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

[TK]

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That is terrifying.  I'm going to have nightmares.  

 

 

[FLSkinz83]

16 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That is terrifying.  I'm going to have nightmares.  

Didn't he have Green for one of those years, or was it all Gus and Heath, I can't remember. 

 

He had John Friesz, Gus and Heath.  94-96.   Green played in 98.

[Skinsinparadise]

I don't know the legal aspect of this.  But I am guessing if its under subpoena Dan is under record of perjury and has to answer everything that's asked.  If he volunteers no to both things?

 

 

 

[FLSkinz83]

37 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I don't know the legal aspect of this.  But I am guessing if its under subpoena Dan is under record of perjury and has to answer everything that's asked.  If he volunteers no to both things?

 

 

 

 

He can plead the 5th or say something like..."due to ongoing investigation, I can't comment"

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I knew there would be shenanigans the moment I read that he was open to testifying.  All the shenanigans just make him look more guilty, but I guess at this point **** is so deep they'd rather just keep evading in any way they can.

[Voice_of_Reason]

55 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I don't know the legal aspect of this.  But I am guessing if its under subpoena Dan is under record of perjury and has to answer everything that's asked.  If he volunteers no to both things?

Bram talked about this a very little bit on his show yesterday, but wasn't very clear on it.

 

I'm not sure why the Oversight Committee is now hung up on this.  If they want him to testify, he said he would do it, when he would do it, and he will do it voluntarily.  Those are the same rules under which Goodell and the women testified.  And they didn't seem to have a problem with it.

 

They even said earlier they wanted him to testify voluntarily.

 

It actually seems now by saying they are forcing the subpoena, it is more theater.  Dan won't want to appear under the subpoena, so most likely he will fight the subpoena in court.  

 

2 things I know for sure: 

 

1. You can't lie to congress no matter what.  If you do, subpoena or not, it's perjury and you can be charged.  

2. The 5th amendment is in place no matter what.  You can plead the 5th at any time.

 

Honestly, this seems almost like a move the House Oversight Committee made to get Dan to change his mind and say he's not coming now, and for what reason, I'm not sure.  

 

My guess is Dan's next statement is going to be something like, "Mr. Snyder has been willing to comply with the Committee's investigation from the outset, however they keep making it hard for Mr. Snyder to help them by putting up barriers which makes his involvement more difficult." [said better than that, but you get the drift.]

 

I'm honestly not sure if it matters in the end if they service the subpoena or not. He can't lie and they will ask him whatever they want under either circumstance.  

 

So, we'll see.  Maybe he just goes.  But I bet he's going to fight the subpoena.  And I still don't understand why the Committee would force this when he's already said yes.  They won, in a way, but now they are trying to complicate matters.  

[Skinsinparadise]

55 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Bram talked about this a very little bit on his show yesterday, but wasn't very clear on it.

 

I'm not sure why the Oversight Committee is now hung up on this.  If they want him to testify, he said he would do it, when he would do it, and he will do it voluntarily.  Those are the same rules under which Goodell and the women testified.  And they didn't seem to have a problem with it.

 

They even said earlier they wanted him to testify voluntarily.

 

It actually seems now by saying they are forcing the subpoena, it is more theater.  Dan won't want to appear under the subpoena, so most likely he will fight the subpoena in court.  

 

2 things I know for sure: 

 

1. You can't lie to congress no matter what.  If you do, subpoena or not, it's perjury and you can be charged.  

2. The 5th amendment is in place no matter what.  You can plead the 5th at any time.

 

Honestly, this seems almost like a move the House Oversight Committee made to get Dan to change his mind and say he's not coming now, and for what reason, I'm not sure.  

 

My guess is Dan's next statement is going to be something like, "Mr. Snyder has been willing to comply with the Committee's investigation from the outset, however they keep making it hard for Mr. Snyder to help them by putting up barriers which makes his involvement more difficult." [said better than that, but you get the drift.]

 

I'm honestly not sure if it matters in the end if they service the subpoena or not. He can't lie and they will ask him whatever they want under either circumstance.  

