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

[86 Snyder]

3 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Its Sammy the Bull turning on Gotti, both seem like scumbags.

Admittedly I haven’t checked into Friedman much at all but, even if he is worse than advertised, it doesn’t make his testimony any less trustworthy.  Actually, for me it makes it even a little more believeable.  We believed Henry Hill when he ratted on Jimmy Conway, right?

[JSSkinz]

7 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

Admittedly I haven’t checked into Friedman much at all but, even if he is worse than advertised, it doesn’t make his testimony any less trustworthy.  Actually, for me it makes it even a little more believeable.  We believed Henry Hill when he ratted on Jimmy Conway, right?

I've just had a chance to dig into the letter the team wrote in response to what Friedman said, if any of this has been posted I can delete it but wow, Friedman was a mini Dan, seems like he wanted to be Dan's protege. 
 

Friedman repeatedly berated his staff, including minority women. His staff stated he was “dismissive” and “heavy handed and abrasive,” “yells and curses,” “threatened to terminate an employee for taking PTO,” and “created a culture of fear.”

 

For example, Friedman referred to someone in a work email as a “****ing Korean nut job.” He wrote emails to Team employees about engaging in sex acts with “sluts.” He admitted to using the word “f**k” “about 500 times a day.” This use included his allegedly common refrain to “make love to the customer, not f**k the customer.” And by “make love,” he apparently meant, according to one employee’s reported allegation, to engage in certain graphic sex acts to “make a sale.”

 

During his employment with the Team, Friedman engaged in a secret sexual relationship with Jane Doe, who was 15 years his junior and who directly reported to him. He exchanged sexually explicit emails and photographs with Doe (who later became a part-time employee at the Team, still reporting to him) on their Team email accounts, and sometimes forwarded those photos to himself, also on his Team email account. Specifically, Friedman was photographed in a sexually provocative position with Doe while wearing Team credentials in a restroom in a suite at FedEx Field. Also, Doe sent Friedman a sexually suggestive photograph of herself, which Friedman sent himself from his Team email account. Friedman took steps to conceal his impermissible sexual relationship, including discussing purchasing privacy screens for their phones to hide their text messages from other employees. He even lied to his own mother in an email sent from his Team email account that Doe, with whom he was having a sexual relationship, “works at the stadium but not in my department.” Evidence of this inappropriate relationship was provided to the Committee, but not referenced in the Letter.

 

 

Shortly after the Team terminated Friedman, Friedman sent an effusive letter to Dan Snyder, stating, among other things, “I know our direct interactions were limited[,]” “I will never forget your kindness[,]” “this garbage in the newspaper is bothersome. The article was a hit job[,]” and “Regarding my loyalty to you, my termination changes nothing. . . . I am eternally loyal to you.

 

Consistent with these statements of complete support for Dan Snyder and the Team, Friedman spent well over a year after his termination sending unsolicited texts and emails to Team leaders and Snyder family employees – including Team president Jason Wright, Human Resources manager Hillary Fox, the CFO of the Snyder family office, and an assistant to Tanya Snyder – expressly asking to be rehired. He contacted the Team nearly twenty times between October 2020 and January 2022, receiving exactly one response: a polite but clear denial of his request for his old job back by Jason Wright:

 

Friedman’s last request to be rehired was a January 4, 2022 email to Mr. Wright, which he ended with “Let me know if you need help."

 

 

 

[Conn]

8 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

@Voice_of_Reason, man, I don't know how you did it. But you posted your two posts twice in a row!

 

That is weird!

lol it works if they’re 8-10 minutes apart or more. Anything earlier than that and they automatically merge

[Conn]

So…the team has all this highly detailed dirt (over many years while he was still permitted to work there mind you) on Friedman and yet “didn’t know about” any of the harassment or poor work culture? Which is it? 

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

Why would Lisa Banks bring on a client who was verbally abusive and having sex with a subordinate while at the same time representing women who claim they were treated unfairly and sexually harassed as subordinates.

 

I'm no lawyer but it seems idiotic.

I should have put this in the post I put as a spoiler as another blunder.  
 

