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

[CobraCommander]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I don’t know if I’ve ever wanted anyone to suffer misfortune as badly as I want Dan to.

It’s not misfortune if he deserves it for misdeeds. 

[Conn]

In the Snyder catching strays category:

 

 

[Mr. Sinister]

5 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I don’t know if I’ve ever wanted anyone to suffer misfortune as badly as I want Dan to.

 

[Burgundy Yoda]

I have to say, there has been a lot more smoke this offseason about Dan losing ownership than we've had in the past. That in itself is good. The cracks in the armor are showing, and I am of the belief that terrible people do terrible things, sometimes this means illegal things. The guy is the ultimate mob boss and would probably let his own family fall on a sword for him. If multiple people with enough power and wealth want Dan removed, I believe it will happen. It just seems like to me there are people right now currently tugging at strings to get him removed and they're essentially looking for a smoking gun. Danny would probably file for a lawsuit saying the NFL conspired against him, but it probably wouldn't do much. 

 

Here's to hoping he's gone soon and all us miserable fans can finally have some hope for the future of this football team. 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Burgundy Yoda

[Gurgeh]

4 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

 

Unfortunately I think that's Dan on the right

[TD_washingtonredskins]

13 hours ago, 86 Snyder said:

Finlay mentioned the other day that 8 VP level execs have resigned so far this year already.  Seems like the rats are scurrying.

 

I can only care about this team if he’s gone so, the stakes are as high as they get for me.  Either he goes or my 40 years of fandom does.

 

I have thought that way for a while, but now I wonder if I can even get back to where I was before knowing a lot of this stuff. Passion and love isn't an intentional thing, it's a feeling. And mine has flipped. Granted, it's 99.99% focused on the actions of Snyder, so his removal would resolve all of those feelings. But I wonder what is going to happen in my soul on Day Zero after Snyder. I don't think I'll suddenly feel the passion that I did before all of this. But I know I won't actively root against this team, so that will be nice. My guess is that I'll follow and like them the way I have followed and liked the Bullets and Caps for years...and then hope they hook me again. But that initial spark that made me fall in love with them when I was 5 or 6, has faded so it'll almost have to be like becoming a fan of a new team again. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

What a freaking roller coaster.  We were up, then after hearing so many say the ticket thing would be almost impossible to pull off for such little money, we felt the air leave the balloon. Now it's inflating again?  Does this guy who testified have actual evidence or not?  

 

 

[ntotoro]

14 hours ago, ClaytoAli said:

I wonder if this is the reason why it been reported that he is actively engaged in team activities. He has to be to cover up his tracks.

 

What's the thing they say in auto racing? If you want to hide cheating in one place, make it obvious somewhere else.

[CommanderInTheRye]

6 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

 

Unfortunately I think that's Dan on the right

 

 

Pinhead was definitely Bruce Allen in his prime.

 

Dude took perverse pleasure in squeezing every last dime out of players during contract negotiations.

 

In the leaked emails he was quoted saying something like, saving money on players was "doing God's work."

 

 

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

2 minutes ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

In the leaked emails he was quoted saying something like, saving money on players was "doing God's work."

 

 

 

It was actually the NFL's top lawyer Jeff Pash who said it was "God's work" to keep player salaries low, in an email to Bruce Allen. Seems to me this demands an investigation too...so long as the lead investigator isn't named Jeff Pash.

[Voice_of_Reason]

So I think Lisa Banks made a HUGE booboo, AND I think she also completely overplayed her hand AND it's getting to be increasingly unclear what the heck she is even attempting to get for her clients.  It's starting to really feel like her entire involvement is kindof a publicity stunt.  

 

The booboo is the team was VERY VERY careful in it's statement yesterday not to name any person who they were accusing of perjury.  They said, 

 

"Those revenues are subject to independent audits by multiple parties. Anyone who offered testimony suggesting a withholding of revenue has committed perjury, plain and simple."

