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

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Mrshadow008 said:

Like I said yes they still coulda stalled but issuing the subpoena while they still have legal authority makes that much more difficult. Also just because they issue the subpoena when it holds weight doesn’t mean that all the public humiliation doesn’t happen. 
The dc council saying no has been happening for years now. That was going to happen regardless of whether the Congress thing was going on or not. The council has said for years now they have no interest in a stadium being built on that plot of land ditto the residents around that site. 

And I know you’re looking at this from a PR stand point. But you have to look at it like this. Yes Congress has done a good job with the public humiliation I’ve said that and with most people that likely works especially if they have a good reputation going in. Dan did not and is used to it by now. let’s be honest people aren’t going to hate Dan anymore than they already do. 
 

From a legal standpoint you do every single thing you can to avoid testifying especially when the possibility of getting yourself and the nfl sued for 100s of millions of dollars if you slip up. So ask yourself this is Dan Snyder’s position weaker if he stalls and deals with public humiliation like he has since he bought the team or if he gets himself and the league sued for 100s of millions? Also as far as weakening his position from what? Other owners voting him out? They aren’t going to unless there’s a smoking gun or Congress legitimately tried to revoke the nfls tax exempt status over it. His position was always going to be weaker if he testified and possibly opened himself and the nfl up to lawsuits 

 

Your point seems to be it can't get any lower for him so he has nothing to lose, so none of this moves the needle at all since the needle already moved.  And that the subponea had a chance if they timed it better.

 

I disagree on the PR point about Dan -- he does have more to lose.  As for the subponea part, running with the two lawyers who I listened to, they had no chance from the jump regardless of the timing of it.   Maybe those lawyers are wrong but one of them in particular was a national expert on that type of thing. 

 

One of the lawyers who has made so many appearaces on Sheehan's show playing down any chance Dan will ever be removed, I've joked on this thread about him in the past saying if someone said Dan is accused of murder, the dude would say it means nothing -- this dude is that pessimistic about Dan ever being gone.  Still that same dude has made the point that everything that has gone down relating to that hearing has been a disaster politically for Dan especially as for it spilling into the stadium quest.

 

It's not that i thought they can get a stadium in DC previously.  My point here is that Dan's baggage has gone so mainstream and reached such major heights that multiple politicians are going out of their way to trash Dan personally as they are trashing the stadium idea.  In the past specific to DC it was trashing of the name with some hint of Dan being a problem.  Now its Dan is a scumbag point which is filtering more and more into mainstream political talk where its become a super cool political talking point it seems for politicians.  And yes that is becoming a bigger deal now than anytime I can recall previously. 

 

Yeah for us on this thread Dan being a douchebag in our world might have felt mainstream for years but IMO it hasn't been anywhere near the level of mainstream it is now.  I wear Washington football stuff a lot whereever I go.  I had a client as I mentioned here recently bring up Dan just randomly.  My kid who didn't even know who Dan was now does. 

 

The Dan is a douchebag stories are cracking national news now.  It's a bigger deal now than it was years ago.  And yes Dan's antics on the hearing has contributed to this.  As bad as for example the 2017 reputation was for Dan -- 2022 Dan's reputation is much deeper in the gutter from what I observed. 

 

I hear you that there is no bounds for Dan to be removed and the news stories will wash over him like teflon.  I am just not pessmisitc like that.  I do think there can be a breaking point.  And i know I am not alone on this, some other cynical press guys-radio guys who cover the team who used to think dan is teflon no longer do.  Will see. 

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

8 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

So first, you should probably learn how to spell interfering.  It doesn't have 2 rr's.    (In fairness, I have no idea how to spell anything, but spell check caught it and you used it 3 times in this paragraph alone. )

 

Here's my counter-point.  I think Ron and Jason can set the culture in the building as long as Dan isn't in the building, and as long as Dan's interactions are only with Ron and Jason.  

 

 

As Mike Schlereth said among others the culture is set at the top.  You can't escape the owner.  Sorry.   Ron mitigates the damage.  But when the owner of a team is a sleazebag, has no class and does just about everything 2nd rate -- facilties, equipment, stadium on and on -- it impacts the product and the culture.

 

When your owner hires PIs to go to the doorsteps of the women who are part of the investigation and makes it a habit to try to demonize anyone who stands in his way and hides in his castle and is unwilling to talk to his customer base -- all of that and more effects the culture.  I love Ron but he doesn't wipe all of that away. 

 

8 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

This is not giving Dan the benefit of the doubt, btw.  I don't think he did anything to fix it.  I give all the credit to Ron and Jason. This is saying I think Dan basically interacts with Jason and Ron, and is out of the country a lot.  And the "in the workplace" environment is now set by Ron and Jason, and not Dan.  Also, without the "henchmen" in charge, it really is Jason and Ron's organization to run.  The reporting is Wright was "strongly suggested" to Dan by the NFL.  Ron is a known culture guy.  

 

Of the things that I think won't change back, I don't think that will. The reason is because the NFL is auditing them so closely, I don't think it can change back.  

 

If you think Dan doesn't interfere anymore.  And even if he wants to spoil the culture he can't because the NFL is watching -- that mindset certainly feeds into some of your other takes about Dan that I don't agree with.

 

But I'll say if I bought into that premise.  I'd be giving Dan some slack, too.  Dan has finally changed whether he likes it or not seems like the gist of your point. 

 

i'd love to think you are right but for me that feels very 2012 and that feeling crashed on me in a big way.  I was dead wrong.  I think you are likely dead wrong, too.  Not because I think I got it all figured out but i've heard-read so many stories from people who know Dan who said he will never change.   And this new and improved Dan is his go to PR move, he's being doing it on and off for almost 20 years. 

 

And I agree with the WP that his sleazy behind the scenes handling of these investigations shows same old same old Dan versus him being a changed man -- same litigous dude, who shifts blame elsewhere, tries to bully those that in his mind are coming after him, leaking stories in all likelihood including the one about Jon Gruden, etc.  This version of Dan isn't coming off like the kinder gentler version of him. 

