to happen.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

Looking more and more like blustering and bloviating from Congress, but little actual action or effect. Snyder will be here for the long term

I posted this ages ago, but there is limited action Congress CAN take other than being a nuisance .

 

They are NOT an judicial body.  They can ONLY hold hearing and issue subpoenas as it relates to the legislative agenda.

 

The 2 committee chairpersons are grand-standing.  We happen to like it, but that's all it is.  They can literally DO nothing.  The round-table wasn't even an official hearing where the people testifying were placed under oath.  I'm not in any way suggesting they were lying, but pointing out they couldn't even really hold an official hearing, it was essentially a reality TV show.  

 

They can't force Dan to sell.  They can't for the NFL to force Dan to sell.  They can't bring criminal charges against Dan.  They can't even really subpoena Dan, and if they do, Dan doesn't really have to show up, and there's really nothing they can do about it.  

 

The one caveat is, they COULD, if they REALLY wanted to, threaten to change the tax exemptions and anti-trust laws the NFL operates under.  That's the nuclear option.  IF they wen that far, they could motivate the NFL to get rid of Dan.  But that would take broad bi-partisan support to take a stand against America's most popular pastime, and I'm not sure our esteemed elected officials really want to take on the NFL and it's war chest in a mid-term election year.  

 

My guess is this whole thing, from a congressional perspective, is it goes away in the next 2 weeks.  

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I don't even think they'd have to be all that sneaky about it.  The league rep could literally call the sponsor and say, "You're upset about Dan and the Commanders, right?  Would you be ok if we put out a statement saying the NFL, in communication with our league sponsors, believe it is in the best interest of our combined business if we sought new ownership for the Washington NFL Franchise."  

 

And EVERY SINGLE sponsor would say, "sure, do it."

 

I really hope this is true.  I hope this happens.  I remain skeptical it WILL happen because I don't trust the other owners to "do the right thing" if it's not squarely in their best interest. 

I would believe that a few of those owners that are pissed off at Dan have enough influence to call some of the NFL sponsors and asks them to publicly complain about and threaten the NFL if Dan is not out.

Then the NFL could just say "Hey, we haven't got much choice Dan, we're sorry"...

 

Hypocrite? Definately. Sabotaging the NFL? Not really, that's just public complaint, and you're not gonna lose any $ with this. You also get rid of a huge problem.

But that's also how it usually works at this stage. You never do things straight. You go with curveballs.

 

So I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happens in the upcoming weeks/months. Hell, if sponsors starts doing it, I would tend to believe that one or two owners are behind it.

[Voice_of_Reason]

5 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

I would believe that a few of those owners that are pissed off at Dan have enough influence to call some of the NFL sponsors and asks them to publicly complain about and threaten the NFL if Dan is not out.

I mean sure, but who?  Rub n' Tug Kraft?  Creepy Jerrah?  

 

I just think the rest of the owners are going to try and put their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away, because that's the least messy situation for them. 

 

If they open the door, they might not be able to close it.  And you KNOW Jerry and Bob don't want that door opened.  

[Dissident2]

18 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

My guess is this whole thing, from a congressional perspective, is it goes away in the next 2 weeks.  

 

I don't see that happening at all. I think there's still a lot more to come from congress and the people/women/lawyers working with them. I'd say that within two weeks we start hearing more about what's coming, and I'm confident that subpoenas will be issued in the days ahead. No way it "goes away" in that time frame. 

[Wildbunny]

36 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I mean sure, but who?  Rub n' Tug Kraft?  Creepy Jerrah?  

 

I just think the rest of the owners are going to try and put their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away, because that's the least messy situation for them. 

 

If they open the door, they might not be able to close it.  And you KNOW Jerry and Bob don't want that door opened.  

The first name that would come to my mind is Mark Davis.

Close to would be Stan Kroenke.

Then, there is probably some others that would do it.

 

I'm not too familiar with it to know who really has the power within the NFL, but there's probably some guys that wouldn't mind a change of power within that billionaire club.

