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

[TD_washingtonredskins]

5 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Previously, you had some cornerstone teams, like the Packers, Cowboys, Giants, Steelers, and us. Now what you're having is one of your cornerstone team falling all the way down because of a crappy owner. And that's never good for buisness.

Well, it really isn't one of your "cornerstone teams" though. We think of it that way because of our age and when we entered our fandom (I'm assuming you're roughly my age...give or take 10 years). But, outside of being around for a long time, the Redskins aren't perennial winners. At all. They had a fast start as an organization in their first 10 years and then another good 20-year run from the early-70s through early-90s. Other than that...losing and lots of it. That's roughly 30ish up years out of 90. 

[88Comrade2000]

The nfl had 20 years without a team in LA, the #2 market and only have one their now because the owner built his own stadium.

 

Whatever lack of revenue DC generates, isn’t big enough to negatively impact the other owners.  
 

The tv deals, which is the biggest source of money would have to be negatively impacted and that isn’t happening.

 

As gambling becomes nationwide, the value of franchises will increase. Including us.

 

 

[Conn]

1 hour ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

The nfl had 20 years without a team in LA, the #2 market and only have one their now because the owner built his own stadium.

 

Whatever lack of revenue DC generates, isn’t big enough to negatively impact the other owners.  
 

The tv deals, which is the biggest source of money would have to be negatively impacted and that isn’t happening.

 

As gambling becomes nationwide, the value of franchises will increase. Including us.

 

 

LA was a special case because the owners liked having that in their back pockets all those years to threaten their current cities with. It had more value to them as leverage. Eventually as sentiment for public funding for stadiums was cooling anyways, they followed through and moved teams there. 

[Wildbunny]

9 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Well, it really isn't one of your "cornerstone teams" though. We think of it that way because of our age and when we entered our fandom (I'm assuming you're roughly my age...give or take 10 years). But, outside of being around for a long time, the Redskins aren't perennial winners. At all. They had a fast start as an organization in their first 10 years and then another good 20-year run from the early-70s through early-90s. Other than that...losing and lots of it. That's roughly 30ish up years out of 90. 

Well the reference here should be the Superbowl era where it all really started. Prior to that it wasn't as commercial as it is now.

 

And well, Redskins/Cowboys has been the biggest rivalry in the NFL since the beginning (and the creation of the Cowboys btw). So that's where your cornerstone team comes from. Being relevant from the beginning to the 90s also puts into that. We used to play toe-to-toe for 1st place in merchandise sales. Before Dan Snyder we were Top 5 in SB wins. Now we're top 10 and I'm not expecting this to go better anytime soon.

 

Now every team has some down period. And the Patriots used to be a joke until they land Tom Brady. But rarely do they have it for 20 years. And even then I could probably live with that. But we're also classless and dirty. That part is really a problem to me and many fans around that drove them away with mostly no hopes of coming back.

 

Last thing, I'm nearly 48

[Darrell Green Fan]

Just wondering how bad the skeletons in the other owner's closets must be for them to react as they have.  I mean is what they have done even close to the collection of work we have from Daniel Snyder?  And they still don't appear to be ready to remove him.  

[CobraCommander]

7 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Just wondering how bad the skeletons in the other owner's closets must be for them to react as they have.  I mean is what they have done even close to the collection of work we have from Daniel Snyder?  And they still don't appear to be ready to remove him.  

If it all centers around toxic workplaces filled with misogyny and sexual harassment then yeah, every other owner is probably on par or has worse things to cover up. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

5 minutes ago, CobraCommander said:

If it all centers around toxic workplaces filled with misogyny and sexual harassment then yeah, every other owner is probably on par or has worse things to cover up. 

 

While I do not doubt this may be true in this era it's strange that those victims, if they exist, have not come out publicly.    None of these owners have been issued a subpoena to appear before Congress, not to mention all the other embarrassing things Snyder has brought on the league.  

 

I still can't wait for more stuff to come out. It's clear there is more. Keep the story going even after the investigation!!!!!

[Skinsinparadise]

4 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

While I do not doubt this may be true in this era it's strange that those victims, if they exist, have not come out publicly.    None of these owners have been issued a subpoena to appear before Congress, not to mention all the other embarrassing things Snyder has brought on the league.  

 

I still can't wait for more stuff to come out. It's clear there is more. Keep the story going even after the investigation!!!!!

 

 

I thought it was telling to have the Commissioner under oath asked about the degree of how bad it was at Redskins Park.  He basically said it was by the far worse he's aware of any other team.