 

They didn't accuse anybody of anything. This was super smart

 

Then Lisa Banks made the booboo:
 

"The Washington Commanders just released a statement to members of the media. They defamed my client, Jason Friedman, who came forward at the request of the Congressional Oversight Committee and testified truthfully, with evidence,”

 

Well, the Commanders never named Friedman.  So I'm not sure how they could have defamed him.  Now, we all KNEW by this point it was Friedman.  But the team didn't mention him by name, they just basically said "anybody who is testifying and saying there is financial impropriety is lying."  

 

But the kicker, is Dan's lawyers, who are very good, seized this and pounced:

 

“The Commanders did not reference Mr. Friedman — or anyone else — by name in their statement,” Tacopina said.  However, if Mr. Friedman believes he has been defamed, he should bring a defamation suit. The Commanders will gladly accept service and vigorously defend any such claim.”

 

This is absolutely brilliant on the part of the Commanders.  They're welcoming Friedman to bring a defamation suit, which Banks illuded to.  The problem with a defamation suite for Friedman, however, is he would be called to testify and would have to answer questions from the Commander's attorneys.  It wouldn't be privileged testimony in a private room with some congressional democrats.  It would be public, and the Commanders would have the ability to cross-examine the witness.

 

I'm pretty damn sure Friedman wants no part of that.  Hell, I personally don't think there's anything there to begin with. I'm not sure if he's outright lying, stretching the truth, if he's just disgruntled because he was let go after 24 years, or what. 

 

Banks really screwed up here.  I know what she was trying to do.  She was trying to make the Commanders look bad because of the NDA.  Ok, fine.  But by saying Friedman was "defamed" which is a legal term of consequence, she confirmed in public her client had been the whistleblower, AND she opened herself up to an attack which is basically "bring it."  

 

I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a holiday in express last night.  But this seemed like an enormous unforced error. And the Commander's lawyers saw it, probably were giddy with glee, and pounced.  They won this round easily.

 

As far as overplaying her hand, it's clear what she wants is Dan removed as owner.  And it appears as though she's in cahoots with the Congressional Democrats on the Oversight committee.  Ok, fine.  I can live with if their quest is successful.  

 

But now it appears as though they're just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if anything will stick, because it seems as though they've hit a dead-end on the sexual misconduct stuff.

 

And they can do that, because they believe (rightly) that if they throw something out there, even if it's completely false, it's like red meat to the fanbase, they will grab it and chew on it, and it will work them into a fervor.  AND if it turns out to be not true, they probably don't even have to make a retraction. And a lot of people are going to be walking around saying, "Dan cheated the owners!" even if it's not true. 

 

It's not a bad strategy.  But they have to be more careful.  This was an oops.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@Voice_of_Reason We get it, man.

 

This thread is for fantasizing about Dan losing his ownership and potentially his freedom and/or wealth.

 

What it’s not for is cheering against those going after him and/or writing essays on how everyone but the Commanders legal team are idiots.

 

Feel free to feel that way, and I’m not even saying everything you are posting is wrong, I just don’t know how you can post it without immediately taking a bath.

Edited April 6, 2022 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[Mrshadow008]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/sports/football/nfl-sexual-harassment-women.html

[profusion]

Dan just keeps giving and giving to the NFL...

[Spaceman Spiff]

4 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I have thought that way for a while, but now I wonder if I can even get back to where I was before knowing a lot of this stuff. Passion and love isn't an intentional thing, it's a feeling. And mine has flipped. Granted, it's 99.99% focused on the actions of Snyder, so his removal would resolve all of those feelings. But I wonder what is going to happen in my soul on Day Zero after Snyder. I don't think I'll suddenly feel the passion that I did before all of this. But I know I won't actively root against this team, so that will be nice. My guess is that I'll follow and like them the way I have followed and liked the Bullets and Caps for years...and then hope they hook me again. But that initial spark that made me fall in love with them when I was 5 or 6, has faded so it'll almost have to be like becoming a fan of a new team again. 

 

18 hours ago, 86 Snyder said:

Finlay mentioned the other day that 8 VP level execs have resigned so far this year already.  Seems like the rats are scurrying.