 

So, we'll see.  Maybe he just goes.  But I bet he's going to fight the subpoena.  And I still don't understand why the Committee would force this when he's already said yes.  They won, in a way, but now they are trying to complicate matters.  

 

Don't know the legality of it.  I'll just say listening to Keim on this I get the impression that he's learned that Dan's team doesn't expect Dan to testify -- he didn't elaborate on why but the way he said it it left me with the impression that his legal team has a strategy in place that they are confident will lead to Dan not talking and they are playing out that strategy now.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

If they want him to testify, he said he would do it, when he would do it, and he will do it voluntarily. 

Well, that's one way to color his actions since all this came about.  🤔

 

He was invited and declined so he could float around on his yacht outside of the country.  Hence the reason for the actual subpoena, that he won't accept service on.  He's been anything but agreeable and open about any of this and hiding behind 'but, but, but we fired everyone and hired a bunch of minorities and women to prominent positions, nothing to see here, stop talking about old stuff, move along!'.

 

I get that you have major disdain with the committee and all that, but you're fighting a losing battle here making this more about the committee and their 'theater' rather than Dan being willing to do anything but face the music.

[Voice_of_Reason]

9 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I knew there would be shenanigans the moment I read that he was open to testifying.  All the shenanigans just make him look more guilty, but I guess at this point **** is so deep they'd rather just keep evading in any way they can.

But in fairness, the shenanigans this time are on the side of Congress.  Dan said he would testify under the same context the other witnesses did, and Congress agreed to a date. 

 

Congress could have just said, "ok, see you then!" But they didn't.  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Just now, Voice_of_Reason said:

But in fairness, the shenanigans this time are on the side of Congress.  Dan said he would testify under the same context the other witnesses did, and Congress agreed to a date. 

 

Congress could have just said, "ok, see you then!" But they didn't.  

See above.

 

Dan had an opportunity to do what others did and chose not to, hence the reason for the subpoena.

 

You know damn good and well that neither Dan nor his lawyers intend to just let him go get worked by congress with no outs.

[Mrshadow008]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Bram talked about this a very little bit on his show yesterday, but wasn't very clear on it.

 

I'm not sure why the Oversight Committee is now hung up on this.  If they want him to testify, he said he would do it, when he would do it, and he will do it voluntarily.  Those are the same rules under which Goodell and the women testified.  And they didn't seem to have a problem with it.

 

They even said earlier they wanted him to testify voluntarily.

 

It actually seems now by saying they are forcing the subpoena, it is more theater.  Dan won't want to appear under the subpoena, so most likely he will fight the subpoena in court.  

 

2 things I know for sure: 

 

1. You can't lie to congress no matter what.  If you do, subpoena or not, it's perjury and you can be charged.  

2. The 5th amendment is in place no matter what.  You can plead the 5th at any time.

 

Honestly, this seems almost like a move the House Oversight Committee made to get Dan to change his mind and say he's not coming now, and for what reason, I'm not sure.  

 

My guess is Dan's next statement is going to be something like, "Mr. Snyder has been willing to comply with the Committee's investigation from the outset, however they keep making it hard for Mr. Snyder to help them by putting up barriers which makes his involvement more difficult." [said better than that, but you get the drift.]

 

I'm honestly not sure if it matters in the end if they service the subpoena or not. He can't lie and they will ask him whatever they want under either circumstance.  

 

So, we'll see.  Maybe he just goes.  But I bet he's going to fight the subpoena.  And I still don't understand why the Committee would force this when he's already said yes.  They won, in a way, but now they are trying to complicate matters.  

This is what I understand from listening to a few different people:

1) If its with subpoena its under oath vs voluntarily its not

2) under subpoena he cannot use NDA's as an excuse to not answer. 

3) If Dan and his lawyer choose to fight the subpoena they would have legitimate legal case to have it thrown out. The committee's subpoena power is supposed to be tied to investigation for legislative purposes. The committee has clearly shown that in its mind Dan is responsible for all of it meaning they likely don't gain anything new from his testimony. They have already introduced two pieces of legislation tied to the investigation and aren't likely going to introduce more. So if Dan and lawyer choose to fight it they have legitimate case to have it thrown out and id guess they knew the committee was gonna do this which gives them even more reason to stall

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

37 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Don't know the legality of it.  I'll just say listening to Keim on this I get the impression that he's learned that Dan's team doesn't expect Dan to testify -- he didn't elaborate on why but the way he said it it left me with the impression that his legal team has a strategy in place that they are confident will lead to Dan not talking and they are playing out that strategy now.