I dunno.  we’re rooting for Banks to be successful in getting something to stick to Dan.  So in a way she’s kindof the protagonist, the good guy if you will.  
 

But I’m not impressed.  She seems to be out of her depth and looking for publicity for herself.  If Dan is a casualty of that, I’ll throw a party.  But I think she saw what she thought was an easy PR target and got full of herself, expanded the endeavor, and is over her skis.  
 

And I think she might have been lied to by Friedman.  

1 hour ago, 86 Snyder said:

Admittedly I haven’t checked into Friedman much at all but, even if he is worse than advertised, it doesn’t make his testimony any less trustworthy.  Actually, for me it makes it even a little more believeable.  We believed Henry Hill when he ratted on Jimmy Conway, right?

Yeah, well, what they are alleging is that he is lying about all of this, and they are putting forth evidence he is lying.  
 

If that evidence checks out, he is not credible.

 

If the evidence doesn’t check out, he could be a scumbag but he would still be credible. 

[86 Snyder]

19 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I should have put this in the post I put as a spoiler as another blunder.  
 

I dunno.  we’re rooting for Banks to be successful in getting something to stick to Dan.  So in a way she’s kindof the protagonist, the good guy if you will.  
 

But I’m not impressed.  She seems to be out of her depth and looking for publicity for herself.  If Dan is a casualty of that, I’ll throw a party.  But I think she saw what she thought was an easy PR target and got full of herself, expanded the endeavor, and is over her skis.  
 

And I think she might have been lied to by Friedman.  

Yeah, well, what they are alleging is that he is lying about all of this, and they are putting forth evidence he is lying.  
 

If that evidence checks out, he is not credible.

 

If the evidence doesn’t check out, he could be a scumbag but he would still be credible. 

Well yeah, sure.  If there’s evidence he’s lying then fine.  I seriously doubt there is actual proof of any kind though.  People don’t usually create a lie to take to Congress about a high profile, notoriously litigious billionaire in the area.

 

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by 86 Snyder

[CommanderCarson]

I thought from the beginning it was bogus. Dan’s investment has grown by more than 5 times, he’s not going to risk losing his team to skim a few dollars off the top from the other owners. I always thought it was either complete hogwash or in my opinion what’s more likely is that this is a diversion of funds away from the NFLPA. 
 

Yeah the team doesn’t come down that specific and blatant unless they are totally and absolutely convinced that the statements by Friedman can’t be backed up. 
 

The more these false claims come out, the more it just makes this a miserable place to play where everyone is more consumed with removing the owner instead of actually winning football games. Go win some damn games. 

[FrFan]

[profusion]

4 hours ago, CommanderCarson said:

I thought from the beginning it was bogus. Dan’s investment has grown by more than 5 times, he’s not going to risk losing his team to skim a few dollars off the top from the other owners. I always thought it was either complete hogwash or in my opinion what’s more likely is that this is a diversion of funds away from the NFLPA. 

 

This is the guy who sued grandma because she couldn't afford her season tickets anymore. It's absolutely believable. Petty and stupid is perfectly on-brand.

[Burgold]

Yesterday, a number of sources are reporting news over the goings on in and about the Congressional Oversight Committee's investigation. I'm not sure how to post about it without being political, but think it's pertinent to the discussion especially in light of whether anything can/will be done at a federal level. So, I will drop some links. Read them if you will.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/04/21/commanders-investigation-republicans-democrats-spar/

https://www.wusa9.com/article/sports/nfl/washington-commanders/republican-rips-democrats-for-investigation-into-washington-commanders/65-e19c8044-5ecd-4e12-a6cf-ba584c9dc2aa

[Wildbunny]

8 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I should have put this in the post I put as a spoiler as another blunder.  
 

I dunno.  we’re rooting for Banks to be successful in getting something to stick to Dan.  So in a way she’s kindof the protagonist, the good guy if you will.  
 

But I’m not impressed.  She seems to be out of her depth and looking for publicity for herself.  If Dan is a casualty of that, I’ll throw a party.  But I think she saw what she thought was an easy PR target and got full of herself, expanded the endeavor, and is over her skis.  
 

And I think she might have been lied to by Friedman.  

