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

[max21]

3 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

“The players don’t deserve better” huh?? Terry mclaurin? Kam Curl (just to name a couple)? Two guys who have worked their butts off since entering the league, and who, from what I see, are genuinely great guys, don’t deserve better? PLEASE. 
 

Agree with everything else you said, BTW. 

They don’t deserve better than the fans is what I meant. Players play to get paid, let’s not get carried away here 

[Mrshadow008]

7 hours ago, Peregrine said:

Literally clueless. Clearly have never read the law on it or spent as much time dealing with legal paperwork as I and countless others who have all disagreed with your absurd notion that subpoenas are just an optional maybe thing.  It gets taken to court LITERALLY because a congressional subpoena is a mandatory thing and that powerful, and the exception to its use is such a big deal.  That has nothing to do with the power of the legal instrument of a congressional subpoena, just whether an individual use was an overreach, like with a circuit court ruling that gets appealed to the supreme court. You could look up the actual law of the united states on this, but its just much easier to argue for Dan Snyder on an internet forum I guess.

 

Dan Snyder believes they have the power to subpoena him, and that its a legitimate subpoena.  Do you disagree with him and his lawyers?  Because why the hell would he stay in international waters to wait out congress if he and his lawyers actually believed the subpoena was wrongly issued and they could just defeat it in court, which would make him look far far better than running away from his own country.

 

Snyders actions in response to the subpoena have cost him many millions of dollars, regardless of whether he "wins" by not having to testify under it, hes alienated yet another large group of fans who will never forgive him for running away and see it as an admission of guilt and wrongdoing.  He doesnt just throw away money when hes clearly in the right because it "would be fun and the weather is nice in the Mediterranean this time of year".

 

First off he was out of the country before there was any threat of Subpoena and before they even issued the original date for him to testify in June. Secondly I have read the law. I suggest you go read the supreme court ruling from 2020. Hell go read the Reuters article from 2020 as well. I wont post the link here because I dont wanna get to far into the politics but ill post some snippets for your reading about the Supreme Courts ruling on the matter. 

Here is how the congressional subpoena, contempt and enforcement process works.

What is a subpoena?

A subpoena is a legally enforceable demand for documents, data, or witness testimony. Subpoenas are typically used by litigants in court cases.

The Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s power to issue subpoenas, saying in order to write laws it also needs to be able to investigate.

Congress’ power to issue subpoenas, while broad, is not unlimited. The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. A subpoena must potentially further some “legitimate legislative purpose,” the court has said.

 

Or how about this one from A politico article. 

Like any litigant, the accounting firm that received the subpoena can try to argue that it was brought in bad faith, that compliance would impose an undue burden on the firm, that it’s too broad, or that it calls for privileged information.In particular, the Court sent the matter back to the lower court with directions that it consider whether the subpoenas have a significant legislative purpose that is supported by sufficiently “detailed and substantial” evidence; whether Congress can reasonably get the information from other sources; whether the subpoenas are “no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislative objective”

 

 

Now several things in response to those snippets. The legislation has already been written and introduced without Dan Snyders testimony meaning they do not need his testimony for a legitimate legislative purpose. Secondly investigation and subsequent legislation is into toxic workplace environments and the use of NDAs. It is not into Dan Snyder or even the Washington Commanders. Therefore there are multiple other avenues to get testimony and info without Dan Snyders testimony through a subpoena. Why not get Jerry Jones who provided NDAS after four cheerleaders were illegally filmed and the accused employee was kept on for years after that? Why not the texans owner who provided NDAs for Deshaun watson to give massage therapists? Thirdly here are Carol Maloney's Statements during the hearing with Goodell. "If the NFL is unwilling to hold Dan Snyder accountable then I am prepared to do so. This committee is determined to get to the bottom of the toxic workplace environment at the Washington Commanders"

 

So lets recap shall we? Dan Snyder's testimony under subpoena would have no legitimate legislative purpose. There would be multiple other avenues to get the information needed to write legislation based on toxic workplace environments and NDAs just from the NFL alone. That statement from Maloney sure sounds like its being used as a punishment and to literally expose wrongdoing for exposure sake to me. And you wanna tell me I'm wrong fine. But I guess multiple other legal experts on various Dc radio shows etc are all wrong too but yup you're the one with all the answers. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Don't doubt if fans were interested they woud come.  But I'd bet if this was in Richmond the turnout wouldn't be bad like that.  I'd often go to both practices and the afternoon one, the walk through, was hardly anything, yet still they had a decent crowd for that.  Even if the reason was purely because it was lets say Richmond residents finding having an NFL team in their backyard was novel -- it was still something different that brought fans to it which you don't have in this case. 