 

 

If the committee had just said, "great, see you then" he would have had a more difficult time getting out of it.  That's what they should have done if they want him to testify.

 

Whether it's by subpoena or not, he's not going to answer questions he doesn't want to.  He can always plead the 5th, and he can always "not recall."  

 

By forcing the issue, the committee has made it less likely he will testify.  I think they are playing into his hands with that.  

 

The other thing that is odd is they invited him to testify voluntarily, then urged him to do so voluntarily. Whatever they wanted to ask him before, they still can.  

 

I keep coming back to the fact I'm not sure they need him to testify, I don't think they really care, they just want to make him look bad, which they are succeeding in doing.  I'm still lost as to the point of all this since the committee has already submitted it's findings and proposed legislation.  

 

What really makes sense now is the reason they want it under subpoena is they might want to ask more direct questions which would help Lisa Bank's eventual civil case.  

 

Shrug.  I dunno.  It's weird.  

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

If the committee had just said, "great, see you then" he would have had a more difficult time getting out of it.  That's what they should have done if they want him to testify.

 

Whether it's by subpoena or not, he's not going to answer questions he doesn't want to.  He can always plead the 5th, and he can always "not recall."  

 

By forcing the issue, the committee has made it less likely he will testify.  I think they are playing into his hands with that.  

 

The other thing that is odd is they invited him to testify voluntarily, then urged him to do so voluntarily. Whatever they wanted to ask him before, they still can.  

 

I keep coming back to the fact I'm not sure they need him to testify, I don't think they really care, they just want to make him look bad, which they are succeeding in doing.  I'm still lost as to the point of all this since the committee has already submitted it's findings and proposed legislation.  

 

What really makes sense now is the reason they want it under subpoena is they might want to ask more direct questions which would help Lisa Bank's eventual civil case.  

 

Shrug.  I dunno.  It's weird.  

 

For a self professed critic of Dan you seem to give him more rope than most.    You've railed about the WP and Congress being over the top in their style for going after Dan.  You say you can't listen to Sheehan because he's too relentlessly negative on Dan.  You said you want these negative stories to stop on Dan because in your mind it does no good to the bottom line.  You think at a minimum he's changed to some extent now from the stand point that he's not interferring with personnel.  You don't think their conservatisim with FA  this year has anything to do with Dan's cash flow and if people have problems with that and the slowness of the Terry contract at the time -- then that's on Ron not Dan.   

 

I was closer to your positions maybe 10 years ago when for a temporary moment i bought that Dan might have finally learned and wasn't interferring.  I put all the RG3 antics behind the scenes on Shanny and none of it on Dan. And i look foolish for that in retrospect.  But that was the last time I've given Dan any benefit of the doubt.

 

Keim more or less saying that hearing from people in the know (implying the FO) that Dan's people do not believe he will have to testify -- is all I needed to hear.  I am cynical about Dan's motives here not Congress.  Dan's the dude who is deathly afraid of any type of public speaking or having to respond for anything he's done.  As Breer says Dan's a coward.

 

As for Congress or the WP or whomever wanting to nail Dan and they have an agenda -- I am totally cool with anyone going after Dan whether they have an agenda or not.  Go get that douche and take him down.  I don't care who does it, it could be the politician I hate the most in the world for all i care bringing Dan down.   

 

My take is Dan has suffered a lot of bad karma and deservingly so.  But us as fans have suffered for it, too.  We deserve some good karma for a change and anyone who takes down Dan would be the best thing that ever happened to this franchise since the last SB. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

19 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Well, that's one way to color his actions since all this came about.  🤔

 

He was invited and declined so he could float around on his yacht outside of the country.  Hence the reason for the actual subpoena, that he won't accept service on.  He's been anything but agreeable and open about any of this and hiding behind 'but, but, but we fired everyone and hired a bunch of minorities and women to prominent positions, nothing to see here, stop talking about old stuff, move along!'.