Yeah, well, what they are alleging is that he is lying about all of this, and they are putting forth evidence he is lying.  
 

If that evidence checks out, he is not credible.

 

If the evidence doesn’t check out, he could be a scumbag but he would still be credible. 

You know way better than me on how US Justice works.

But what the Commanders are doing to me right now is weird.

 

They denied knowledge of sexual harassment and toic workplace culture within the organisation when they were accused of this.

Now they're getting in trouble over financial stuff by Friedman, and they're providing proof that the guy is a sexual harasser and stuff like that while he was working for me with testimonies, mails, whatever.

 

So to counter the financial accusation they are contradicting their own defense in the sexual harassment scandal.

 

Looks to me they made a huge mistake here as what they're proving right now can go against them in the first affair.

 

Seems like a good trap to me, and sometimes, you need to lose a battle to win the war. So, I'm getting really curious about how stuff will develop in the next days. Banks and/or Congress could used this as proof dunno.

 

One last question on this subject, but should any of this ends up in a court, like Friedman going for defamation against the team, wouldn't any NDA signed by Friedman be automatically lifted by the court?

Edited April 22, 2022 by Wildbunny

[CommanderCarson]

57 minutes ago, profusion said:

 

This is the guy who sued grandma because she couldn't afford her season tickets anymore. It's absolutely believable. Petty and stupid is perfectly on-brand.

I never said he’s not greedy or vindictive. But that kind of makes my point for me. He seems pretty obsessed with making money, why run the risk of losing your cash cow that has grown your net worth 5 times plus since you’ve owned the team despite the terrible on field performance? The juice just isn’t worth the squeeze there imo. Suing granny just puts more money in his pocket, it doesn’t run him the risk of crossing the other owners and him losing his golden goose.

 

 

[profusion]

31 minutes ago, CommanderCarson said:

I never said he’s not greedy or vindictive. But that kind of makes my point for me. He seems pretty obsessed with making money, why run the risk of losing your cash cow that has grown your net worth 5 times plus since you’ve owned the team despite the terrible on field performance? The juice just isn’t worth the squeeze there imo. Suing granny just puts more money in his pocket, it doesn’t run him the risk of crossing the other owners and him losing his golden goose.

 

 

 

The 'juice' (if it happened) put more money in Dan's pocket than being honest would have.

 

The question is Dan's risk assessment capability. You give him more credit for that than I do. This is not a guy whose horizon stretches very far.

[Dissident2]

9 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

But I’m not impressed.  She seems to be out of her depth and looking for publicity for herself.  If Dan is a casualty of that, I’ll throw a party.  But I think she saw what she thought was an easy PR target and got full of herself, expanded the endeavor, and is over her skis.  
 

And I think she might have been lied to by Friedman.  

Yeah, well, what they are alleging is that he is lying about all of this, and they are putting forth evidence he is lying.  
 

If that evidence checks out, he is not credible.

 

If the evidence doesn’t check out, he could be a scumbag but he would still be credible. 

 

First off, the idea that Banks/Katz are "out for publicity" seems ridiculous to me. Please tell me where you've seen her recently on television or the media? From time to time, she's done a few radio interviews. I saw her maybe ONCE on a local news show awhile back when this all came out. She responds on Twitter from time to time to defend her clients when they're being raked over the coals by the team's lawyers. This is not a Gloria Allred situation from my vantage point. I think that accusation is meritless with nothing to back it up at all. 

 

I wish she WOULD be more vocal in the press, tbh. Look how fast Gloria Allred went away when he started making a ****-ton of noise about the cheerleaders SHE represented. The team was terrified of that bad publicity, where they knew she'd be on TV every day talking about what they did. They paid her off faster than Bruce Allen could finish that cooler of Coors in his office. 

 

"Lied to by Friedman." 

 

Do you REALLY believe that a law firm with this kind of pedigree is going to allow themselves to be "lied to" by someone like Friedman and then hitch their wagons to him without vetting everything he says, lol? That is an INCREDIBLY simplistic take. Not to mention that he has provided email chains and measures of proof of these practices. What they don't seem to have, and I don't think Friedman has ever CLAIMED to have this, is a direct tie to Dan where he was ordering these things. 