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[goskins10]

On 7/12/2022 at 10:04 AM, NickyJ said:

One game wonders like Timmy and Doug are cool, but I think we need a two game wonder: The Helucopter, the only receiver John Beck knew how to throw to in 2011.

 

 

I was at that game!!!  It was in Seattle. Lol.    Fun game.  We actually won.  

Edited July 14, 2022 by goskins10

[Skinsinparadise]

I'll add one more point to the notion that since the NFL is "watching" Dan, Dan now has to behave notion.

 

Dan is already flouting the NFL in that regard.  Dan supposedly "voluntarily" removed himself from daily operations but that has been discovered as BS.

 

Dan himself launched his own investigation and was told not to send PIs to the doorsteps of these women, etc -- yet he did it anyway.

 

Plenty of indications that it was Dan's team who leaked the Jon Gruden emails which made the whole NFL look bad.

 

Dan if anything is thumbing his nose at the NFL.  To me the one upside to it is maybe there is a limit to how much the NFL can take as to Dan thumbing his nose at them.

 

From what's been said Dan is the outcast at NFL meetings with few friends.  Bruce was his social crutch in the past there but he's now gone.  Tanya supposedly had some rant about there being a witchhunt against the team and apologized for the spillover to the NFL at a recent NFL owners meetings which was greeted with sighs and scorns from the other owners.

 

I know some think Dan only has owners that have his back in those meetings and is a lock to be Czar for life but at a minimum there are some owners who are so done with Dan that they were willing to talk about it to a national reporter as to the possibility of removing him -- that's a new development and far from same old same old where we've heard owners say that stuff before. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Plenty of indications that it was Dan's team who leaked the Jon Gruden emails which made the whole NFL look bad.

 

 

What were the indications?...All I remember reading were speculations.

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

What were the indications?...All I remember reading were speculations.

 

I don't recall every bit about how it came together.  But I talked about it here at the time in real time as things got leaked, so I'd have to go back and reread it, one of the WP reporters in a recent radio appearance laid out the timeline pretty well.  But I don't care enough to repackage it. So you can believe it or not believe it.   I've heard enough where I believe it but I don't care enough about the point to argue it.

Edited July 14, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Califan007 The Constipated]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I don't recall every bit about how it came together.  But I talked about it here at the time in real time as things got leaked, so I'd have to go back and reread it, one of the WP reporters in a recent radio appearance laid out the timeline pretty well.  But I don't care enough to repackage it. So you can believe it or not believe it.   I've heard enough where I believe it but I don't care enough about the point to argue it.

 

On my end, I always grow tired of speculation passed off as fact until it becomes conventional wisdom and everyone just agrees it's true...it's the common language of social media so it's to be expected, I guess.

[Tsailand]

On 7/11/2022 at 1:28 PM, SoCalSkins said:

Doug Williams was 5-9 in the regular season as a Redskins starter and 8-9 overall including the playoffs

 

We make an exception for him since he got us a Lombardi.  And not just along for the ride; he won the Super Bowl in the second quarter.

 

That's a lot bigger than RG3 going 9-6 in the regular season, and then being horrible for two more seasons, while being a bit of a team cancer.

[NewCliche21]

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I'll add one more point to the notion that since the NFL is "watching" Dan, Dan now has to behave notion.

 

Dan is already flouting the NFL in that regard.  Dan supposedly "voluntarily" removed himself from daily operations but that has been discovered as BS.

 

Dan himself launched his own investigation and was told not to send PIs to the doorsteps of these women, etc -- yet he did it anyway.

 

Plenty of indications that it was Dan's team who leaked the Jon Gruden emails which made the whole NFL look bad.

 

Dan if anything is thumbing his nose at the NFL.  To me the one upside to it is maybe there is a limit to how much the NFL can take as to Dan thumbing his nose at them.

 

From what's been said Dan is the outcast at NFL meetings with few friends.  Bruce was his social crutch in the past there but he's now gone.  Tanya supposedly had some rant about there being a witchhunt against the team and apologized for the spillover to the NFL at a recent NFL owners meetings which was greeted with sighs and scorns from the other owners.

 

I know some think Dan only has owners that have his back in those meetings and is a lock to be Czar for life but at a minimum there are some owners who are so done with Dan that they were willing to talk about it to a national reporter as to them possibility of removing him -- that's a new development and far from same old same old where we've heard owners say that stuff before. 

 

To jump on this, I think this is Dan genuinely being on good behavior for Dan.  Like if I studied my ass off and paid people to take my tests, maybe, MAYBE I could get a D in calculus. I'm just bad at it. If nobody were grading me, though, it wouldn't matter.

People are WATCHING Dan like a hawk, nationally, and he's on his best behavior which is getting him an F+. Could you imagine him without the spotlight when he's not trying to fake it? This presents as Dan's genuine understanding as to what good behavior is. When you're that insulated, that removed, and surrounded by people who tell you "yes", this will look saintly. He's detached from reality, not in a psychotic way, but in a delusional way (clinically, not colloquially).

[Skinsinparadise]

Keim's podcast today.

 

More or less this.

 

A.  Congress knows if Dan does this "voluntarily" it means he will answer very little because he could cite non disclosure agreements and the on going investigation

 

B.  Dan's lawyers could skirt the subpoena in all likelyhood for a long time -- you just challenge it in court and that delays the process for quite some time.

 

C. Under subponea Dan could cite the 5th still but apparently he'd look really bad doing that, he would look guilty. 

4 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

On my end, I always grow tired of speculation passed off as fact until it becomes conventional wisdom and everyone just agrees it's true...it's the common language of social media so it's to be expected, I guess.

 

To me it depends on the subject if it fits the subject and past behavior, and different things all up to it likely being the case, then I'll believe it.  If it doesn't fit the subject and the facts don't seem to lead down that well, then I don't believe it.