 

I get that you have major disdain with the committee and all that, but you're fighting a losing battle here making this more about the committee and their 'theater' rather than Dan being willing to do anything but face the music.

I'm STRICTLY talking about this last salvo. Nothing before that. Starting with Dan's lawyers proposing 2 dates, and congress accepting one of them.  That's where I'm saying the committee made a bad strategic move.  Forget any other issues I have with this whole thing, if the goal is to get Dan to testify, then this is where they made a strategic blunder.  

 

If you wanted Dan to testify, the best chance of that happening was for the committee to just say, "ok, see you on July whatever."  Which is the date Dan's lawyers proposed, and the committee agreed to.  Then you force him not to show up to something he has agreed to, it makes his ability to get out of it a lot more complicated.

 

By complicating matters with the subpoena, they've kindof given him an out.  He can just stay in France until after the date and not be served, and then not testify. He can argue he is being treated differently than Roger, and he can fight the subpoena in court.  Which would at the very least delay his testimony.  If Keim is right, and Dan's team has a strategy to make sure he doesn't testify, the best way to beat that strategy is just to agree to what they have proposed instead of countering it.  

 

I'm actually taking your side here.  If the goal was to get Dan to testify, the committee made the wrong strategic move.  They should have called his bluff.  I really have no idea what him "facing the music" is going to do, in the end, except for probably piss him off, but if that's the ultimate goal, fine, whatever. I don't care about that but a lot of people want him to "suffer" and it wouldn't bother me at all.  Hell, I'd watch.  It won't accomplish anything more than that, but that's fine.  However, Congress made it harder to get to that point, is all I'm saying.  

 

This is another indication this whole thing is being puppeteered by Lisa Banks.  Having Dan show up and not say anything is pointless to her.  Might as well not happen.  In order for her to file her $100m lawsuit with the NFL, she needs Dan directly implicated with something other than just presiding over a bad culture.  If that's not going to happen, having him testify is pointless to her, and therefore pointless to the committee. 

[formerly4skins]

28 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

f the committee had just said, "great, see you then" he would have had a more difficult time getting out of it.  That's what they should have done if they want him to testify.

 

Congress is generally not in the business of letting people who have been subpoenaed set the terms for their own testimony.

[88Comrade2000]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I knew there would be shenanigans the moment I read that he was open to testifying.  All the shenanigans just make him look more guilty, but I guess at this point **** is so deep they'd rather just keep evading in any way they can.

He's running out the clock until he no longer has to do anything. That's been his strategy since day one. 

[88Comrade2000]

I was thinking the fanbase decline would've happened sooner, had there never been a Gibbs 2.

Edited July 13, 2022 by 88Comrade2000

[NewCliche21]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I'm STRICTLY talking about this last salvo.<SNIP>

 

Therein lies the problem. You can't take this as an individual entity any more than cherry-picking one play and not looking at whether there was no time on the clock or it was 4th down or what the score was.

 

You can't strictly talk about this last salvo without acknowledging, literally, that it's within a much greater context.

[Voice_of_Reason]

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

For a self professed critic of Dan you seem to give him more rope than most.    You've railed about the WP and Congress being over the top in their style for going after Dan.  You say you can't listen to Sheehan because he's too relentlessly negative on Dan.  You said you want these negative stories to stop on Dan because in your mind it does no good to the bottom line.  You think at a minimum he's changed to some extent now from the stand point that he's not interferring with personnel.  You don't think their conservatisim with FA  this year has anything to do with Dan's cash flow and if people have problems with that and the slowness of the Terry contract at the time -- then that's on Ron not Dan.   

I don't think I give him more rope.  I'm just being extremely practical about it:  There are only 32 opinions that matter, and all the evidence shows they don't give a damn about all this swirl.  

 

I have said I can't listen to Sheehan because EVERY story is a Dan story.  If half of them were Dan stories, then it might be tolerable.  I just went back through his podcast summary: literally every show for the past week is some variant of "Dan sucks."  Every one.  Even the Terry McLaurin signing was "Dan Sucks."  If that's your cup of tea, fine.  I don't need to hear something I already know for an hour a day. It's pointless.  