 

It's the same with the cheerleader videos. You have people who say they were TOLD the videos were ordered by Dan, but there's no direct link (yet) to Dan actually ordering them. I mean, it should be obvious to most that he DID, because every other scenario is moronic to consider, but ... that's justice for you. 

 

But what would you say Friedman was "lying" about exactly? Did he "make up" the emails? Did he forge them? Did he lie about the obvious shady practices he and others were involved in? And then the question, WHY would he lie about this? Solely to "get back" at Dan? That may be why he's REVEALED this, but he would have to be certifiable to actually LIE about all this stuff and put himself in this position by doing so. It should be easy to find out if he IS lying. And I'm sure that process already took place with Banks and Katz. Whether what he is saying actually sticks or not is another matter. 

 

 

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, CommanderCarson said:

He seems pretty obsessed with making money, why run the risk of losing your cash cow that has grown your net worth 5 times plus since you’ve owned the team despite the terrible on field performance? 

 

Because he's obsessed with making money. That, and he thinks he's untouchable and can get away with anything.

 

Honestly, I don't get the question "Why would Snyder try to make more money if he's so obsessed with making money." One thing we know about Snyder is that he is not a long range planner. He impulsively grabs at what's in front of him. He's the kid in the candy shop who never gives a second thought to future stomach aches. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

You know way better than me on how US Justice works.

I'm not sure that's really true, but thanks for the vote of confidence.

 

NOTE: I'm putting all the rest of this in a "spoiler" section, for the same reason I put my other post in a spoiler section.  A lot of folks just want to fantasize about getting rid of Dan, (which I also do), and don't want to read some of my dribble about the details.  

 

But you asked really good questions, and I wanted to respond to them.  But I think the answers might frustrate some folks. So this gives them an easy way to ignore me.    

Spoiler

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

But what the Commanders are doing to me right now is weird.

 

They denied knowledge of sexual harassment and toic workplace culture within the organisation when they were accused of this.

But they didn't really.  In fact, if you remember back to the leadup to the original Post story in 2020, there were all those rumors of absolutely CRAZY stuff like Dan being involved with Jeffrey Epstein, Dan paying off refs, Dan being involved in sex parties, some stuff about drugs, I can't remember all of the rumors, but there were a bunch of them.

 

Then the day after the Post story came out, they sent an email/letter to their premium season ticket holders and sponsors ATTAHING the Post story and essentially said, "this stuff is what we're being accused of, and might be true.  The other stuff is not."  Which was WILD. They almost admitted that the 20 women in the original post story were telling the truth.  

 

Then the team launched the investigation into itself before the NFL took over the investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, Beth Wilkinson provided the infamous oral report to Goodell and whoever else was there, and the $10M "fine" was handed down to the team, Dan was "suspended" and the NFL released the statement saying there was a toxic work culture.  

 

Dan also released, at various times, acknowledgement of the toxic work culture, and in a very vague way said he needed to fix it.

 

So, I don't think they ever denied the workplace misconduct and toxic workplace allegations when the original ones were made.  I also believe they believe this matter is closed.  It was investigated, they've been fined, everybody named (except for Dan) has left the organization. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

Now they're getting in trouble over financial stuff by Friedman, and they're providing proof that the guy is a sexual harasser and stuff like that while he was working for me with testimonies, mails, whatever.

Yeah, but there is a reason for this, and it's (unfortunately) pretty smart.  

 

The one sexual harassment claim they ARE STRENUOSLY objecting to (thank you "A Few Good Men" quote) are the allegations that Dan put his hand on Tiffani Johnson's thigh under a table, and that he tried to force her to a limo with his hand on her back.  

 

The corroborating witness to this is ... wait for it .. Jason Friedman. Johnson declined to talk to Beth Wilkinson, remember.  So the first time this testimony was presented was at the Congressional round table, and (maybe) importantly, it wasn't under oath.  Though lying to Congress, whether under oath or not, is a pretty bad idea.  And please note, I am ABSOLUTEY NOT suggesting she is lying.  Just that she declined to be part of the original investigation (which was confidential) but was willing to testify publicly.  (Which is, in my opinion, a little odd)

 

So Jason Friedman, in a letter to the congressional sub-committee, provided by Lisa Banks, corroborated the Tiffani Johnson allegation, saying that he told Dan it was a "bad idea" or something like that.