 

I am not shy though at saying Dan doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from me.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

39 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

To jump on this, I think this is Dan genuinely being on good behavior for Dan.  Like if I studied my ass off and paid people to take my tests, maybe, MAYBE I could get a D in calculus. I'm just bad at it. If nobody were grading me, though, it wouldn't matter.

People are WATCHING Dan like a hawk, nationally, and he's on his best behavior which is getting him an F+. Could you imagine him without the spotlight when he's not trying to fake it? This presents as Dan's genuine understanding as to what good behavior is. When you're that insulated, that removed, and surrounded by people who tell you "yes", this will look saintly. He's detached from reality, not in a psychotic way, but in a delusional way (clinically, not colloquially).

 

I agree by Dan's standards he's for at the moment a hair better.  His behavior behind the scenes still indicates he's just as big of a douche and delusional than he's ever been -- maybe even a hair worse.

 

But I think he finally gets that the public image of the team can't be a dude who is a slicker better people skills version of himself -- which he's done now twice with Vinny and then Bruce.  Both Vinny and Bruce were buffoons including as public speakers but at least they had the guts to speak albeit Bruce at the end lost his guts on that front.  I think that's his major epiphany.  Outside of that I don't see much indication of him changing.  But agree maybe that alone elevates his behavior a half a grade.

 

To me he's been a low level F.  Like a 15 grade version of F, no where near even a D.  Now maybe he's a 20 grade level F IMO.

 

The one cool thing about all of this is Dan is a bit more naked as a league wide punch line in bigger ways than he ever was.

 

The irony is losing Bruce exposed Dan in even bigger ways than I imagined.  Some on that FO thread-Bruce who hated Dan took my hits on Bruce as some sort of tacit endorsement of Dan.  I'd say to them far from it -- Dan is way worse and you can have two villains in the same movie so to speak.  And I'd say removing Bruce would actually expose Dan further.  But I didn't anticpate it would expose him to this extent.

 

If Bruce was still here, I bet he'd be a lightening rod to a lot of this.  But no Bruce puts it all on Dan which is well deserved.  

 

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Voice_of_Reason]

@Skinsinparadise did you listen to Howard Gutman on Sheehan's podcast?  I think he's absolutely the best at breaking this stuff down because he's both a lawyer and a politician (former ambassador to Belgium).

 

It was a really good listen.

 

Along with all the other stuff, Kevin asked Howard if there was any sympathy for Snyder building because of the overt nature of the HOC's agenda against him.

 

And Howard said, basically, because this has become a political battle, and a partisan one, Dan and his folks can probably go to people in league circles and say he was caught up in the middle of a partisan fight, and not a sexual harassment issue, and was unfairly targeted.   Whether that is true or not, who knows. 

 

But Kevin asked the question, Howard answered it.  I think Kevin is worried some sympathy for Dan will develop within the ownership group. Howard seemed to confirm he thought it might be possible.  Again, it's worth noting, the only opinions that matter are the 31 other owners.  They all already know what public opinion is, and public opinion is not going to change for the positive.  Jerrah thinking, "gee, this could EASILY have happened to me" is not a stretch.  I could also see some of the owners either privately or publicly saying, "you stick it to them, Dan."  Because if Dan does manage to ride this thing out, never testify, and then it goes away, it makes the whole thing that much more of a charade.  

 

Also, on his podcast this morning, Al Galdi basically said Dan was totally winning the battle with congress at the moment.  And he even went so far as to say it was probably giving Dan pleasure to be toying with Congress the way he is.  I'm not sure I would go that far.  

 

But I think the idea that the congressional stuff is impacting his future ownership of the team is probably extremely over-stated.  It might even, at this point, be hurting the cause.  Hell, Roger went into the hearing and basically took a bullet for Dan.  If that doesn't show where the heads of the NFL and the owners are, I'm not sure what would.  What it seems to have done, is further tarnish his name, and make it harder to get a stadium.

 

It feels to me like there are more folks starting to come around to my line of thinking from the beginning: this whole thing is pointless because congress can't DO anything to remove him as owner, and if it is split along party lines, you're going to create some sympathy for the guy who they see is being unfairly attacked.  I would say, not in the fan-base, but broader.

 

So, I think we're going to end up in my worst case scenario:

 

- A never ending stories about how horrible Dan is, at least until Lisa Banks is able to file her lawsuit.

- Dan still owning the team, probably until he chooses to sell, which is probably never

- Stuck playing in FedEx forever.  Or at least, a lot longer than I had hoped.

 

Literally the only people who are going to suffer for this are the coaches/players because of lack of fan support and crappy facilities, and any fans who actually want to go to games. 

 

I hope I'm wrong.  But that's where we are at the moment. 

 

The only hope is the MJW investigation.  It is literally our last hope, at least for now.  If that turns up nothing, then unless something new turns up, it's completely over.   

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

A.  Congress knows if Dan does this "voluntarily" it means he will answer very little because he could cite non disclosure agreements and the on going investigation

I'd just like to point out they knew this when they invited him to voluntarily testify with Roger, and then when they urged him to reconsider.  It wasn't a problem at that time.

 

Granted, they are pissed because he blew them off, so they issued the subpoena.  And now they want him to testify under those terms.  And I get that.  The problem is, he will never testify under those terms, so he will get off without testifying.  

 

But they not only invited him once, but then sent a letter to request him reconsider doing it voluntarily.  

 

Howard also said there was no way under God's green earth he would let Dan testify under subpoena, because he didn't think there was any way he could get through it without perjuring himself, potentially not even on purpose. He would string it along and try and quash the subpoena no matter what.  And if he did, he would have Dan take the 5th on absolutely everything.  Like, not answer a single question.  

 

Something I didn't realize, you can't kindof "pick and choose" what you can take the 5th on.  If you partially answer, it somehow invalidates your ability to do it on other questions?  I didn't quite understand that when Howard was explaining it. 