 

I got no doubt that there are bad owners in the NFL with skeletons but for those who on occasion say Dan is just a run of the mill dime a dozen bad owner and is toe to toe with almost every owner as far as bad behavior-incompetence -- most indications are that is wrong.  Heck Goodell was bascially posed that question directly and said this team is by the far the worse -- and keep in mind his job was to deflect criticism of the team not pile on to it -- but on that point he piled on. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[CobraCommander]

2 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

While I do not doubt this may be true in this era it's strange that those victims, if they exist, have not come out publicly.    None of these owners have been issued a subpoena to appear before Congress, not to mention all the other embarrassing things Snyder has brought on the league.  

 

I still can't wait for more stuff to come out. It's clear there is more. Keep the story going even after the investigation!!!!!

I mean there have been stories. Jerry Jones and his illegitimate daughter, Robert Kraft and his massages. They are all protected not only by the NFL but by high price lawyers, NDAs and settlement money. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

As for the lawyer she sounded reasonable to me -- no far out arguments and much of what she said jives with what other lawyers have said.

So first, my apologies.  My comment about her was absolutely not directed at you, and I completely see how it would have come off as arrogant and obnoxious.  It was poorly worded and overly aggressive.  So, again, I'm sorry about that. 

 

For (brief) background, when she appeared the first time with Standig and Galdi, she just couldn't get any of the facts right.  She got the subpoena process all wrong, who could issue a subpoena, how it was issued, the process to issue a subpoena, how a subpoena was served, how it was challenged, she didn't seem to know congress had to subpoena somebody for a specific date and time, that a lot of times the subpoena date/time was worked out ahead of time, they couldn't issue a carte blanche subpoena, what happened if congress couldn't serve the subpoena, what the possible recourse of Congress was if they issued a subpoena and Dan didn't show.  Literally everything she was brought on to add insight to, she had significant factual errors in, which is why I made the comment.  Which again, was poorly worded, and I apologize for.

 

And no, I'm not a lawyer.  But I have listened to a bunch of folks talk about it, I paid attention closely to a number of subpoena issues with congress not surrounding Dan, done a lot of reading about it prior to the Dan stuff, and I have a pretty good understanding of the rules.  When she couldn't get the basic procedural process right, I was kindof done with her as an "expert witness" if you will.  I even posted somewhere that she had entered the Thor Nystrom level of ridiculous guests for me. Which, as you know, is about the 6th circle of guest hell in my opinion.  

 

Maybe she was just having a bad few days, or maybe she studied up, or maybe we've gotten to a point where she actually knows what's going on.  But when she appeared previously, she did not have command of the facts.  

 

If she's back on target and making good, lucid and factually correct points, great.

 

Also FWIW, I thought she gave some HORRIFIC legal advice when she was on with Galdi, but that had nothing to do with my opinion of her.  She said if we was Dan's lawyer, she would actually encourage him to testify because he needs to tell the truth, and the facts will eventually get out.  It's absolutely fine if that's your legal advice.  Absolutely nobody else has taken that tactic.  I personally think that approach is akin to malpractice, but again, that's not what bothered me about her appearances.  I also think that's what she wants to happen, but it wouldn't be in the best interest of her client.  

 

But that's not what I had an issue with. That's her opinion and her offering of legal advice. That's like Todd Archer offering his opinion that Dallas is going to win every SB for the next 10 years because they are America's team.  You can disagree with that, but it's his opinion.  

 

Not being able to articulate the subject matter she was brought on to clarify was the cardinal sin I couldn't get over.  

 

This time around, maybe she hit the nail on the head. I don't know, but I think I will go back and listen.  

 

So again, I should have probably completely re-done my post, and just said that last time she was on, she couldn't get the facts right about the subpoena process, and left it at that, as a warning as to the credibility of the witness, if you will.  

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, CobraCommander said:

I mean there have been stories. Jerry Jones and his illegitimate daughter, Robert Kraft and his massages. They are all protected not only by the NFL but by high price lawyers, NDAs and settlement money. 

To say nothing of the Raiders having to change their organization twice because of similar allegations, the Texans apparently giving Watson NDAs to have his massage therapists sign, and the whole Brow's side of the mess, where they were willing to trade for somebody who had open sexual harassment civil cases open against him, and then gave him the largest guaranteed contract in NFL history.  

 

I think the HOC should have investigated all of these things, and potentially brought in representatives from other leagues as well, and then offered legislation on the basis of a much wider investigation. They could also have looped in season ticket down-payment returns and the financial side as well.  And if they had done it that way, and invited say, 10-15 people to provide testimony, including Dan, while the legal side wouldn't have changed, I do think it would have been harder for him to get out of.  Unless, of course, all of the owners played exactly the same game, and that would have been high theater....  

