Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

JSSkinz

By JSSkinz
in The Stadium

 Share
TK
Message added by TK,

Pay Attention Knuckleheads

 

 

Has your team support wained due to ownership or can you see past it?  

229 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you attend a game and support the team while Dan Snyder is the owner of the team, regardless of success?

    • Yes
      47
    • No
      106
    • I would start attending games if Dan was no longer the owner of the team.
      77

Recommended Posts

BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen

BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

We need to name a new head of photography. Why do our staff always look like doofuses in their pictures?

 

Probably the same reason the team had a toxic workplace and a culture that encouraged sexual harassment: Snyder being cheap. Their entire HR department consisted of one person, who only did HR work part-time in the first place. Remember, this is same guy who sued an old lady and handed out bags of apples to employees in lieu of Xmas bonuses.

 

So it's likely that whoever they hired to take official pictures is being paid minimum wage, and when you pay minimum wage you should expect minimum results.

Edited by BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

 

Probably the same reason the team had a toxic workplace and a culture that encouraged sexual harassment: Snyder being cheap. Their entire HR department consisted of one person, who only did HR work part-time in the first place. Remember, this is same guy who sued an old lady and handed out bags of apples to employees in lieu of Xmas bonuses.

 

So it's likely that whoever they hired to take official pictures is being paid minimum wage, and when you pay minimum wage you should expect minimum results.

Another possibility: the people in the pictures look like doofuses because they actually look like doofuses.

 

Our company has headshots for all of our Managing Directors and above.  They are taken by professional photographers who specialize in headshots. 

 

I'd say 2/3rds of my (soon to be former) colleagues look like doofuses in their head shots. (With all due respect to my soon to be former colleagues.)  Mine, since I'm magnificently photogenic, have a perfectly symmetrical face, average sized nose and ears, and am in as good of shape as Arnold in his prime, is absolutely, without question, the best headshot on the webpage.  (And if you believe any of that, I have some ocean front property to sell you in Idaho.) 

 

There are a million things to pick at which are facts about Snyder which make him a terrible owner. My current favorite is he decided he wanted to pick Haskins (RIP) at #15 which has set us back 3-4 seasons by itself. There is also the toxic workplace culture, the complete bungling of the name reveal, the complete bungling of the protection of the old name, the fact he couldn't get along with his previous minority owners which directly led to the removal of the name, generally being an ass-hat of a human being, etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SoCalSkins

SoCalSkins

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

 

Welp, that settles it...the Commanders have "strongly denied" the claims. Time to move on...


Unfortunately they seem to have the goods. The CFO forward the email from Friedman to the accounting department and they allocated the revenue to the Redskins supposedly instead of the college game. It’s either some next level CYA in the moment or they went and doctored some stuff but they submitted sworn affidavits to the FTC. So looks like we are stuck with Danny boy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, actorguy1 said:

 

I have some questions about this guy.  He seems to be "in the family" kind of hire, but he hasn't worked in the NFL for 7 years.  

 

I wonder if this was "the best they could get" or if truly he was the best out there.

 

I do find it VERY telling Ron has moved on from Ryan Vermillion. That must mean Ryan is actually in real trouble for something.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

If Dan went to jail, the team would just go to Tanya. Though Tanya may cash out and sell the team. Get the $4-$6 billion dollar payday; especially with Dan in jail.

Apart from Florio trying to talk that into existence, there is absolutely no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. 

 

- Unethical season ticket deposit accounting?  Yeah, and then some.

- Treating your customers like scum?  Yep.

- Trying to get every last dime out of every single thing?  Abso-freaking-lutely.

- Possibly concealing revenue from the NFL which should be shared with the other owners and NFLPA?  Could be.

 

All of that makes the Commanders a bottom 5 franchise, for sure.  And Dan a scumbag.  But none of it makes him a criminal.  He isn't going to jail.  