 

The Commanders CLEARLY believe they have absolutely NOTHING to worry about with the financial allegations.  It's like they have moved past it.  They countered every single allegation Friedman made on the financial allegations point by point, provided emails and evidence to suggest he was just flat wrong.  As somebody who's peripherally in Finance, their evidence was compelling enough, and was audited both by BDO and Ernst and Young, which would lead me to believe they're probably right.  They have nothing to worry about legally.  

 

SO, given they don't believe they have anything to worry about with the financial allegation, they immediately moved to discrediting Friedman.  Dan and the NFL have already admitted a toxic workplace environment, so there's no reason to hide it.  So they moved to completely eviscerate Jason Friedman as having any credibility.  

 

Why?  Because they want him completely discredited so they can say (and did say at the bottom of page 14 of their letter, paraphrased) "Once a liar, always a liar, can't trust him."

 

I think the whole strategy with their letter had almost nothing to do with the financial allegations.  It had EVERYTHING to do with the Mary Jo White investigation into the Tiffani Johnson allegations.  

 

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

So to counter the financial accusation they are contradicting their own defense in the sexual harassment scandal.

 

Looks to me they made a huge mistake here as what they're proving right now can go against them in the first affair.

And to my earlier point, they already HAVE gone after them with all of the sexual misconduct stuff.  I doubt the NFL is going to re-open the Wilkinson investigation into the toxic workplace.  That would kindof be like double jeopardy.  

 

Unless there is something new.  And the only new thing is the Tiffani Johnson allegation. 

 

Which is corroborated by Jason Friedman.

 

Which is why the Commanders went after Friedman. 

 

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

Seems like a good trap to me, and sometimes, you need to lose a battle to win the war. So, I'm getting really curious about how stuff will develop in the next days. Banks and/or Congress could used this as proof dunno.

I think the trap was actually set by Lisa Banks and then she walked right into it herself.  Unfortunately.  

 

She accused the Commanders of defaming Friedman, when they actually hadn't named him.  Then after they sent over this MOUNTAIN of information, she simply said "he stands by his testimony, and we will communicate directly with the team on the allegations."  

 

There's only one way to communicate with the team:  file a defamation lawsuit.  They've literally challenged her to do it.  They issued a statement saying, "bring it."  

 

If she doesn't bring it, I think she's completely cooked.  That's what to look for.  If they bring a defamation suit against the team, this gets REALLY interesting.  If they don't, it's almost admitting Friedman lied.

 

I think she was trying to set a trap, and trapped herself.  

 

KEY POINT: Congress is NOT an investigative body or part of the judiciary branch.  Somebody could literally be murdered during a committee meeting, and they would have absolutely no power to do anything about it.  That responsibility lies with the judiciary branch, within law enforcement and then the court system.

 

So, the committee can be a royal pain in the ass to Dan and Rodger, but they can't DO anything.  They can't bring charges.  They can create legislation to try and avoid these situations in the future.  That's the extent of their power.  

 

The play here to get rid of Dan has always been to make enough of the other owners frustrated enough with him for them to find a way to either convince him to sell, or to vote him out.  In that regard, the congressional hearing helped because they shone a spotlight on the problem.  But that's all they can do.  

 

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

One last question on this subject, but should any of this ends up in a court, like Friedman going for defamation against the team, wouldn't any NDA signed by Friedman be automatically lifted by the court?

I'm not entirely sure, but it would depend on civil vs. criminal to some extent.  NDAs are completely useless in criminal proceedings.  

 

But here's the other thing: the NDA is completely useless.  The Committee used so much of his testimony and evidence in their letter to the FTC, you have to image all the "good bits" are already out there.  

 

Banks keeps playing this "Dan Snyder is hiding something because he won't release Friedman from the NDA" card because she KNOWS it will play well with her audience. But, point of fact, basically his entire testimony is public.  