[Wildbunny]

23 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

But Kevin asked the question, Howard answered it.  I think Kevin is worried some sympathy for Dan will develop within the ownership group. Howard seemed to confirm he thought it might be possible.  Again, it's worth noting, the only opinions that matter are the 31 other owners.  They all already know what public opinion is, and public opinion is not going to change for the positive.  Jerrah thinking, "gee, this could EASILY have happened to me" is not a stretch.  I could also see some of the owners either privately or publicly saying, "you stick it to them, Dan."  Because if Dan does manage to ride this thing out, never testify, and then it goes away, it makes the whole thing that much more of a charade.  

I'm not sure the other 31 owners are giving much consideration to this Dan/Congress boxing game, especially who wins that.

 

The only thing they should be considering is that's it's bad, really bad press for the NFL and them. And they have lots of them on them right now, with the Raiders being caught in the eye of the storm as well, or the DeShaun Watson case. As I said earlier in this thread, they should have acted quick and get Dan out fast. Now it's getting bigger. Raiders are next on the line, and who knows who will be next.

 

They might fear to create a precedent, but not doing could end up being even worse and them losing lots of money on many fronts if fans from other teams are pulling back, sponsors, tv deals... That's what bad press do, we all know that as it got our name changed two years ago.

 

We don't really need Congress to do anything in fact. Just the noise to get any bigger, and never stop. And if it takes the Cowboys, Raiders, Patriots or anybody else... that will just help our case.

 

Maybe that's Jeff Bezos plan and he wants it too grow so he can buy the NFL and every teams for cheap... just to piss Elon Musk. (just kidding here, don't answer that here!)

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

30 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

I'm not sure the other 31 owners are giving much consideration to this Dan/Congress boxing game, especially who wins that.

 

The only thing they should be considering is that's it's bad, really bad press for the NFL and them. And they have lots of them on them right now, with the Raiders being caught in the eye of the storm as well, or the DeShaun Watson case. As I said earlier in this thread, they should have acted quick and get Dan out fast. Now it's getting bigger. Raiders are next on the line, and who knows who will be next.

 

They might fear to create a precedent, but not doing could end up being even worse and them losing lots of money on many fronts if fans from other teams are pulling back, sponsors, tv deals... That's what bad press do, we all know that as it got our name changed two years ago.

 

We don't really need Congress to do anything in fact. Just the noise to get any bigger, and never stop. And if it takes the Cowboys, Raiders, Patriots or anybody else... that will just help our case.

 

Maybe that's Jeff Bezos plan and he wants it too grow so he can buy the NFL and every teams for cheap... just to piss Elon Musk. (just kidding here, don't answer that here!)

 

That's what the owners SHOULD be worried about, but sadly it seems they've all followed Jerruh's lead by believing all publicity is good...which it's NOT.

[Skinsinparadise]

15 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

@Skinsinparadise did you listen to Howard Gutman on Sheehan's podcast?  I think he's absolutely the best at breaking this stuff down because he's both a lawyer and a politician (former ambassador to Belgium).

 

It was a really good listen.

 

Along with all the other stuff, Kevin asked Howard if there was any sympathy for Snyder building because of the overt nature of the HOC's agenda against him.

 

And Howard said, basically, because this has become a political battle, and a partisan one, Dan and his folks can probably go to people in league circles and say he was caught up in the middle of a partisan fight, and not a sexual harassment issue, and was unfairly targeted.   Whether that is true or not, who knows. 

 

 

Yeah I get the Democratic-Republican backdrop of this but I am purposely not talking about it here because its impossible to do it without getting partisan.  I'll just say that part of the strategy of delaying the testimony feeds into that, its never escaped me but I can't talk about it on this thread.  And also because i work in that profession, I am never talking about politics on any thread even if I could.  I love coming on here in part because its a diversion from my work.    But I'll just say I worked for 7 years in government -- albiet not Congress and have worked for over 20 years doing political campaigns.  I get all the political angles of this, I've even read some of the inside Congressional political articles about it from the Hill, etc. 

 

15 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

But I think the idea that the congressional stuff is impacting his future ownership of the team is probably extremely over-stated. 

 

That's hyperbole on your end.  Kind of like is Dan broke to defeat the idea the idea whether he has good cash flow.  No one is saying it alone has impact on his future ownership.

 

15 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

Also, on his podcast this morning, Al Galdi basically said Dan was totally winning the battle with congress at the moment.  And he even went so far as to say it was probably giving Dan pleasure to be toying with Congress the way he is.  I'm not sure I would go that far.  

 

 

If its giving Dan pleasure he and his PR team certainly aren't acting like it.  As far as winning the battle if the idea is he's not going to testify -- that battle was won before this game even started according to multiple lawyers who appeared on Sheehan and if I recall Gutman ironically was one of them.  If Galdi was an attorney I'd take his position on this more seriously.

 

15 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 What it seems to have done, is further tarnish his name, and make it harder to get a stadium.

 

 

That's on point.  It's not my point or most others that I can tell that ONE thing will do Dan in based on what's happening and that includes this Congressional hearing.  Don't even know if it happens anytime soon, but i do believe if this doesn't stop there could be a breaking point.  Listening to some of the national reporters talk about what they've heard about what the owners think about Dan -- I haven't heard any atta boy Dan stuff about the congressional hearing.  feels like the opposite. 

 

But I seriously doubt Dan is taking victory laps for all that has gone on.  My point is Congress has done damage to him.

 

I am of the thought that death of 1000 cuts is what kills hiim.  You don't think so.  

