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

[SoCalSkins]

29 minutes ago, CobraCommander said:

I think we all knew, he just confirmed it.

But if you had a scam for those unsold seats you could get 100% of the take from the secondary market without ponying up 40% to the NFL. By selling individual game tickets, La Femina destroyed any illusion of scarcity that maybe a handful of people had remaining and forced the team to share the split with the NFL.  The only way I can foresee the scam still going was they would label some seats as some sort of concession seats and sell them anyway and pocket it. The scale would be way less than what they could do when the waitlist was around.

Edited April 4, 2022 by SoCalSkins

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I brought up LaFemina the other day as well.  He was entirely too transparent for Dan’s liking and stepping on Bruce’s toes, making him not long for Washington.  I wouldn’t be surprised if there is anything going on, it stemmed from somewhere around his departure to the end of the Bruce Allen departure.

 

One possibility I thought of could simply be feigning ignorance about what and how they report the nefarious activities that SoCalSkins mentioned above.  That or Mr. Friedman believes the activity to be a scam, but it’s actually within the parameters of what they are allowed to do.  What I don’t believe is that this guy is just making stuff up out of nowhere because he has an axe to grind.  Why would he make himself a martyr?  Seems like career suicide to put yourself out there, providing testimony to congress with absolutely nothing to back up his claims.  

Edited April 4, 2022 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[Wildbunny]

37 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

OK so does that means they are just reviewing the stuff before handling it to the DOJ/IRS/ anybody that could help us in any way or they're just doing this because they're bored and don't have anything else to do right now?

[FLSkinz83]

4 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Just for kicks, bless us with your many examples of owners consistent with that of the track record of Dan Snyder.  Please make it as good as when you said the Bengals were worse than us.

 

What's the point?  your standards are so low that you would have been thrilled to be the Bengals for the past 30 years prior to Burrow.   

 

But since you asked....The Saints prior to Brees.   The Cardinals prior to Warner.   How bout the Browns?    How about the Giants under Mara from the 60's-early 80's?

How about the Steelers from the 40's until the early 70/'s under Rooney?   How bout the Packer in the 70's and 80's?

 

Bottom line....plenty of bad owners.   I never said Dan was good.   Give me a QB and a decent coach and this team will win.  period.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

My dude is now back in the 60’s.

 

For the love of god, please tell me he’s been sent here to troll me and doesn’t really believes this tripe.  

[SoCalSkins]

7 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I brought up LaFemina the other day as well.  He was entirely too transparent for Dan’s liking and stepping on Bruce’s toes, making him not long for Washington.  I wouldn’t be surprised if there is anything going on, it stemmed from somewhere around his departure to the end of the Bruce Allen departure.

 

One possibility I thought of could simply be feigning ignorance about what and how they report the nefarious activities that SoCalSkins mentioned above.  That or Mr. Friedman believes the activity to be a scam, but it’s actually within the parameters of what they are allowed to do.  What I don’t believe is that this guy is just making stuff up out of nowhere because he has an axe to grind.  Why would he make himself a martyr?  Seems like career suicide to put yourself out there, providing testimony to congress with absolutely nothing to back up his claims.  

The guy is not making it up. His lawyers statement I posted from Keim show that he has an NDA with the team so a private congressional hearing is one of the only venues he can actually talk. 
 

As far as feigning ignorance, that’s 100% what they will use as an excuse. Like Cartman in the Patriots cheating episode of South Park.

 

[Conn]

13 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

OK so does that means they are just reviewing the stuff before handling it to the DOJ/IRS/ anybody that could help us in any way or they're just doing this because they're bored and don't have anything else to do right now?

This is still the workplace investigation encompassing the workplace culture of harassment and gazillions of emails. It’s just an extension of that as more sketchy stuff has come onto their radar. 
 

We don’t need them to do anything other than expose that it’s a possibility, the NFL will do the rest if it actually happened and is actually a big deal. I don’t think anyone is expecting jail time or anything from this. We want it on the radar of the other NFL owners, and for them to be pissed about it. That’s really all that matters. 

[Skinsinparadise]

24 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

OK so does that means they are just reviewing the stuff before handling it to the DOJ/IRS/ anybody that could help us in any way or they're just doing this because they're bored and don't have anything else to do right now?

 

To answer this and @Voice_of_Reason comments.  As for the Congress' juristiction over this?  You got me outside of the anti-trust component of football which is a privilege they get thanks to federal law-purview.   So their power is peripheral it seems at best.  But IMO it doesn't matter at all as for how Congress acts on this outside of exposing it if it went down.  

 

My take on this is my best hope isn't that Congress punishes Dan for some mishap that cheats the league -- its that the league gets pissed off and acts on it.  If Dan is guilty. 

 

So i don't get the consternation about Congress' teeth on this?  I get the concern of what can Congress do about it on the sexual harrassment part.  but as for the ticket sale component if there is something to it -- it would be on the NFL to act.  It's one thing for the NFL to blow off Dan's transgressions its another to be cool with him cheating on them financially -- Caplan who was the Athletic writer who is skeptical about whether Dan could pull off cheating on this -- also said in that same interview on the radio that if he did its probably the end of him with the league.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[FLSkinz83]

15 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

My dude is now back in the 60’s.

 

For the love of god, please tell me he’s been sent here to troll me and doesn’t really believes this tripe.  

 

Rooney and Mara..considered top owners...had terrible teams for decades.   I gave plenty of examples.