 

I can only care about this team if he’s gone so, the stakes are as high as they get for me.  Either he goes or my 40 years of fandom does.

 

For me, I've just vowed that I'm going to outlast him.  I've posted this before, but I like my chances.  I'm 40, he's 57.  I'm in good shape, he looks like ****.

 

I'm just going to straight up outlast him.  IMO, it's a test of endurance and willpower, me against you, Dan, you ****ing sack of **** and I'm here to win.  Whether or not that comes later this summer if he gets kicked out or if it's the day he kicks the bucket, I will be here.  I may flirt with rooting for other teams (Packers), but I can't follow them as actively as I do this team.  I've been following this team ever since I can remember.  It's in the blood.  

 

I don't know how I'll feel on Day Zero after Snyder but I can't wait to find out.

 

 

4 minutes ago, profusion said:

Dan just keeps giving and giving to the NFL...

 

Much like a herpes flareup.

 

(Not that I'd know.)

[FrFan]

Attorneys general from six states warn NFL that it could be investigated for workplace harassment

Extortion in the Workplace: Using Civil RICO to Combat Sexual Harrassment in Employment

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by FrFan

[Peregrine]

2 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

So I think Lisa Banks made a HUGE booboo, AND I think she also completely overplayed her hand AND it's getting to be increasingly unclear what the heck she is even attempting to get for her clients.  It's starting to really feel like her entire involvement is kindof a publicity stunt.  

 

The booboo is the team was VERY VERY careful in it's statement yesterday not to name any person who they were accusing of perjury.  They said, 

 

"Those revenues are subject to independent audits by multiple parties. Anyone who offered testimony suggesting a withholding of revenue has committed perjury, plain and simple."

 

They didn't accuse anybody of anything. This was super smart

 

Then Lisa Banks made the booboo:
 

"The Washington Commanders just released a statement to members of the media. They defamed my client, Jason Friedman, who came forward at the request of the Congressional Oversight Committee and testified truthfully, with evidence,”

 

Well, the Commanders never named Friedman.  So I'm not sure how they could have defamed him.  Now, we all KNEW by this point it was Friedman.  But the team didn't mention him by name, they just basically said "anybody who is testifying and saying there is financial impropriety is lying."  

 

But the kicker, is Dan's lawyers, who are very good, seized this and pounced:

 

“The Commanders did not reference Mr. Friedman — or anyone else — by name in their statement,” Tacopina said.  However, if Mr. Friedman believes he has been defamed, he should bring a defamation suit. The Commanders will gladly accept service and vigorously defend any such claim.”

 

This is absolutely brilliant on the part of the Commanders.  They're welcoming Friedman to bring a defamation suit, which Banks illuded to.  The problem with a defamation suite for Friedman, however, is he would be called to testify and would have to answer questions from the Commander's attorneys.  It wouldn't be privileged testimony in a private room with some congressional democrats.  It would be public, and the Commanders would have the ability to cross-examine the witness.........

Who cares?  I mean that seriously, not in a childish way.  You seem to think this was a big mess up, but failed to lay out at any point in time what Lisa Banks actually gave up or lost? And what in the world was brilliant from the Commanders?  What did they get out of it except more people disliking them for the way they treat witnesses and former employees?

 

I dont think anyone, including Lisa Banks and Friedman, cared about any non-existent defamation suit.  I think it was just PR blustering by both sides trying to keep their clients looking good.  I think Friedman comes off looking better than the Commanders after the 2nd statement they put out seemed remarkably petty, inviting someone to a suit that both sides know would be meaningless.  The Commanders came out with a statement no one would put a name to, making a bold yet vague claim of perjury on a long-time employee.  His attorney wasnt just going to ignore that, and instead hit back using the same level of force they did, AKA, vaguely legal words intended for PR.

 

I mean I could tweet at the team and say "Bring a defamation suit against me, you wont!" and nobody would think I was brilliant for making some weird reference to a never-will-be-existent defamation suit just because I know they wouldnt.  Because why.