 

Bottom line: I think there was a real chance to get rid of Dan. But not with any of the financial stuff.  I don't think Banks understood what she had, or rather didn't have, and overplayed her hand, which brought down the corroborating witness to the one direct sexual harassment allegation against Dan.   I think Banks blew it.  And I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY bitter about that.  

 

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

17 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Because he's obsessed with making money. That, and he thinks he's untouchable and can get away with anything.

 

Honestly, I don't get the question "Why would Snyder try to make more money if he's so obsessed with making money." One thing we know about Snyder is that he is not a long range planner. He impulsively grabs at what's in front of him. He's the kid in the candy shop who never gives a second thought to future stomach aches. 

 

That's spot on. It's a cognitive bias to assume that someone else would think as 'rationally' as we would under the same circumstances. That type of cognitive bias is what prevented the US and NATO from truly believing that Putin would invade Ukraine...until he did. It's very easy for humans to slip into this kind of bias, unfortunately.

 

All indications are that Snyder is a petty, toxic, sexually-harassing tyrant. Greedy, too. While you and I would be more than satisfied to have the kind of money that Snyder does, Snyder's mind doesn't work that way. He got rich by ripping people off in the first place through telemarketing and slamming, which the FBI investigated.

 

He got away with it, and when that happens people become MORE emboldened to keep committing those acts because they start to believe they're invincible. If he can illicitly squeeze out 100k for himself without anyone knowing about it, then he is happy because he 'got one over' on everyone else. That's how his mind works.

 

Personally, I think there are 64 books...2 for each team. I'm sure NFL owner engage in 'wink-wink' collusion to keep player salaries lower. The funny thing is all of this started when Snyder's ego got in the way and he wanted to slam Bruce Allen for not congratulating him on hiring his successor...I'm sure Snyder released the emails that led to Gruden getting fired in Vegas, and those emails also showed NFL counsel Jeff Pash telling Bruce Allen that keeping player salaries lower was "doing God's work."

 

There's definitely more fire coming from the NFL office if people want to find out where the smoke begins.

[Voice_of_Reason]

55 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

First off, the idea that Banks/Katz are "out for publicity" seems ridiculous to me. Please tell me where you've seen her recently on television or the media? From time to time, she's done a few radio interviews. I saw her maybe ONCE on a local news show awhile back when this all came out. She responds on Twitter from time to time to defend her clients when they're being raked over the coals by the team's lawyers. This is not a Gloria Allred situation from my vantage point. I think that accusation is meritless with nothing to back it up at all. 

 

I wish she WOULD be more vocal in the press, tbh. Look how fast Gloria Allred went away when he started making a ****-ton of noise about the cheerleaders SHE represented. The team was terrified of that bad publicity, where they knew she'd be on TV every day talking about what they did. They paid her off faster than Bruce Allen could finish that cooler of Coors in his office. 

At the very least, I think she's taken the public "good guy" side of the issue, but she hasn't done a very good job with it.  I do think she revels in being the "good guy."  Trying to take down Dan.  

 

 

55 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

"Lied to by Friedman." 

 

Do you REALLY believe that a law firm with this kind of pedigree is going to allow themselves to be "lied to" by someone like Friedman and then hitch their wagons to him without vetting everything he says, lol? That is an INCREDIBLY simplistic take. Not to mention that he has provided email chains and measures of proof of these practices. What they don't seem to have, and I don't think Friedman has ever CLAIMED to have this, is a direct tie to Dan where he was ordering these things. 

 

It's the same with the cheerleader videos. You have people who say they were TOLD the videos were ordered by Dan, but there's no direct link (yet) to Dan actually ordering them. I mean, it should be obvious to most that he DID, because every other scenario is moronic to consider, but ... that's justice for you. 

 

But what would you say Friedman was "lying" about exactly? Did he "make up" the emails? Did he forge them? Did he lie about the obvious shady practices he and others were involved in? And then the question, WHY would he lie about this? Solely to "get back" at Dan? That may be why he's REVEALED this, but he would have to be certifiable to actually LIE about all this stuff and put himself in this position by doing so. It should be easy to find out if he IS lying. And I'm sure that process already took place with Banks and Katz. Whether what he is saying actually sticks or not is another matter. 