I think if they hadn't done the stupid lottery thing I think more fans would have come to Ashburn.  I think the lottery thing was a turnoff, along with all the other turnoffs.

 

I'm not sure what the point was. "First 1000 people get in, first come, first serve."  And be done with it.  I think that's how the Ravens do it.  

 

Would there have been more in Richmond?  Maybe.  Then at least it would be a destination, and an "event."  

 

They bollockesed this thing up, again, along with other things they've screwed up.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

So now that Dan has testified, the question is "now what?"

 

After testifying for 10-11 hours, and seemingly (based on what I have read) not entirely hiding behind NDAs and the 5th, it would appear the grounds for the committee to haul Dan back in front of the committee under a subpoena would be very minimal.  

 

So, the question becomes, "now what?"  

 

If there is anything remotely embarrassing in the testimony, the HOC will release the transcript, or parts of the transcript which are damning to Dan.  If we hear nothing, then they failed to trip him up in any way.

 

Then there will be the results of the MJW investigation.  Which, I think will lead to nothing.  The "financial scandal" doesn't seem like it's going anywhere, and the other stuff is "he said, she said."

 

The ONE item that could get Dan in trouble is the "shadow investigation." We'll see about that one.  It's current, it's a very bad look, and Roger already has criticized Dan publicly for it.  But I don't know that it gets him voted out.  

 

I think the one almost certain "now what" is the testimony is going to be released to Lisa Banks, and Lisa Banks is going to file an enormous civil suit.  Which I think was the purpose of all of this to begin with.  

 

I'm not sure what else is going to come of this.  

[Cooleyfan1993]

Lolol. I’m currently being told by this guy on an acquaintances fb post that Dan Snyder is going to move the team to Salt Lake City. When asked how he knows this, he told me “snyders secret meetings with Utah officials. It will be after they build a Vegas-like stadium”

 

uh huh…..so these meetings are SECRET, yet somehow a friend of an acquaintance has the details. Ok 😂 really believable 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Cooleyfan1993

[88Comrade2000]

According to Junkies, yesterday was only available to suite holders.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

58 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Lolol. I’m currently being told by this guy on an acquaintances fb post that Dan Snyder is going to move the team to Salt Lake City. When asked how he knows this, he told me “snyders secret meetings with Utah officials. It will be after they build a Vegas-like stadium”

 

uh huh…..so these meetings are SECRET, yet somehow a friend of an acquaintance has the details. Ok 😂 really believable 

 

 

You should probably stop communicating with folks of this ilk.

 

Secret meetings, followed by a big secret like building a state of the art stadium in Utah.  

[Cooleyfan1993]

Kerrigan is signing a 1-day contract with the commanders to retire here. Love that 

[NickyJ]

44 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Kerrigan is signing a 1-day contract with the commanders to retire here. Love that 

Reading one of the articles about it, saying that he scored his first touchdown against the Giants in week 1 of 2011 got me started on a trip down memory lane when I found a recording of the game. Hearing the commentators talk about Brandon Banks, the surprise at us rolling with Grossman for the year. Then the highlight that I remember with crystal clarity of Donovan McNabb's first pass for the Vikings being a pick 6.

 

If anyone told me that we were looking at two head coaches who would reach the Super Bowl in 8 years, I'd have been been incredulous.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by NickyJ

[Fat Stupid Loser]

20 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get it.  I am not there yet.  But I don't blame fans for checking out. 

 

Obviously, I can only speak for myself.  But my gut listening to talk radio, reading message boards, etc --is that fans checking out goes beyond the losing but its centered on the sleaziness of the owner coupled with his incompetence adding up to the feeling of what's the point?

Right. The only thing that kept me here the last several years really was it was my team. The Redskins. Now its not even my team anymore. So why would I put up with the rest of it?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

11 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

Don't know her much if at all.

 

But I find it weird she's using "should" here. I mean it's up to megia to make this a  "big ****ing story". The cheerleaders scandal seemingly wasn't enough. Retaining passport, forced into big sponsors rooms...

 

If she thinks that is a big ****ing story, well it's up to them to make it so and kill Snyder. Talk about it all day long on ESPN and see what's happening then. If it's only worth of a tweet or two, it's not a big ****ing story because you're not making it so.

 

The Post did their job about it, but others didn't jump on it to make it this big ****ing story that got Snyder to sell...

 

Well....I'd say using her notoriety as an NFL pundit to tweet about Snyder's despicable actions is a very good way to make this a big story. Don't for one second think that some random show she might be on has more reach than a social media barrage. I don't think this one individual can do much more than share her opinion on social media and when she's on the air, as she has. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

20 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get it.  I am not there yet.  But I don't blame fans for checking out. 