[Andre The Giant]

55 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

The one caveat is, they COULD, if they REALLY wanted to, threaten to change the tax exemptions and anti-trust laws the NFL operates under.  That's the nuclear option.  IF they wen that far, they could motivate the NFL to get rid of Dan.  But that would take broad bi-partisan support to take a stand against America's most popular pastime, and I'm not sure our esteemed elected officials really want to take on the NFL and it's war chest in a mid-term election year. 

My limited understanding is that if Congress changed the anti-trust laws, the NFL could potentially lose the right to sell broadcast rights for the entire league as a whole.  They’d have to sell them on a per-team basis. 
 

With the Broadcast rights being the primary source of league revenue, that seems like a huge deal.  Not saying Congress will go there, but you can see why this Dan situation might have the owners’ attention.  That letter from the NFL to Congress was pretty scathing regarding the team.

[bearrock]

58 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I posted this ages ago, but there is limited action Congress CAN take other than being a nuisance .

 

They are NOT an judicial body.  They can ONLY hold hearing and issue subpoenas as it relates to the legislative agenda.

 

The 2 committee chairpersons are grand-standing.  We happen to like it, but that's all it is.  They can literally DO nothing.  The round-table wasn't even an official hearing where the people testifying were placed under oath.  I'm not in any way suggesting they were lying, but pointing out they couldn't even really hold an official hearing, it was essentially a reality TV show.  

 

They can't force Dan to sell.  They can't for the NFL to force Dan to sell.  They can't bring criminal charges against Dan.  They can't even really subpoena Dan, and if they do, Dan doesn't really have to show up, and there's really nothing they can do about it.  

 

The one caveat is, they COULD, if they REALLY wanted to, threaten to change the tax exemptions and anti-trust laws the NFL operates under.  That's the nuclear option.  IF they wen that far, they could motivate the NFL to get rid of Dan.  But that would take broad bi-partisan support to take a stand against America's most popular pastime, and I'm not sure our esteemed elected officials really want to take on the NFL and it's war chest in a mid-term election year.  

 

My guess is this whole thing, from a congressional perspective, is it goes away in the next 2 weeks.  

Let's not confuse what Congress won't do with what Congress can't do.  For starters, Congress most certainly can issue subpoenas and compel testimony. 

[Redskins 2021]

Key is if big sponsors go 

[Riggo#44]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

The 2 committee chairpersons are grand-standing.  We happen to like it, but that's all it is.  They can literally DO nothing.

Its what Congress does best.

[SoCalSkins]

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, Andre The Giant said:

My limited understanding is that if Congress changed the anti-trust laws, the NFL could potentially lose the right to sell broadcast rights for the entire league as a whole.  They’d have to sell them on a per-team basis. 
 

With the Broadcast rights being the primary source of league revenue, that seems like a huge deal.  Not saying Congress will go there, but you can see why this Dan situation might have the owners’ attention.  That letter from the NFL to Congress was pretty scathing regarding the team.

There is no way there is bipartisan support to even start to have those conversations.  There is probably not one congressperson or senator who would dare bring that up because they would have the I’ll attention of the NFL and all the sponsors who would pour as much money as necessary to make sure they were not re-elected.  
 

As I said, it’s the nuclear option for Congress but it’s pointless because there is no way they have the support to even attempt it. 

2 hours ago, bearrock said:

Let's not confuse what Congress won't do with what Congress can't do.  For starters, Congress most certainly can issue subpoenas and compel testimony. 

Kindof.  As long as there is a legislative agenda.  They cannot investigate a crime, that’s not their jurisdiction.

 

And issuing a congressional subpoena isn’t the easiest thing to do.  And it can be challenged based on the legislative agenda. 
 

Its different from the oversight authority has on her the executor branch.  We’re talking about a private entity.  So it’s different.

 

and if the person chooses to not comply, they can’t arrest them.  They can hold them in contempt of Congress.  And then they can ask the Justice Department to file charges or investigate. But that’s all they can do.  

[bearrock]

12 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

And issuing a congressional subpoena isn’t the easiest thing to do.  And it can be challenged based on the legislative agenda. 
 

Its different from the oversight authority has on her the executor branch.  We’re talking about a private entity.  So it’s different.

 

And it's Congress that gets to decide whether a hearing is related to a legislative agenda (and if you don't think it would be laughably easy for Congress to come up with a legislative agenda to connect to Snyder and his team's workplace environment, I don't know what to say.  Snyder will get nowhere by attempting to quash a Congressional subpoena in court by arguing it's not connected to a legislative agenda under Congressional power).