 

Everybody makes mistakes.  Even some of the highest profile, skilled and proficient people in their professions.  I think she has made several. 

 

And I think it's absolutely possible Friedman lied, or at the very least, didn't tell her the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  And I think she might have gotten completely side-swiped by some of the information in the team's response.  Because unless Friedman told her some of those details, she would not have had access to that information.  So is it possible he withheld things from her?  Sure.  I'm positive they vetted the hell out of him, but they didn't have access to his Redskins email archives (at least those that the team had). 

 

I think I'm just going to leave it at that.  I've written enough on the subject.  

 

I have not been impressed with Banks.  Maybe it will turn out that she has been playing 3-D chess this whole time and she gets Dan.  And I would cheer that, throw a party even.  But at the moment, I think she's made some missteps.  

10 hours ago, 86 Snyder said:

Well yeah, sure.  If there’s evidence he’s lying then fine.  I seriously doubt there is actual proof of any kind though.  People don’t usually create a lie to take to Congress about a high profile, notoriously litigious billionaire in the area.

Yeah, but you can talk yourself into a lie and convince yourself it is the truth.  Maybe a lie of omission.  And you can convince yourself that you are telling the truth when it's really just your perception, which is your reality.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 hours ago, CommanderCarson said:

I never said he’s not greedy or vindictive. But that kind of makes my point for me. He seems pretty obsessed with making money, why run the risk of losing your cash cow that has grown your net worth 5 times plus since you’ve owned the team despite the terrible on field performance? The juice just isn’t worth the squeeze there imo. Suing granny just puts more money in his pocket, it doesn’t run him the risk of crossing the other owners and him losing his golden goose.

 

 

Dan might have a lucrative investment, but he's always been rumored to be cash-poor. So skimming revenue off the top to make ends meet (especially over the past decade as team-specific things like attendance, jersey sales, etc. have likely dwindled) does make some sense. 

 

Having an appreciating asset doesn't help you make payroll each month. 

[Peregrine]

Some of you seem to think that because the Commanders released a big email saying Friedman was lying then it must be true.  Based on the teams response it seems hes telling a lot of truth. The reality is, none of the parties involved in this are good guys.  I highly doubt a guy who decided to work for Dan Snyder for 24 years can be construed as a good guy.  The only way you can survive more than 5 years or so in that organization is to be a part of the sleaze of it, to embrace it.  Theres no mistaking the reality that in this case, as with many, both sides arent good guys you should probably hitch your wagon to.

 

That said, the response from the Commanders doesnt put them in a good light, and seems like a load of lies again.  First, just about the entirety of their "evidence" is the words of two employees heavily involved in activity that might get them in major legal trouble if what Friedman said was shown to be true.  They have a very biased vested interest in making sure nothing goes forward no matter if its the truth or not.  One of these has been directly named by Friedman, and as the head legal counsel was the one who both took care of the 2009 Snider sexual harassment hush money, and sued Beth Wilkerson to not allow her to release the report if you recall.  He said it would show him in a bad light were it to be released, and later had to withdraw his suit because it had no merit.  You dont think he and the other guy would say anything to avoid things coming out?  

 

Second, the Commanders want us to believe that, despite what the women who worked under Friedman say, he was horrible abusive and engaged in all kinds of racism, sexual harassment etc, of his employees, and that the ticket scheme was actually his idea which they found out in 2009.  This seems like an obvious load of utter garbage.  First off, their whole defense is "No, he was horrible and abusive, dont trust him, but we did deciding to hire him for 24 years and keeping him employed despite all these things we knew".  Then, Snyder found out he took his bosses stamp, signed his name on all kinds of broker ticket sale documents without permission behind their back, signed them up for all kinds of deals they had to scramble and pay to get out of, that made Snider SO mad he employed him for 15 more years.  WTF.  What an absolute lie.  Theres a -15,426%  chance Snider wouldnt have fired him on the spot were any of that true.  No, instead it sounds like Snider told them to do this, there was big fan backlash, and then rather than admit it was his idea he was like "Oh sorry, totally didnt know about that, it was an employee who did that horrible thing but we took care of it(dont worry we wont do anything Jason)."