 

I have said, for now, there is no indication Dan is meddling in football ops.  Every single time I say that, I also put the "surgeon general's warning" on it and say that could change at any given time, and history says it probably will.  But for RIGHT NOW, there is no reporting he is interfering with Ron.  That could literally change tomorrow.  But it hasn't yet, based on everything we know.  I also don't see this as too much of a change.  He's had periods where he has been hands off.  Then he reverts to form and screws something up.  So, for now, he's in the "hands off" mode.  When will the "screw it up" mode come?  I don't know.  My hope is they win enough he doesn't get enticed to do it.  But then again, he might force a bunch of FAs on Ron if they win 10 games this year like he did with Gibbs in 2006.  If I had to place a bet, I'd say at some point, and sooner rather than later, he will screw things up.  And I've been pretty consistent about that.  But as of THIS MOMENT, I don't think he has interfered with Ron.  Yet.  Can that continue? I doubt it, but that's kindof my only hope.  

 

You're right on the last one, I think the cash flow thing is completely bogus.  I think that was invented out of thin air with some loose data points and it's a theory which fits the convenient facts, and ignores the inconvenient facts.  And I would say that of every single owner in the NFL, that's not a Dan thing, that's an NFL has more money than God thing. 

 

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I was closer to your positions maybe 10 years ago when for a temporary moment i bought that Dan might have finally learned and wasn't interferring.  I put all the RG3 antics behind the scenes on Shanny and none of it on Dan. And i look foolish for that in retrospect.  But that was the last time I've given Dan any benefit of the doubt.

See, and here's where you and I differ: I was actually a defender of Shanny against Dan at that point.  As things started to leak, I put the Griffin/Shanny stuff more on Griffin and Dan's enabling him. The one criticism I gave Mike was that he needed to be the adult in the room, and he was acting like a child.  But I was MUCH harder on Griffin and Dan than Shanahan.  

 

I said before Mike was fired, if they fired him, they were going to hire some crony who would just cow-tow to whatever Dan/Griffin wanted.  And voila, that's exactly what happened. 

 

Over the past decade, my biggest criticism of Dan is he refused to get rid of Bruce.  He sided with Bruce and Bruce enabled him to make stupid decisions.  

 

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Keim more or less saying that hearing from people in the know (implying the FO) that Dan's people do not believe he will have to testify -- is all I needed to hear.  I am cynical about Dan's motives here not Congress.  Dan's the dude who is deathly afraid of any type of public speaking or having to respond for anything he's done.  As Breer says Dan's a coward.

And I'm saying Congress screwed up.  If they wanted Dan to be there, and Dan's lawyers gave them a date he would appear, they should have taken it. Call his bluff.  Make him come up with another excuse AFTER the date has been agreed to by both sides.  They didn't do that.  That was an error by congress.  If you wanted Dan to testify, that is the best way to do it.  

 

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As for Congress or the WP or whomever wanting to nail Dan and they have an agenda -- I am totally cool with anyone going after Dan whether they have an agenda or not.  Go get that douche and take him down.  I don't care who does it, it could be the politician I hate the most in the world for all i care bringing Dan down.   

Yeah, the thing is, it won't work.  An agenda is not going to get it done. This is not "normal" media relations where you are trying to influence public opinion.  Public opinion is set.  It's not going to change.  This is not a situation where media influence can change public opinion which can then impact elections or policy.  Because the only people who matter are the other 31 owners, and they operate in a different plane.  The only thing it hurts is the fan base, nothing else. 

 

Roger has said directly in front of Congress that everything concerning the Beth Wilkinson investigation has been handled.  They are not going to vote him out on the basis of anything that was covered in it.  

 

So what could get him voted out? 

 

- Something new in the MJW investigation.  Which I think we're getting close to getting the results of. Lisa Banks indicated that, and it would make sense they would want that out of the way before the season.

 

- The owners decide there is real, direct material financial impact to their franchises.  We're talking national sponsors walking out, protests at other stadiums, that kind of thing.  Otherwise, the Hunts (for example) will just ignore all of this and move on counting their money.  