 

Your point the way I take it is suck it up and embrace Dan as much as you can, at least give him some benefit of the doubt, yes he's a douche but embrace the idea that he's a wounded animal and will never go back to same old same old because he can't afford to do so for various reasons.    Ron is really in charge.  Ron sets the culture.  Dan is in his castle just letting Ron do his thing.  So lets hope the WP stops and Congress stops because all these stories do is make us feel worse to be Commanders fans and serve no other purpose.  Let it go, embrace Dan as a dude hiding in his tower, let his small victores be our victories too because he's not going anywhere and let Ron charge this team forward.  

 

I hear you but we are on different planets on that stuff. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[88Comrade2000]

All Dan has to do is run out the clock and no more congressional investigation.  The MJW investigation will not lead to Dan being forced to sell. Dan would get another slap on the wrist.

 

Dan will own this team until he dies in about 30 years.  His kids will inherit the team but my guess there won't be much of a team to inherit in 2052.   It will be a team with maybe only a couple of thousands of actual fans, playing in some ****ty successor to FedEx beside the site of the original FedEx.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

That's hyperbole on your end.  Kind of like is Dan broke to defeat the idea the idea whether he has good cash flow.  No one is saying it alone has impact on his future ownership

See, I think you're wrong there.  I think there are a lot of people who think the congressional involvement was going to push the other owners over the edge to vote him out.  Thom Lovero championed that cause, as have others in the media, and you see it posted here.

 

Hell, if THIS doesn't show that people  thought congressional involvement could get rid of Snyder, I don't know what does:

 

Quote

The brothers Manatos grew up in Washington and are longtime adversaries of Snyder. In mid-April, they sent an email to friends inviting them to the fundraiser, along with this message: “The one person in Washington who may have found a path to getting rid of Snyder [as the team’s owner] is my good friend and Chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi.”

 

I think there was a real story pushed that this could be the straw that broke the camels back, and the fact is, that was never true. Florio, Sheehan, a whole bunch of people were pushing it, but it was based on hope and desire. 

 

  And we learned how un-true it was when Roger got up and said it wasn't true.  

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If its giving Dan pleasure he and his PR team certainly aren't acting like it.  As far as winning the battle if the idea is he's not going to testify -- that battle was won before this game even started according to multiple lawyers who appeared on Sheehan and if I recall Gutman ironically was one of them.  If Galdi was an attorney I'd take his position on this more seriously.

 

As I said, I wouldn't go as far as the HOC has been acting, if they don't actually compel his testimony, regardless of anything on the Dan side, that's a black eye for them. 

 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I am of the thought that death of 1000 cuts is what kills hiim.  You don't think so.  

Yeah, I don't think this is possible, unless it's 1000 paper cuts to the bottom line of the NFL.  Until there is either a) a direct, confirmed act of transgression that forces him out, or b) a direct, material financial loss to the NFL as a whole due to him owning the team, he could get 10,000 paper cuts, and it wouldn't matter.  Roger and the NFL have made that point abundantly clear.  They basically slapped his wrist for the workplace misconduct scandal, didn't get a written report so they wouldn't have to disclose anything in the report, backed him buying out the minority owners and gave him a debt waiver.  They have supported him at every single turn, whether they like him or not.  I'm sure there are 4 or 5 that want him gone because he's a piece of human excrement as a person. But that's not going to do it.  

 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Your point the way I take it is suck it up and embrace Dan as much as you can,

...

Embrace is entirely the wrong word. I would say "accept" is the right word.  

 

I think accept the truth he's not going anywhere anytime soon and there's nothing you can do about it.  And then you have a decision to make: do you still root for the team or not.  Either answer is fine, and completely legitimate. 

 

I've accepted he's not going anywhere. Based on what I believe is a rational and logical review of all of the facts, reports, sources, and testimony.    I don't have to like that, but I also don't have any control over it, and I don't believe continued teeth mashing over it is helpful to anybody.  That's my opinion. And I still want to root for the team.  That's also my decision.  

 

I also wouldn't say I give him the benefit of the doubt  I think I just accept who he is, and what he's done, and what he's likely to do.  And then I look at what he's reported to be doing now, and I say, "eh, ok, for now it's this thing.  Probably won't last, but for now it's this."  And then move on. Shrug.

 

If there is a "hope" jar, a lot of people are placing their "hope" coins in the jar that says, "Dan Gone."  I don't think that's a legitimate option, so I'm not placing a lot of hope coins in it.  If it happens, that's the best case scenario.  I just don't think it will, and would LOVE to be wrong.  

 

I place my "hope coins" in the jar that says "Dan Stays Away."  Because of the two, that's more likely to happen.  Is it likely?  Probably not.  But if I'm going to hope for something that has a legitimate chance of happening, that's the one I choose.  

 

Again, if you fall on the "death by 1000 papercuts" theory, fine, then there is a means to an end.  I just don't happen to believe it's ever going to work because of the power dynamics of the NFL.  It might work literally in any other situation in the world, but not this one. 

 

Given I don't subscribe to the death by 1000 papercuts theory, I'm hanging my hat on the MJW investigation.  If there's anything which can toss him out in the next 2-3 years, it will be in that report.  If there isn't, at least for the next 2-3 years, we're stuck with him whether we like it or not. Until the next scandal, and then we can revisit this and see if there is anything there. 

 

It's different than Bruce.  Bruce could be fired.  Dan can't be fired.  And Dan makes money hand over fist from owning the team.  Even if zero people went to the game and there were no sponsorships, he would still make tons of money.  So there's no way to financially impact him to sell. There's no real way to influence the other owners to force him out, unless you could get anheuser busch to threaten to pull all sponsorship money unless the NFL kicked Dan out, or one of the broadcast partners refused to show Commanders games, or something like that.  Which isn't going to happen.  

 

It sucks.  But it is what it is.  

 

Last note: It's fine for people to fantasize about getting Dan out of here on this message board, twitter, the media, whatever.  Sometimes you just need a shoulder to cry on and people to agree with you.  So I'm not trying to stifle that intent.

[CommanderCarson]

Every time I come in here I expect to learn something new, and every time I’m disappointed. 
 

He’s not getting removed based on clear evidence that the NFL has his back.