 

Lastly, as VOR was so loudly stating last week, if Friedman doesnt sue for defamation then what the team says must be true.  Well, at this point, what Friedman has said is such a big deal to the team they released a massive letter calling him a pathological liar among other things.  But the most lawsuit happy fellow in all the land wont sue him for defamation for some reason.  Makes you think.

[Wildbunny]

4 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Everybody makes mistakes.  Even some of the highest profile, skilled and proficient people in their professions.  I think she has made several. 

She may have, but I'm not sure she made those you think she made.

 

1 - The team launch a full investigation after the WP published the story of the cheerleaders and the videos. Where Dan Snyder was directly named. If you launch a full investigation regarding this, even if you're not denying it publicly, it's kinda the same thing. And that's the only card you can play here. Because any other answer is saying something like "Hey, they're right we've done this, we were aware and didn't care at all". The team had no other choice than denying, even if they didn't said it this way, that's how they played it launching the investigation and having guys like Larry Michaels retired freely. (AS far as I know he has never been punished in any way by anybody).

 

2 - When Friedman makes his allefations, even if the team his calling these allegations as false, even if they aren't naming him in any way, it's kinda obvious they're answering to him. Then saying you never named him is purely hypocritical in every way. Don't know how you could turn that in court, but I doubt it would hold much weight. So I don't think Lisa Banks made a mistake here by answering the claim to defend her client. After all, the call was obvious. Everyone knew who they were talking about.

 

3 - Last if they ask for him to go for defamation, they may as well bluffing Swinging Gate style. They're showing muscles. Maybe they do have some, maybe they don't. Depends on the case Friedman and Banks do have with them if they think they can win or not. They'll have to weigh their options, just like the NFLPA that has remained quite silent since those allegations, and is becoming to be weird. DeMaurice Smith is usually quite vocal about this kind of things.

 

The only thing that is sure in all of this, is that this depict a very, very toxic company to work for. Be it in off or on the football field, this doesn't look like to be the destination where you want to be. Seems like hell. This is not gonna help us getting a new stadium in any way as you can easily imagine the backlash that could come from a public funded stadium for those that decided it.

[SoCalSkins]

8 hours ago, profusion said:

 

The 'juice' (if it happened) put more money in Dan's pocket than being honest would have.

 

The question is Dan's risk assessment capability. You give him more credit for that than I do. This is not a guy whose horizon stretches very far.

Why do they have the term “juice” as a common vocabulary if they didn’t use it? They 100% defrauded the NFL.

[RansomthePasserby]

7 hours ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

 

That's spot on. It's a cognitive bias to assume that someone else would think as 'rationally' as we would under the same circumstances. That type of cognitive bias is what prevented the US and NATO from truly believing that Putin would invade Ukraine...until he did. It's very easy for humans to slip into this kind of bias, unfortunately.

Off topic: Pretty sure the US believed Putin would invade Ukraine and fairly accurately forecasted it before it happened. You’re right that many of the other NATO countries didn’t believe though. 

[88Comrade2000]

2 minutes ago, RansomthePasserby said:

Off topic: Pretty sure the US believed Putin would invade Ukraine and fairly accurately forecasted it before it happened. You’re right that many of the other NATO countries didn’t believe though. 

No politics.

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

Panthers owner and New Jersey native David Tepper is not making many friends in Charlotte. The Panthers and the town of Rock Hill, S.C., are pointing fingers at each other over failed plans to bring team headquarters, a retail center, concert venue, and more to the Charlotte suburb. The deal was announced in 2019, shovels went in the ground in 2020, but the Panthers halted construction in March when they accused Rock Hill of reneging on a commitment of $225 million in bonds. This past week, the Charlotte Observer reported the project is “dead.” South Carolina state senator Wes Climer quipped that “David Tepper came to Rock Hill promising us Jerry Jones, and ever since then he’s given us Dan Snyder.”

 

https://www.nj.com/giants/2022/04/panthers-david-tepper-billionaire-with-nj-roots-compared-to-daniel-snyder-slammed-over-dispute-for-new-team-hq.html 😅