 

So, in my opinion, bring on the new evidence.  If the WP, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Dallas Morning News, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, whoever, has something new to report that has direct linkage between Dan and a "gots to go" situation, then let's hear it. I have no problems with those stories.  I also don't have problems with stories that actually have new information.  The original Post workplace misconduct story, and a couple of it's follow-ups, were absolutely credible reporting and I had no issues with them.  What I have issues with are continued regurgitations of the same story just to throw chum in the water when it does not advance the story.  

 

Our absolute best chance is the MJW investigation.  The hope is she concludes there is enough DIRECT wrongdoing that the owners have cover to vote him out.  I'm personally skeptical that will happen, but that's the best chance.

 

Absent that, none of this is meaningful.  

 

A note on Congress: My issue with Congressional involvement has always been that they don't have the authority to actually impact any change.  They can make a lot of noise, bring attention to the matter, and that's about it. The purpose of the legislative branch is to craft legislation, not bring criminal charges.    Unless they wanted to go so far as to threaten the tax exempt status unless the NFL voted Dan out (which would have been legislation), it's the wrong branch of government to actually impact change.  It needed to be a judiciary investigation, which could have brought charges, which would have been impactful.  

 

I guess I also don't care who or what gets Dan removed, but I also think I am able to see what has a chance of working, and what has no chance of working.  If it can work, then I'm with you, I don't care who does it.  But if it doesn't have a chance of succeeding, then I go back to, what's the point?

 

Just my guess, the "counting votes" article aside, I don't actually think Dan is in any worse a situation today as he was the day after the Beth Wilkinson report was released, from the perspective of the other owners.  They all probably would love to move on from him, but they aren't going to do it without a clear smoking gun.  And that hasn't materialized.  

 

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

My take is Dan has suffered a lot of bad karma and deservingly so.  But us as fans have suffered for it, too.  We deserve some good karma for a change and anyone who takes down Dan would be the best thing that ever happened to this franchise since the last SB. 

I don't have any issue with that.  If the WP can "win" then great.  If Congressional involvement does it, great.  The problem is the Congress thing was never going to move the needle because it's the wrong branch of government. 

 

The WP can win, if they can turn up direct evidence.  So far, they haven't.  

 

The closest thing to a direct allegation is Tiffany Johnson saying he put his hand on her thigh under a table.  Sorry, that's not going to cut it.  

 

I'll tell you what I think might be the silver bullet:  If MJW investigates what Dan did to try and obstruct the Wilkinson investigation, and they determine his actions were over the top with intimidation, then THAT could be be a "gots to go situation."  That's what I'm hanging my hat on as the most likely thing which would get him voted out.  I don't think there is anything to the financial scandal, I think the investigation there is going to turn up nothing.  Tiffany Johnson's only corroborating witness is not going to be reliable enough to vote out an owner.  

 

But the "shadow investigation" might just do it.  And that was reporting from the Post which was absolutely valid, FWIW.  I had no issues with that reporting at all. It was new information that we hadn't heard.  Roger was critical of it in front of Congress.  That might have legs.  Enough legs?  ... I don't know.  Maybe.  Hopefully.  

 

Sadly, you can't be voted out for just being a scum bag and a bad owner.  

[woodpecker]

41 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

I was thinking the fanbase decline would've happened sooner, had there never been a Gibbs 2.

Correct. I am an average Joe fan and I was briefly back on board when he brought Gibbs back. Thought that maybe possibly there was still a chance that Snyder could change, become a better owner. I learned my lesson have been boycotting ever since. No jerseys, no home game tickets. To those who think it will be any different this time, with Rivera, I say good luck (you’re going to need it)!

[Voice_of_Reason]

8 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Therein lies the problem. You can't take this as an individual entity any more than cherry-picking one play and not looking at whether there was no time on the clock or it was 4th down or what the score was.

 

You can't strictly talk about this last salvo without acknowledging, literally, that it's within a much greater context.

Eh, kindof.  To take your football analogy, I am picking on the play call on a 4th and goal. I know the situation, I don't really care how I got there.  I can criticise what the play call is for that given down/distance/situation though.  