 

And private entities are hauled before Congress all the time.  You think those CEOs appear before Congress cause they want a tour of DC?  You think roid hearing happened in 2005 cause somebody forgot to tell those players how to get out of attending?

 

Quote

and if the person chooses to not comply, they can’t arrest them. They can hold them in contempt of Congress. And then they can ask the Justice Department to file charges or investigate. But that’s all they can do.

 

Well, courts don't arrest or imprison people directly either (unless you count courthouse sheriffs, but by that logic each house could technically have the Sergeant at arms arrest the offender).  While referring an individual to the Justice Department for Contempt of Congress may be about "all they can do", it's plenty effective to get people to comply with Congressional directives.

 

Again, if want to argue that the relatively informal round table format and the lack of a subpoena thus far shows the relative Congressional commitment to this issue, that's one thing.  To assert that Congress lacks the power and means to effectively investigate Snyder is just flat out wrong.

[CommanderInTheRye]

6 hours ago, spjunkies said:

I just can't understand why he won't just sell. He purchased the team for 700 million, had his fun for 20 years.

 

Now his fanbase can't stand him, the team honestly isn't looking up and he can still pocket a cool $5-6 BILLION and hang out with his pal Jerry in Texas forever. 

 

The other option is to hold onto the team and keep running into headaches year after year. It really makes no sense.

 

 

After a long career in sales and marketing one fact rings universally true:

 

You can't apply logic and reason to irrational decisions.

[Dissident2]

4 hours ago, SoCalSkins said:

 

 

The level of utter fail in those two sentences combined would've gotten this dude fired in ANY well-run organization. The amount of money this imbecile gets paid to FAIL at this level is just mind-blowing. It's just laughable how bad he is at this. I mean, just read those two sentences again and just let the incompetence sink in.  

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

1 hour ago, Dissident2 said:

 

The level of utter fail in those two sentences combined would've gotten this dude fired in ANY well-run organization. The amount of money this imbecile gets paid to FAIL at this level is just mind-blowing. It's just laughable how bad he is at this. I mean, just read those two sentences again and just let the incompetence sink in.  

 

Agreed. The fact that he didn't know how much Taylor meant makes you wonder if he did any research on the team at all...and using a different methodology next time?? How about actually listening to fan input instead of lying about it? These McKinsey types are the same people who lost the Vietnam war with all their stats and formulas measuring things that didn't matter.

On 2/5/2022 at 8:55 AM, profusion said:

 

Women are generally more socially aware than men, and also more practical. I'm guessing she knew what she was getting into almost from day one. Whatever else Dan was when she met him, he was a multi-millionaire. I'm not saying she's a bad person (don't know enough to know), but I doubt she's been laboring under any illusions about him all these years.

I don't think Tanya deserves a pass just because she's a woman. History is full of enabling women like Eva Braun. Her interview where she said the women's claims were "ridiculous" shows which side she is on. Wouldn't be surprised if she posts some Twitter rant someday and tries to slut-shame the victims.

[Bifflog]

You can tell we've been at this too long, Godwin's law starting to take effect

[Conn]

Do you guys realize how abnormal it is for a football fan to even know the name of the top business side executive in the franchise? The guy is not remotely involved with the “football guys”. That says two things:

 

1. That’s what a mess things are here off the field.

2. That’s how well Wright is doing at his job to eat **** for ownership. Or alternatively, how well Snyder does at standing behind Wright on all these issues (setting aside all of his other non-Wright-related issues of course).

 

I’m no Wright fan. I’ve said from the beginning that his McKinsey past was a red flag that he’d do anything and work for anyone. But let’s keep our eye on the ball here, Wright doesn’t matter at all. 

 

[CommanderInTheRye]

1 hour ago, Bifflog said:

You can tell we've been at this too long, Godwin's law starting to take effect

 

 

A complimentary Wikipedia search for all the old farts, like me, who have no clue what Godwin's Law is...

 

Godwin's law, short for Godwin's law (or rule) of Nazi analogies, is an Internet adage asserting that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1.