 

I dunno who you're snuffing or what you're sniffing, but you really need to get over it.      

 

Some people don't listen, but let me just one last time for the record say...I don't care about Dan.  If he sells Tomorrow, I don't care.    I never said the new owner would be worse.

 

[Conn]

4 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

Rooney and Mara..considered top owners...had terrible teams for decades.   I gave plenty of examples.

 

I dunno who you're snuffing or what you're sniffing, but you really need to get over it.      

 

Some people don't listen, but let me just one last time for the record say...I don't care about Dan.  If he sells Tomorrow, I don't care.    I never said the new owner would be worse.

 

Huh? You said some people would rather lose with a new owner than win with Snyder. What does that mean to you then? 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[FLSkinz83]

5 minutes ago, Conn said:

Huh? You said some people would rather lose with a new owner than win with Snyder. What does that mean to you then? 

 

What's hard to understand?  with all due respect.

 

I really think most people would rather go 4-12 with any other owner, than see Dan hold up the Lombardi trophy and do a Bobby Knight acceptance speech.

Maybe I'm wrong, you tell me.

 

The above comment has nothing to do whether a new owner would be better or worse.  It's highly likely  a new owner would be better.

 

[London Kev]

11 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Athletic

 

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

In the NFL, 40 percent of all ticket revenue is kicked into a league pool of revenue, and every team gets one-32nd of the pie each year. If the Washington franchise didn’t give the full 40 percent, that would be the kind of offense that, per Pro Football Talk, could be a “death knell” for Snyder’s ownership.

 

So is it 34 or 40 percent?

 

I'm not "shooting the messenger" SIP, just curious as to the discrepancy.

[SoCalSkins]

4 minutes ago, London Kev said:

 

 

So is it 34 or 40 percent?

 

I'm not "shooting the messenger" SIP, just curious as to the discrepancy.

It’s 34 percent. 6 percent is held for costs. It’s a 60/40 split with 6% deducted for costs from the shared pool side.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by SoCalSkins

[Voice_of_Reason]

20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

I’m really starting to care less and less for this lawyer. I feel like she’s more in it for herself than anything else, kindof like the lawyer for the women in the Watson case.  
 

However, This isn’t a bad strategic move.  If I was the team, I would offer to let him make that testimony under oath as long as he was allowed to be questioned by the team’s lawyers as well, so it wasn’t entirely one sided.  
 

Now, if they agreed to that, I’d definitely think the story had teeth.  If they declined it, then I think he might be either lying or at the minimum stretching the truth. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Now, if they agreed to that, I’d definitely think the story had teeth.  If they declined it, then I think he might be either lying or at the minimum stretching the truth. 

How do you come up with the logic that if they decline, it means he’s lying?

 

We all know they are going to decline and it indicates some level of guilt, same with the prior investigation and sticking to the privilege stance.

[Riggo#44]

31 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

I really think most people would rather go 4-12 with any other owner, than see Dan hold up the Lombardi trophy and do a Bobby Knight acceptance speech.

Maybe I'm wrong, you tell me.

What do you base this on? 

[ntotoro]

37 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

What's hard to understand?  with all due respect.

 

I really think most people would rather go 4-12 with any other owner, than see Dan hold up the Lombardi trophy and do a Bobby Knight acceptance speech.

Maybe I'm wrong, you tell me.

 

The above comment has nothing to do whether a new owner would be better or worse.  It's highly likely  a new owner would be better.

 

There's about as much a chance of the team winning a SB with Snyder as the owner is about the same as me becoming ambassador to Chad.

[Riggo#44]

4 minutes ago, ntotoro said:

 

There's about as much a chance of the team winning a SB with Snyder as the owner is about the same as me becoming ambassador to Chad.

Right? This organization has won two (2) playoff games in 23 years...and none in 17. And we're suddenly going to win a Super Bowl? Based on what evidence?

 

I'm with Mitch.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Dan's default fallback is just about always that whomever is accusing him of whatever is lying.  He's hardcore about shooting down the accuser.  That doesn't mean Dan is right on this front, but its his default tactic. 

 

When he said you could put in caps that the Redskins would never change the name that's vintage Dan.  His fallback position is to make his points with conviction. 

[CommanderCarson]

The team just needs to go out and win. It’s the only thing that’s going to make all of this noise go away, outside of Snyder leaving altogether (not going to happen). 
 

I truly think the talent and coaching is good enough for 11-12 wins this year. That will be a step in the right direction, but it’s going to take a couple big playoff wins to start turning the tide and getting this negative spotlight off of the franchise.

[FLSkinz83]

38 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

What do you base this on? 

 

Just an opinion.   What are your own thoughts on that?    

[Riggo#44]

2 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

Just an opinion.   What are your own thoughts on that?    

It might be one of the dumbest things you've ever said, which is impressive.

[FLSkinz83]

8 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

It might be one of the dumbest things you've ever said, which is impressive.

 

Funny.  You won't answer the question.

[Conn]

20 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

Funny.  You won't answer the question.

Pretty sure he did

 

But if you need a direct answer, if you put two buttons in front of me labeled “win SB under Snyder” and “go 4-12 under a new owner”—I’d take the SB. As would anyone else here, which is why your post was so dumb.

 

Now maybe if you said “one unlikely SB under Snyder among a lifetime worth of business as usual” vs “a full rebuild with lots of losing under a new owner with the promise of a normal, competitive, properly run franchise at the end of it going forward” you’d have a battle. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Conn