 

1 hour ago, formerly4skins said:

 

Congress is generally not in the business of letting people who have been subpoenaed set the terms for their own testimony.

 

They can do whatever they want to, really. And that's also not necessarily true, a lot of times, the lawyers on both sides will agree to terms of testimony.  According to Howard Gutman, before a congressional subpoena is issued, there is often a back-and-forth on terms and the date, so when the subpoena is issued, all parties are in agreement.

 

Now, Dan hasn't been a willing participant, I grant you.  And he's been road-blocking.  

 

However, If they want his testimony, they had an opportunity to get it.  

 

Whether he is subpoenaed or not, he's not going to answer anything which will incriminate himself. He will take the fifth or "not recall."  

 

They should have just taken the date and gone after him. I mean, Roger wasn't subpoenaed.  They asked him anything and everything they wanted, including about deflate gate and Jack Del Rio.  

 

It would have been MUCH harder for Dan to run out the clock if they had accepted the date and voluntary testimony.  He still can't lie.  And again, they asked at least 3 times for voluntary testimony before the subpoena.  And if he had said yes to one of those times, he would be under the same rules as he will be now.

 

Everybody wants him to testify.  Great.  I'm saying there was a better chance of that happening if Congress had just said "ok, see you at the end of the month."  By not doing that, it allows him to run out the clock.  While I'm not a big fan of the congressional involvement to begin with for the sole reason I never thought it had the authority to bring about the change we want, I would have definitely popped 3 bags of popcorn to sit and watch it (if it was available) when Dan testified.  And I would have hoped he would have stepped on his wank and gotten charged with perjury.  And a federal perjury charge WOULD do it.  It would both force him out of the NFL and probably land him in prison. Which would have been fine with me.  

 

Now there's less of a chance of that happening.  

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

I don't see how Snyder has any leverage in this. First of all, he refused to show up for the initial date like Goodell did, saying his tummy hurt. He also said his tummy would continue hurting for the foreseeable future, too. Then Congress subpoena'd him. Snyder has refused to accept this subpoena, and now he is claiming his tummy no longer hurts and he will in fact agree to an interview...while still not physically accepting the subpoena.

 

In my opinion, he doesn't get to dictate the terms. Just because he didn't accept the subpoena doesn't mean Congress should agree to a regular ol' sit-down interview, where Snyder can just plead the 5th all day long. I'm sure his lawyers will keep playing the angle, however, until after November when half the committee gets voted out.

 

I wish the other NFL owners would just cut this turkey loose. Same with Goodell. In my book, getting subpoena'd by Congress brings bad publicity to the league and means you're not doing your job well enough to avoid scrutiny. There has to come a point where keeping Snyder around is more of a detriment than anything else.

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Mrshadow008 said:

3) If Dan and his lawyer choose to fight the subpoena they would have legitimate legal case to have it thrown out. The committee's subpoena power is supposed to be tied to investigation for legislative purposes. The committee has clearly shown that in its mind Dan is responsible for all of it meaning they likely don't gain anything new from his testimony. They have already introduced two pieces of legislation tied to the investigation and aren't likely going to introduce more. So if Dan and lawyer choose to fight it they have legitimate case to have it thrown out and id guess they knew the committee was gonna do this which gives them even more reason to stall

 

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding.

 

By not just accepting the voluntary testimony, what they are doing is throwing it to the courts which result in no testimony.

 

I'd take my chances with the voluntary testimony.  It's something.  It would be a win for Dan and a bad look for Congress if Dan fights the subpoena in court and wins.  I'd prefer that not happen, FWIW.  

 

I don't think the "under oath or not under oath" thing means a damn.  You still can't lie to congress.  

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I don't think I give him more rope.  I'm just being extremely practical about it:  There are only 32 opinions that matter, and all the evidence shows they don't give a damn about all this swirl.  

 

I have said I can't listen to Sheehan because EVERY story is a Dan story.  If half of them were Dan stories, then it might be tolerable.  I just went back through his podcast summary: literally every show for the past week is some variant of "Dan sucks."  Every one.  Even the Terry McLaurin signing was "Dan Sucks."  If that's your cup of tea, fine.  I don't need to hear something I already know for an hour a day. It's pointless.  