[Voice_of_Reason]

30 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Who cares?  I mean that seriously, not in a childish way.  You seem to think this was a big mess up, but failed to lay out at any point in time what Lisa Banks actually gave up or lost? And what in the world was brilliant from the Commanders?  What did they get out of it except more people disliking them for the way they treat witnesses and former employees?

Well, if you want Dan gone, and I do, then having the attorney who is closest to aiding that completely crap all over herself isn't helpful.

 

I think with one statement, she might have undermined the whole congressional inquiry, and called into question the validity of a key witness.  And the Commander's lawyers were smart enough to see that.

 

Neil from Rockville was on the Sheehan podcast yesterday, and basically confirmed that as well.

 

I think Lisa Banks just blew it for all of us, which is kindof what I was saying. There was some momentum about some things, and the pressure was on.  Now the story is going to be if they will file a defamation lawsuit against the Commanders.  Which, they won't.  And then you have to ask why?  SHE came out and said he was defamed.  And she named him.  Now the team says, "bring it!" and you don't?  That's a BAD LOOK.

 

And this guy is also the key corroborating witness to the Dan transgressions.  By putting out that statement, it's going to allow her witness to be completely discredited.

 

So, I guess to answer you, I care.  Because this was a rookie mistake which might basically end all hope of anything happening to Dan.  I'm not sure that anything was going to happen anyway.  But now, I think there's almost no chance.  Friedman is going to be discredited.  For both the financial and sexual harassment stuff. 

 

Maybe I didn't make the point clearly enough in my original post: 

 

Lisa Banks effed up, and probably removed any sliver of hope we had to remove Dan in the process. 

[Peregrine]

18 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Well, if you want Dan gone, and I do, then having the attorney who is closest to aiding that completely crap all over herself isn't helpful.

 

I think with one statement, she might have undermined the whole congressional inquiry, and called into question the validity of a key witness.  And the Commander's lawyers were smart enough to see that.

How? And what decision maker cares?

[Voice_of_Reason]

Just now, Peregrine said:

How? And what decision maker cares?

I think if Friedman is completely discredited, the whole thing falls apart like a house of cards, and Congress is going to just drop it. Because they're only in it for the publicity.  If they think there's a chance they could look like fools, it goes away.

 

And if congressional pressure goes away, the story will go away.

 

And if they story goes away, it's over.

 

This was a MASSIVE gaff.  All of the legal reporters on all the podcasts and radio seem to have been hinting at it.  

[Peregrine]

Just now, Voice_of_Reason said:

I think if Friedman is completely discredited, the whole thing falls apart like a house of cards, and Congress is going to just drop it. Because they're only in it for the publicity.  If they think there's a chance they could look like fools, it goes away.

 

And if congressional pressure goes away, the story will go away.

 

And if they story goes away, it's over.

 

This was a MASSIVE gaff.  All of the legal reporters on all the podcasts and radio seem to have been hinting at it.  

Okay, since you seem to have lost it a bit here, Ill go back and respond to some of that.  I wasnt going to waste time with the absolute nonsense of someone who apparently went heavy on the ironic name but....
 

24 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

undermined the whole congressional inquiry, and called into question the validity of a key witness.

Whaa????  So saying "You said he lied, but he told the truth and you lied" is questioning her clients validity?  Thats insane.

25 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Neil from Rockville was on the Sheehan podcast yesterday

Ah yes, Neil from Rockville.  What high profile clients does Neil from Rockville, your expert witness, have?  Looking him up, for his 1700 followers his claim to fame is hes an "Emailer, Jingler, Tweeter" and goes on 980 sometimes.

25 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Now the story is going to be if they will file a defamation lawsuit

Literally no one cares, and no one but you ever thought they would.  

26 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Because this was a rookie mistake

Ah yes, the experienced lawyer who carefully put out a statement and has been one of the few to successfully crack Snyders empire doesnt understand what to do quite like the guy on the internet who went with the ironic user name.