 

It seems like @Voice_of_Reason is the only one who gets this, the constant swirl of negativity and hating on Dan does nothing but hurt the product on the actual field by making players not want to play here and not getting a new stadium and everyone wants to get the hell out of this circus where the ultimate goal is to get the owner removed and not support the team.

[Skinsinparadise]

11 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

See, I think you're wrong there.  I think there are a lot of people who think the congressional involvement was going to push the other owners over the edge to vote him out.  Thom Lovero championed that cause, as have others in the media, and you see it posted here.

 

Hell, if THIS doesn't show that people  thought congressional involvement could get rid of Snyder, I don't know what does:

 

 

 

I am talking about people here, not Thom Loverro.

 

11 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I think there was a real story pushed that this could be the straw that broke the camels back, and the fact is, that was never true. Florio, Sheehan, a whole bunch of people were pushing it, but it was based on hope and desire. 

 

I listen to Sheehan all the time, I don't recall him saying the hearing is what kills Dan.  Sheehan's mantra hasn't been that the owners kick him out but that Dan eventually isn't having fun anymore and he sells.

 

11 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

Yeah, I don't think this is possible, unless it's 1000 paper cuts to the bottom line of the NFL.  Until there is either a) a direct, confirmed act of transgression that forces him out, or b) a direct, material financial loss to the NFL as a whole due to him owning the team, he could get 10,000 paper cuts, and it wouldn't matter.  Roger and the NFL have made that point abundantly clear. 

 

when some owners talked to USA Today and told the reporter that its under consideration, deep down it was ha ha ha,  he's our dude and he's never going?  Roger telegraphed that it doesn't matter what happens down the road Dan isn't going anywhere?

 

11 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Embrace is entirely the wrong word. I would say "accept" is the right word.  

 

 

 

Based on your posts, I think you go beyond accept, I think you are actually cooler with Dan than most.  I don't feel like repeating it again on this post but I listed the number of things where you've had his back or gave him the benefit of the doubt versus others here.  I don't get a sense you hate the dude.  You might dislike him but I don't get the sense you dislike him anywhere near to the degree that some do on this thread. 

 

So lol, I'l play psych 101 here, I think subconsciously your acceptace of Dan extends beyond what you say it its just circumstance.  Reading your posts i don't think you think Dan is as bad as others do -- you think he's bad but not as bad -- you do think we can win with him, clearly.

 

11 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

It sucks.  But it is what it is.  

 

 

Based on some of your other posts, I don't think you really think it sucks.    You come off like at best its annoying but we can live through Dan and win some SBs and people are over the top about how he hampers this team at least from the stand point of the future -- Dan is a bad owner, but Sheehan and all the others who say you'll never win with Dan are wrong -- maybe that was true before but won't be true going forward because while the NFL will never get rid of Dan, they actually secretly embrace him for whatever reason because he's one of thir own so don't believe those leaks that they don't care for him and or want him gone and the bottom line is they got him properly wounded and on his best behavior going forward.  

 

11 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

Last note: It's fine for people to fantasize about getting Dan out of here on this message board, twitter, the media, whatever.  Sometimes you just need a shoulder to cry on and people to agree with you.  So I'm not trying to stifle that intent.

 

I get the mindset. I'll have a little fun with the analogy.  It's like the Game of Thrones do you fantasize about getting rid of the boy king who feels entrenced or accept him and let go.   The acceptance feels to some more powerful and "realsitic".  You are the house bet not the gambler bet.  The odds are with being with the power versus fighting the power. lol, not that we are fighting anyone but others are -- and sure the money bet it always with the power. 

 

What cyncism represents isn't deep -- cyncism is driven by fear.  The fear of being hurt.  You get your hopes up and its dashed.  So you don't emotionally put yourself through that.  So those who accept that Dan is here forever, naturally are annoyed with those who push the opposite emotion. You kind of have to push back otherwise cognitive dissonance takes place. 

 

So yeah the we are fools for believing.  Or what you are doing here which is saying its fine for those who do but then mock it in the next setence.   I brush it off and I get why that thought keeps coming here and always will until hopefully something shakes.   And its cool but I am explaining why people being saracastic or pissed at anyone here who has some optimism that Dan one day might be gone -- doesn't move the needle with me .  

Edited July 15, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Darrell Green Fan]

On 7/13/2022 at 4:30 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

Wall Street Journal

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dan-snyder-subpoena-house-congress-11657718917

 

It isn’t unusual for individuals to be reluctant to participate in a Congressional investigation, or even for them to try to run out the clock on a committee’s interest. It is different, though, for them to attempt to avoid a subpoena. And it’s almost unheard of that they would try to do it by remaining out of the country.

 

“The norm in D.C. is for attorneys to accept service electronically. It’s very rare for an attorney not to accept service of a subpoena over email,” said Dave Rapallo, the longtime Democratic staff director for the oversight committee, who is now an associate professor of law at Georgetown University. 

“I worked on Capitol Hill for more than 20 years and I have never seen anyone intentionally evade a subpoena from Congress in this way.”

 

In recent weeks Snyder’s yacht has been in Cannes, the French city that was hosting a large advertising and marketing festival. Then it moved through the azure waters of the French Riviera. 

It has gone from near the Cap d’Antibes to the northern tip of Corsica, the French island lush with natural beauty in the Mediterranean, according to vesselfinder.com, a website that tracks ship movements. It has since gone to Sardinia, the luxurious Italian island, and Panarea, part of the island chain north of Sicily. 

Snyder faces the prospect of being served by U.S. Marshals as soon as he returns to American soil. The Commanders play their first preseason game Aug. 13, while the regular season kicks off in September.

There are few examples of people avoiding a subpoena by being abroad, and the instances that people could recall resulted in the subject and the committee cutting a deal.