 

I have come up with a new scenario to get rid of Dan: Oh great Tanya, our queen and savior, wants out of the marriage and wants half of Dan's net worth.  Dan can't come up with $2.5Billion cash and is not willing to move partial ownership of the team to his ex-wife.  They sell the team and split the profits.  (Assuming no prenup. I rather doubt Tanya would have signed a prenup before they got married, but who the hell knows, really.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Conn

Conn

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

If Dan went to jail, the team would just go to Tanya. Though Tanya may cash out and sell the team. Get the $4-$6 billion dollar payday; especially with Dan in jail.


Dan won’t go to jail even in our wildest dreams imo, it really doesn’t happen to billionaires unless they commit violent crimes (and even then usually…)

 

But if he were to go to jail, the league wouldn’t let Tanya keep the team. They’d force her to sell because wrongdoing would be proven on such a scale that it sent the owner to prison—they wouldn’t care whether she knew or not, it’s the perfect opportunity to move on and they’d take it imo. 
 

It’s silly to even worry about bc that won’t be what happens to Snyder imo. Very unlikely. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peregrine

Peregrine

Posted
Posted

They denied wrongdoing, thats a surprise.  

I dont think these matters are nearly enough to get Snyder in trouble and it seems clear the NFL already knew and has so far swept everything under the rug.  

 

Though do note they didnt deny that he was told to juice the accounts and its clear the email he provided was 100% true, their refutation is merely that 3 months later they decided to do the right thing, and changed it from the fraudulent way they had recorded it.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cooleyfan1993

Cooleyfan1993

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

They denied wrongdoing, thats a surprise.  

I dont think these matters are nearly enough to get Snyder in trouble and it seems clear the NFL already knew and has so far swept everything under the rug.  

 

Though do note they didnt deny that he was told to juice the accounts and its clear the email he provided was 100% true, their refutation is merely that 3 months later they decided to do the right thing, and changed it from the fraudulent way they had recorded it.

Nothing about it was fraudulent though. Friedman just wasn’t in the loop about things going on in the financial/accounting department (the $27M waiver from the NFL that limited revenue sharing). 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spjunkies

spjunkies

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:


so, @spjunkies, guessing you don’t believe that Friedman is untrustworthy and that his assertions are untrue? Because here’s some info…the former co-worker saying that, that’s my father, who has known Friedman for 15+ years 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

I'm going to be honest with you dude, I simply don't care if the guy is telling lies or not. I'm for whatever it takes to get Snyder kicked out of ownership. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dissident2

Dissident2

Posted
Posted

The emails are definitely a bad look for Friedman. But in the end, none of that matters. His accusations can either be proven by further investigation or not.

 

It's like during that Roundtable when some of the senators went back and found old tweets from Brad Baker that didn't age well. They had nothing to do with the "good bits" Larry Michael story. That plea to return from Friedman is kind of pathetic, though. Just hope what he provided can be verified. Then none of that will matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

I don't know. The first tactic is almost always, "Attack the messenger." It doesn't surprise me in the least that they went after Friedman and anyone who thought about it understood that Friedman kept quiet for years while this was going on because he was on the payroll. The fact that he came forward after his firing doesn't change what was done. It only lets us know that Friedman was willing to turn a blind eye to keep his job for a long time.

 

Lots of people out there like that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dissident2

Dissident2

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I don't know. The first tactic is almost always, "Attack the messenger." It doesn't surprise me in the least that they went after Friedman and anyone who thought about it understood that Friedman kept quiet for years while this was going on because he was on the payroll. The fact that he came forward after his firing doesn't change what was done. It only lets us know that Friedman was willing to turn a blind eye to keep his job for a long time.

 

Lots of people out there like that.

 

 

It also could be seen as him actually feeling GUILTY about what he'd done in the past and wanting to do work that he felt better about under the new regime. No doubt he wouldn't have come forward without being fired, but ... so what if it gets the job done? I guess we'll see. The FTC should at least have enough to investigate now if they choose to, no matter what Friedman's past is like. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...