 

It also would have made a subpoena much, much, much harder to quash.  

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

So first, my apologies.  My comment about her was absolutely not directed at you, and I completely see how it would have come off as arrogant and obnoxious.  It was poorly worded and overly aggressive.  So, again, I'm sorry about that. 

 

 

Thanks but no need to apologize.  I didn't take it personally

 

If I have a button on the subject its when some ridicule others for thinking there is a shot at Dan ever leaving.    I understand it won't be easy and it won't happen anytime soon.  But the notion that it could happen isn't absurd.  I don't mind those thinking Dan will never leave but if that point also extends to the point that anyone that disagrees with that notion is some loon -- I'll respond.  And I'll respond every time. . Because its not looney IMO.  If owners are leaking to the national media that they are considering it -- at a minimum based on that alone I don't think the notion is ridiculous that they might act on it some day. 

 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Wildbunny]

11 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I think the HOC should have investigated all of these things, and potentially brought in representatives from other leagues as well, and then offered legislation on the basis of a much wider investigation. They could also have looped in season ticket down-payment returns and the financial side as well.  And if they had done it that way, and invited say, 10-15 people to provide testimony, including Dan, while the legal side wouldn't have changed, I do think it would have been harder for him to get out of.  Unless, of course, all of the owners played exactly the same game, and that would have been high theater....  

I would love for them to push it that far. That would put the NFL under close study that owners wouldn't welcome and would force them into action one way or another.

 

They can still do it by the way, not limiting themselves to Dan Snyders as lots of stuff are coming out lately.

[Voice_of_Reason]

9 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Thanks but no need to apologize.  I didn't take it personally

 

If I have a button on the subject its when some ridicule others for thinking there is a shot at Dan ever leaving.    I understand it won't be easy and it won't happen anytime soon.  But the notion that it could happen isn't absurd.  I don't mind those thinking Dan will never leave but if that point also extends to the point that anyone that disagrees with that notion is some loon -- I'll respond.  And I'll respond every time. . Because its not looney IMO.  If owners are leaking to the national media that they are considering it -- at a minimum based on that alone I don't think the notion is ridiculous that they might act on it some day. 

Tell you what: I'm not going to change my position that I don't think any of this stuff is going to actually help, and I am not going to change my opinion that I don't think death by 1000 papercuts is going to work.

 

That said, I DO think there is a chance for "the big scandal."  And I'm not losing the faith on that.  I just don't think any of these things are it.  I agree, I think there are unreported things which might just do it.  But those unreported things were not in the Beth Wilkinson "report" and probably won't be in the MJW report.  We can hope.  But I doubt it.  

 

The question is, can they be uncovered or reported on?  

 

Maybe.  This is where I keep saying, I've reach Dan fatigue where the story isn't something that can directly lead to his expulsion.  It's a different way of looking at it, because I don't believe an accumulation of things will work, I think you need the smoking cannon.  I'm not sure a smoking gun is going to be enough, to be honest.  But I actually DO believe it IS out there.  It just hasn't been uncovered yet.  

 

I'm also really frustrated with the HOC because I think there was a chance if they played their cards right, they MIGHT have been able to uncover the smoking cannon. Even if I'm not on-board with the way they went about it, I'm actually in your boat, I would be able to very easily overlook my general concerns if they were successful. But I think they played their cards really badly and too overtly from the start. Which led them down a path to nowhere.  And I still come back to the reason I think they played their cards the way they did is because they're being fed and orchestrated by Lisa Banks and her agenda.  Which has nothing to do with removing Dan (or creating legislation, for that matter), it has to do with getting enough information on record to file a gigantic civil suit.  

 

If they weren't being prodded by Banks and her agenda, and the agenda actually was to figure out workplace misconduct across the NFL, and they had gone broad, I actually think they might have stumbled into the smoking cannon.  It's very possible Dan could have been offered up as a sacrificial lamb to save the rest of the owners.  

23 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

I would love for them to push it that far. That would put the NFL under close study that owners wouldn't welcome and would force them into action one way or another.

 

They can still do it by the way, not limiting themselves to Dan Snyders as lots of stuff are coming out lately.

They could but they won't.  It's too late.  They're about to break for summer recess and then they are all going to disappear to run for re-election.  

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

The owners are making a mistake If they think that by staying silent on Snyder will help them avoid having to reveal their own skeletons in various closets. They fear if they support ousting Snyder it will open them up to the same treatment.

 

Have the owners ever stopped to think that they could support Snyder and still get sued by female accusers anyway? There could be hundreds of accusers waiting in the wings to see if the NFL goes soft on Snyder...just like how that Ray Rice video was suddenly leaked after Goodell went soft on him.