Michael Perino, professor at St. John’s University School of Law, said that banker Charles Mitchell was subpoenaed as part of the Congressional investigation into the causes of the Wall Street crash in the early 1930s, but responded that he would be heading out of the country. 

 

The investigation’s chief counsel, Ferdinand Pecora, agreed to postpone seeking Mitchell’s testimony in exchange for access to his documents, Perino said, though for Mitchell, it backfired as the banking crisis of 1933 had hit by the time he got back. 

Charles Tiefer, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, recalled a witness who was sought by the House Iran-Contra Committee—to which Tiefer was counsel. The witness, Tiefer recalled, was in Europe, and in the end accepted a plan for committee staff to come to him to take his deposition. 

 

But while staying away without a compromise might carry a reputational risk for Snyder, there’s very little else that Congress could do about it, and certainly not quickly.

Tiefer said that while it is possible—if laborious—to serve a judicial subpoena in another country, even that option isn’t available with a Congressional subpoena. 

 

“Traditionally a person overseas cannot be reached by a Congressional subpoena,” Tiefer said. 

And serving a subpoena is one component in finding someone to be in contempt of Congress, he added. “You can’t be in contempt unless you’re validly served, or show up and refuse to answer questions.”

Committee Republicans have openly criticized the Washington team investigation as a waste of time and resources, and pledged to drop it if they take control of the House after the November midterm elections.

Maloney would still remain chair until January and some Democrats would almost certainly argue for her to push ahead with the investigation during the lame-duck Congress, if for no other reason than to preserve the committee’s authority for all future occupants of her seat.

 

You said a lot of what I was thinking. Why did everyone say the clock runs out in November?  Even if they lose the House they will still retain their seats until January.  But it won't go that long, after (if) Snyder testifies what more is there to do?  Seems to me they have already accomplished our goal, to make Snyder (and the league) very publicly look bad.  

 

On the part about lawyers typically receive subpoenas electronically why wasn't that the case this time?  It would not matter where Snyder was right?  

 

And what happened with the "due process" his lawyers constantly reference?  That's why they could not just accept his proposal to just show up, that issue remained from what I have heard and he had not totally agreed yet.  Is that now not the case?  I had also heard that under the subpoena all questions are fair game, with a voluntary participation some questions are off limits.  Correct?

 

While I agree the MJW investigation is much more important I keep going back to the quote from an owner that the entire group is tired of all the smoke. That's why this investigation is so very very important for any fan who wants justice, this entire ordeal is more smoke and the more he resists testifying the more smoke is created.  So it's insane that every Washington fan, or any American who actually cares about holding people accountable for the toxic work environments they have created, is not 100% in support of this investigation.    

 

As for Kevin Sheehan I'm a big fan, he is going on about Daniel Snyder because this is all far more important to the future of the team than how a 4th round pick will turn out.  So he is talking about what people want to hear about.  

Edited July 15, 2022 by Darrell Green Fan

[Skinsinparadise]

26 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

You said a lot of what I was thinking. Why did everyone say the clock runs out in November?  Even if they lose the House they will still retain their seats until January.

 

 

Agree.  Also, the crux of my argument on this was Congress versus Dan hasn't been a win for Dan, its been a big time win for Congress.  

 

Some say Dan's brand was damaged enough so more damage accomplishes nothing.  I disagree.  Among other things this hearing has exposed Dan nationally.  I think my biggest difference with some on this thread about Dan is I get the impression that they think all the local stories about Dan being a douche was always big time mainstream and on the national radar. 

 

From what I observed and some know I probably post more media articles about this team both locally based and national than anyone here and have done it forever -- I subscribe to just about everything. The idea that Dan being a douce is now national and off the charts so -- and was never off the charts previously nationally.  It's been off the charts locally but not nationally.  And that puts the whole NFL in the spotight in a bigger way than it has in the past for Dan.

 

I do think there are limits to how much the NFL can take.  People cite this or cite that for the arguments.  What and when is the breaking point?  I got no idea.   But for me if it takes 3 years or even 10 years I am rooting for anything that can happen to make that happen.  I don't think we are ever winning consistently with that douche as the owner.  

 

There is one argument that IMO trumps all other on this front and by a mile.  Who is the jury here?  The owners.  They matter over everyone, clearly.  People could cite Florio or name that dude who says yea or nay.  But when some of actual owners give quotes to the national media about Dan being removed is something under consideration -- and that too is brushed off by some as meaningless.  To me that's a bridge too far for the cynics here.    

 

The only reason whty I quote some local media on this stuff isn't because they are experts but I've followed some of them for years and have seen some of their opinions change from being cynical that Dan will always be the owner to now thinking its just a matter of time before he's gone.

 

Are they right or wrong?  Who knows, time will tell.  I only bring it up because some here seem to impute that those who think that there is a breaking point for this are pie in the sky nut jobs.  I don't always for example agree with Sheehan but he's no nut job for example. 

 

26 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

On the part about lawyers typically receive subpoenas electronically why wasn't that the case this time?  It would not matter where Snyder was right?  

 

 

Yep his lawyer could have accepted it but refused to.  Where Snyder was just adding to the drama and attention by being abroad on his yacht.   With the exception of a few people, I don't think most believe that this exercise has been a PR win for Dan.   All it did is bring attention to it.

 

I thnk with some Congress is a fun punching bag so if people want to take shots at them cool but looking at it from a pure PR battle, Dan's dance on his Yacht was another PR loser for him.

 

26 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

 

As for Kevin Sheehan I'm a big fan, he is going on about Daniel Snyder because this is all far more important to the future of the team than how a 4th round pick will turn out.  So he is talking about what people want to hear about.  

 

I listen to Kevin.  I don't agree with some of his takes on Wentz among other things.  But on the crux of things we are on the same page.  He's a big Ron guy, so am I.  He thinks this team can't win with Dan consistently -- sadly I agree with him on that, too.  He among others have said he knows a lot more stories about Dan than what's been public and I do believe him, every now and then he slips a little hint about them. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Darrell Green Fan]

41 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Agree.  Also, the crux of my argument on this was Congress versus Dan hasn't been a win for Dan, its been a big time win for Congress.  