26 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Friedman is going to be discredited.   For both the financial and sexual harassment stuff. 

How?  What a crazy insane take.

27 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Lisa Banks effed up, and probably removed any sliver of hope we had to remove Dan in the process. 

So....... Lisa Banks is a rookie who doesnt know what shes doing, but also shes apparently the most powerful person in the world, and the only one who can defeat Dan, holding and wielding more power and influence than every other attorney, attorney generals, congress, Roger Goodell, and the NFL?  Amazing!

 

And lets not forget the #1 thing you seem to have forgotten here.  The Commanders have no idea what Friedman said.  Not a clue.  It was private.  Without knowing a word of what he said, they said he committed perjury, in what looked like a blatantly desperate move.  In other words, they said he committed defamation, damaging the reputation of Snyder and the Commanders.  Why havent they sued him for defamation?  Oh wow didnt think that far did you.  So if he doesnt sue them for defamation hes now discredited, but if they dont sue him for defamation they are brilliant.

 

Please change your name.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'll add to this that Congress is doing nothing more than uncovering things...if the possibility exists that Snyder is holding out on the other owners I think they will pull that thread just due to this exposure from Banks/Friedman, regardless of any mistakes made on the legal front. 

 

We have to all remember that it's not a lawyer or Congress or a witness that's going to get Snyder removed, it's 31 other pissed off owners and Roger Goodell. All they need are stories to look into...not reasonable doubt or flawless courtroom conduct. 

[Wildbunny]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/04/06/attorneys-general-from-six-states-warn-nfl-that-it-could-be-investigated-for-workplace-harassment/

 

When it comes to the practical consequences of NFL controversies, the league always has an eye on the legislative branch of the government. The NFL should keep the other eye on the judicial branch.

 

Prosecutors have broad powers and extreme discretion. Many of the issues that attract the attention of Congress also could attract the attention of the Department of Justice. Currently, the league has gotten the attention of the chief law enforcement officers in multiple states.

 

According to the New York Times, six attorneys general have informed the league that they have “grave concerns” regarding allegations of workplace harassment of women and minorities. They have warned the NFL that, if the league doesn’t take steps to address the problem, a broad investigation could occur.

 

The issue was outlined for Commissioner Roger Goodell in a letter sent Tuesday. New York attorney general Letitia James is one of the six who signed the letter. (The other five weren’t named in the article.)

 

Click on the link for more

 

Clearly, smoke is increasing and I believe NFL wouldn't welcome that kind of stuff like... at all...

If that happens Dan will have effectively gone scorched earth with the NFL but against his own will.

[CommanderInTheRye]

18 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/04/06/attorneys-general-from-six-states-warn-nfl-that-it-could-be-investigated-for-workplace-harassment/

 

When it comes to the practical consequences of NFL controversies, the league always has an eye on the legislative branch of the government. The NFL should keep the other eye on the judicial branch.

 

Prosecutors have broad powers and extreme discretion. Many of the issues that attract the attention of Congress also could attract the attention of the Department of Justice. Currently, the league has gotten the attention of the chief law enforcement officers in multiple states.

 

According to the New York Times, six attorneys general have informed the league that they have “grave concerns” regarding allegations of workplace harassment of women and minorities. They have warned the NFL that, if the league doesn’t take steps to address the problem, a broad investigation could occur.

 

The issue was outlined for Commissioner Roger Goodell in a letter sent Tuesday. New York attorney general Letitia James is one of the six who signed the letter. (The other five weren’t named in the article.)

 

Click on the link for more

 

Clearly, smoke is increasing and I believe NFL wouldn't welcome that kind of stuff like... at all...

If that happens Dan will have effectively gone scorched earth with the NFL but against his own will.

 

Maybe Goodell will offer up Dan, as a sacrificial lamb, as part of a wink wink under the table deal to avoid looking deeper into the rest of the league.

[88Comrade2000]

Unless one of those attorney generals is from Maryland and Virginia; probably means jack for us.