 

It's the unknown accusations that are just around the corner that you can't see that are the most dangerous.

Edited July 17, 2022 by BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen

[Wildbunny]

6 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

That said, I DO think there is a chance for "the big scandal."  And I'm not losing the faith on that.

tbh, I thought the cheerleaders story was it.

But for whatever reason it went nowhere regarding Dan.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

I am leaning optimistic about the season but considering I'd guess give or take half the national media thinks this will be one of the top 10 worst teams in the NFL -- it would be a bit wild if some of these guys are right.  As much as I am down on Dan, I typically am optimistic about the seasons before they happen and I've taken shots at the national naysayers in the past on dire predictions like this and I ended up wrong at times.

 

As much as root against Dan, I can't root against the team so no I don't want to see this happen but I admit it would be wild to see the low depths of how something like this would spill into. It would be really interesting from a Dan watch the world burn.  It's a rebranding season -- critical season arguably for them.  You got the backdrop of them struggiling to get a stadium.  If the season falls apart fast like that, not only would they likely graduate to being next to last in attendance to last but I figure dead last by a good margin.

 

I know a handful of people on here and on a twitter would get some joy from seeing Rivera canned but I doubt that would happen -- it would be a PR loser and Dan unlike the past IMO will struggle with replacing him with any big name -- it likely would be a Fassel (RIP) type of Zorn which would deflate fans even more. 

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[FLSkinz83]

I'm not seeing the fascination of tracking Snyder's yacht.     I'm not surprised that Florio is obsessed with it.   He probably posts in this thread.

[Skinsinparadise]

Different things float different people's boat, considering all the followers that dude has gotten, I gather plenty are interested. 

 

I don't think its "fascination" -- its about mocking a dude who has earned every whit of the mockery. 

[FootballZombie]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

If your several games off the vegas line in either direction you should probably be questioning what your smoking.

[philibusters]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I am leaning optimistic about the season but considering I'd guess give or take half the national media thinks this will be one of the top 10 worst teams in the NFL -- it would be a bit wild if some of these guys are right.  As much as I am down on Dan, I typically am optimistic about the seasons before they happen and I've taken shots at the national naysayers in the past on dire predictions like this and I ended up wrong at times.

 

As much as root against Dan, I can't root against the team so no I don't want to see this happen but I admit it would be wild to see the low depths of how something like this would spill into. It would be really interesting from a Dan watch the world burn.  It's a rebranding season -- critical season arguably for them.  You got the backdrop of them struggiling to get a stadium.  If the season falls apart fast like that, not only would they likely graduate to being next to last in attendance to last but I figure dead last by a good margin.

 

I know a handful of people on here and on a twitter would get some joy from seeing Rivera canned but I doubt that would happen -- it would be a PR loser and Dan unlike the past IMO will struggle with replacing him with any big name -- it likely would be a Fassel (RIP) type of Zorn which would deflate fans even more. 

 

 

 

 

I am in the same boat.  I thinking 9-8 or 10-7 given the easier schedule and potential improved QB play.   But while I am not the biggest homer by any means, I am mild homer so I try not to immediatley dismiss these media takes which have us a bottom 6 or 7 team.

23 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

If your several games off the vegas line in either direction you should probably be questioning what your smoking.

 

Sure.  But I think they do those things to be fun and controversial.  I would guess if he was actually betting his money and he was offered Washington Commanders season win total at 4.5, he would probably take the over.

[FLSkinz83]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Different things float different people's boat, considering all the followers that dude has gotten, I gather plenty are interested. 

 

I don't think its "fascination" -- its about mocking a dude who has earned every whit of the mockery. 

 

It's one thing to mock him for saying something dumb or whatever, but You're mocking a billionaire sitting on his yacht in the south of France.    We should all hope to be mocked.

 

But as you said, whatever floats your boat (or yacht).

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, FLSkinz83 said:

I'm not seeing the fascination of tracking Snyder's yacht.     I'm not surprised that Florio is obsessed with it.   He probably posts in this thread.

He is also driving home the ironies and how tone deaf Dan is.  

[skinsfan4128]

11 minutes ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

It's one thing to mock him for saying something dumb or whatever, but You're mocking a billionaire sitting on his yacht in the south of France.    We should all hope to be mocked.

 

But as you said, whatever floats your boat (or yacht).

It's not that SIP is mocking him for being on a yacht. We're all mocking this asshole cause he's on a yacht AVOIDING answering to a subpoena. I know speaking for myself, I could give 2 ****s less what he does on his bath toy.

 

It's simply more of his stupid ass, cowardly bull**** that's the problem. 

 

HTTR!