 

Some say Dan's brand was damaged enough so more damage accomplishes nothing.  I disagree.  Among other things this hearing has exposed Dan nationally.  I think my biggest difference with some on this thread about Dan is I get the impression that they think all the local stories about Dan being a douche was always big time mainstream and on the national radar. 

 

From what I observed and some know I probably post more media articles about this team both locally based and national than anyone here and have done it forever -- I subscribe to just about everything. The idea that Dan being a douce is now national and off the charts so -- and was never off the charts previously nationally.  It's been off the charts locally but not nationally.  And that puts the whole NFL in the spotight in a bigger way than it has in the past for Dan.

 

I do think there are limits to how much the NFL can take.  People cite this or cite that for the arguments.  What and when is the breaking point?  I got no idea.   But for me if it takes 3 years or even 10 years I am rooting for anything that can happen to make that happen.  I don't think we are ever winning consistently with that douche as the owner.  

 

There is one argument that IMO trumps all other on this front and by a mile.  Who is the jury here?  The owners.  They matter over everyone, clearly.  People could cite Florio or name that dude who says yea or nay.  But when some of actual owners give quotes to the national media about Dan being removed is something under consideration -- and that too is brushed off by some as meaningless.  To me that's a bridge too far for the cynics here.    

 

The only reason whty I quote some local media on this stuff isn't because they are experts but I've followed some of them for years and have seen some of their opinions change from being cynical that Dan will always be the owner to now thinking its just a matter of time before he's gone.

 

Are they right or wrong?  Who knows, time will tell.  I only bring it up because some here seem to impute that those who think that there is a breaking point for this are pie in the sky nut jobs.  I don't always for example agree with Sheehan but he's no nut job for example. 

 

 

Yep his lawyer could have accepted it but refused to.  Where Snyder was just adding to the drama and attention by being abroad on his yacht.   With the exception of a few people, I don't think most believe that this exercise has been a PR win for Dan.   All it did is bring attention to it.

 

I thnk with some Congress is a fun punching bag so if people want to take shots at them cool but looking at it from a pure PR battle, Dan's dance on his Yacht was another PR loser for him.

 

 

I listen to Kevin.  I don't agree with some of his takes on Wentz among other things.  But on the crux of things we are on the same page.  He's a big Ron guy, so am I.  He thinks this team can't win with Dan consistently -- sadly I agree with him on that, too.  He among others have said he knows a lot more stories about Dan than what's been public and I do believe him, every now and then he slips a little hint about them. 

 

Prezactly.  Locals are aware of Dan and his issues but nationally they only know he's a jerk but didn't know much more. That is all changing now and that's because of this investigation.  This story continues to be covered nationally and sponsors and NFL owners are aware of this.  It won't die because Congress refuses to let it die.

 

Fans who criticize this investigation are just way off base, it is necessary and very very important.   Now is it political theater from House members who are doing as their voters want, which is to attack Daniel Snyder?  Sure it is but who cares? We want him out right?  Well this may just help us achieve this goal.  

Edited July 15, 2022 by Darrell Green Fan

[Skinsinparadise]

Sports lawyer on Standig's podcast.  Her thoughts..

 

A. If you go with Dan's lawyers thoughts about what is the big deal about accepting him to speak voluntarily then she goes well then what's the big deal about accepting a subponea.  If Dan has nothing to hide then accept the subponea if its no big deal.

 

B.  The non disclosure agreement stuff is likely why they are insisting on the subponea.  He can bow out of a ton of questions using that excuse.

 

C.  They both think Congress should maybe accept the voluntary drill because the dude almost never talks publicly so that alone makes it interesting and him refusing to answer questions which will indeed happen won't make him look good.

 

D.  As for the optics for Congress and Dan, they think its a lose lose for both sides.  She doesn't think any of it makes Dan look good.  And on Congress' end it looks like they might be wasting their time when there is nothing they can do to Dan. 

 

E.  She talked about the drama of a US Marshall serving Dan with the subponea when he comes back from overseas -- suggesting that likely ends up a national story.  That's a good point, I didn't think about the optics of that.  Maybe that's the end game?

 

F. She and some of her colleagues discussed this and they've never seen a public figure dodge a subponea like this -- she didn't say it in a way that was flattering to Dan.

 

G.  They speculated that Dan's team picked the last date before Congress goes to recess as the date to voluntarily testify maybe because he can give a last minute excuse to not do it, then it doesn't happen since Congress is in recess after that.  That thought makes me think of Keim's podcast which I cited here where he says talking to people in the know, Dan won't be talking to Congress.  The way Keim came off on it (( i am extrapolating this part), felt like Dan's team perhaps reassured Dan, don't worry, let us handle this, you won't have to talk. 

 

H.  She thinks he would look much better in the public eye if he talked and took real responsibility for what happened versus his half hearted apology.  He comes off as a dude with no remorse and comes off like he hasn't done anything wrong.  That attitude she believes is pushing the emotion behind these investigations.  She thinks his attitude is a tactical mistake.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Chris 44]

15 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Sports lawyer on Standig's podcast.  Her thoughts..

 

 

 

G.  They speculated that Dan's team picked the last date before Congress goes to recess as the date to voluntarily testify maybe because he can give a last minute excuse to not do it, then it doesn't happen since Congress is in recess after that.  That thought makes me think of Keim's podcast which I cited here where he says talking to people in the know, Dan won't be talking to Congress.  The way Keim came off on it (( i am extrapolating this part), felt like Dan's team perhaps reassured Dan, don't worry, let us handle this, you won't have to talk. 

 

 

G. I believe this is exactly what is going to happen and if he were to actually show up it also allows Dan to side step certain questions and push them off into the future. More time to consult, prepare and come up with reasons not to answer.