 

I have said, for now, there is no indication Dan is meddling in football ops.  Every single time I say that, I also put the "surgeon general's warning" on it and say that could change at any given time, and history says it probably will.  But for RIGHT NOW, there is no reporting he is interfering with Ron.  T

 

Bruce and Dan have been punching bags for me and some others for years.  I am sadly on all of those threads and have a good handle on who tends to agree and who tends to push back from time to time.  IMO from my observation you push back on behalf of Dan more than most and you do so on a variety of topics as I pointed out. i am not saying you are a Dan defender but I'd put you in the category of you still give him the benefit of the doubt on multiple subjects that most others don't. 

 

I am not saying that's good or bad -- I am just saying you might not realize it but you give him more benefit of the doubt than most.   For example it doesn't faze me one whit the narrative that Dan is now not interferring.  To me he's guilty on this until proven innocent -- he's fooled us too many times with that exact same narrative and once said coach left we discover the stories later. 

 

And as for you wanting these WP stories to stop as you talked about a week or so ago, etc.  I don't want them to stop.  I don't put their odd contract dance with Terry on Ron but on Dan, etc.  I don't give Dan any benefit of the doubt on anything relating to the Congressional hearing, or have any beef about them chasing him in whatever way fits especially if it exposes Dan, etc.

 

Sheehan doesn't trash Dan every day, ironically he talked about that very subject today.  But I''ll say in Sheehan's defense he among really everyone who has covered the team has said the stories they know about Dan make him look even worse than his public image.  So I can imagine holding on to some of these stories like Sheehan apparently is.  Why don't these guys spill every story told them?  It's because if they are asked not to do it because it would expose a source and reporters if they are good reporters keep to their word and don't blow up sources.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 minute ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

I don't see how Snyder has any leverage in this. First of all, he refused to show up for the initial date like Goodell did, saying his tummy hurt. He also said his tummy would continue hurting for the foreseeable future, too. Then Congress subpoena'd him. Snyder has refused to accept this subpoena, and now he is claiming his tummy no longer hurts and he will in fact agree to an interview...while still not physically accepting the subpoena.

 

In my opinion, he doesn't get to dictate the terms. Just because he didn't accept the subpoena doesn't mean Congress should agree to a regular ol' sit-down interview, where Snyder can just plead the 5th all day long. I'm sure his lawyers will keep playing the angle, however, until after November when half the committee gets voted out.

 

I wish the other NFL owners would just cut this turkey loose. Same with Goodell. In my book, getting subpoena'd by Congress brings bad publicity to the league and means you're not doing your job well enough to avoid scrutiny. There has to come a point where keeping Snyder around is more of a detriment than anything else.

The leverage he has is 2 fold:

 

- He can just dodge and delay the subpoena and hope for a change of leadership and the whole thing goes away.  Stay in France until November.  Miss a few Commanders games, whatever.  Then there is no testimony at all. (That's Clearly the plan)

- He has a legitimate legal case to file that the subpoena is invalid. Given legislation has already been proposed, and the investigation is complete, and the statements made by the committee, Dan's legal team will argue the subpoena is invalid, and he has a pretty good chance of winning that case. You never know, but a reasonable one to say the least.    At a minimum, that will take MONTHS to go through the court systems.  

 

Because of these two things, there is a legal strategy for him not to testify at all.  So the question to the committee is, which is better?  A voluntary testimony now (instead of when he was previously asked), or almost certainly no testimony before the mid-term elections, and then see what happens after that?  

 

I guarantee you there's no way he's going to appear with the subpoena before a legal challenge to the validity of the subpoena.  He will fight it, and it will almost certainly go away in some way. And THAT is his leverage.  

 

Btw, regardless of whether he is subpoenaed or not, he can ALWAYS take the 5th.  That's a constitutional right.  You can't be compelled to give evidence against yourself.  

 

I wish the other NFL owners would just vote him out also.  But they've made it absolutely clear they have no intension of doing that.