 

Obviously, I can only speak for myself.  But my gut listening to talk radio, reading message boards, etc --is that fans checking out goes beyond the losing but its centered on the sleaziness of the owner coupled with his incompetence adding up to the feeling of what's the point?

 

Yep. If you could somehow remove the Snyder variable from the equation (pretend that John Kent Cooke had overseen the past 22 years with the exact same records/results, but with just standard-issue, replacement-level off-the-field front office behavior), I believe the fan outlook would be completely different. You'd still have much more loyalty and optimism (delusion) from a larger percentage of the fan base. There would be frustration over the losing for sure...that happened even when Gibbs was here the first time and right after he left (pre-Snyder). But people like me would still be following the team, many more would still be hopeful each fall, and there wouldn't be an adversarial relationship with the local media/majority of populace. 

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

House Oversight Committee member Eleanor Holmes Norton told Front Office Sports that Washington Commanders owner Dan Snyder came off as “largely truthful” during the time she observed Thursday’s deposition that stretched nearly 11 hours. 

Congresswoman Norton (D-D.C.) said she observed about an hour, and she has yet to see a full transcript of the deposition. But Holmes said it was “important to hear his rendition of what happened” as it related to the toxic workplace allegations that have been the focus of the Oversight Committee’s investigation.  

“He didn’t seem like he was trying to hide something during the time I was listening to the deposition,” said Norton. “There were times when he said he didn’t remember things.”

After the deposition Thursday, a source with knowledge of the contents of deposition told Front Office Sports that parts of the proceedings became “intense.”

Snyder missed last month’s hearing that left NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell as the only witness. For weeks, Snyder’s lawyer and the Oversight Committee argued over terms of the deposition. 

Snyder appeared remotely for the deposition and, while under oath, he testified voluntarily. 

Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney wrote in a letter to Snyder’s legal team that a subpoena — which was authorized on June 24, but not served as Snyder remained outside the U.S. — was “to ensure that Mr. Snyder’s testimony will be full and complete and will not be restricted.”

“What he did was finally give up [fighting the Oversight Committee],” Norton said. “I didn’t expect it would be an all-day, 11-hour deposition. I heard some of the Democratic staff and some of the Republican staff [questions], and frankly, they were asking similar questions.

“We heard from women who were the targets of the misconduct, but it was really necessary to hear from Snyder himself.”

Norton said that the deposition likely means the committee’s investigation is nearing a conclusion. 

“I don’t know how much more there is to learn,” Norton said. “After hearing from him, now we have to decide what, if anything, to do next.”

The Oversight Committee’s most notable action since the investigation launched in October was when it sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission in April that alleged “troubling, long-running, and potentially unlawful pattern of financial conduct.”  

Norton said a referral to the Department of Justice “could happen.”

Norton noted that even if Snyder doesn’t face any consequences from the committee, Snyder is “still in a lot of trouble” when it comes to his quest for a new stadium. 

“He doesn’t have a real home,” Norton quipped. 

Norton said Maloney hasn’t given a timeframe on when the transcript would be released to the public.

[BigDibbs31]

5 hours ago, NickyJ said:

Reading one of the articles about it, saying that he scored his first touchdown against the Giants in week 1 of 2011 got me started on a trip down memory lane when I found a recording of the game. Hearing the commentators talk about Brandon Banks, the surprise at us rolling with Grossman for the year. Then the highlight that I remember with crystal clarity of Donovan McNabb's first pass for the Vikings being a pick 6.

 

If anyone told me that we were looking at two head coaches who would reach the Super Bowl in 8 years, I'd have been been incredulous.

 

 

 

Remember going to that game and sitting in the endzone where he ran in the tipped INT for a TD. It was super hot that day. 

[Conn]

Why is this Norton person even commenting on her overall takeaway from an 11-hour deposition if she popped in for ONE HOUR and has yet to read a transcript. Shut the **** up, lady. Jeez. What if he sounded like an evasive snake for a different hour that she didn’t tune in for? Just irresponsible to release a soundbite this early if you don’t have the complete picture. 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Conn

[FrFan]

I hope the tickets revenues witholding could one away or another lead to a RICO.

Edited July 31, 2022 by FrFan

[Skinsinparadise]

And he's highlghting one of the better days for turnout

 

 

 

[Redskins Diehard]

18 hours ago, Conn said:

Why is this Norton person even commenting on her overall takeaway from an 11-hour deposition if she popped in for ONE HOUR and has yet to read a transcript. Shut the **** up, lady. Jeez. What if he sounded like an evasive snake for a different hour that she didn’t tune in for? Just irresponsible to release a soundbite this early if you don’t have the complete picture. 

I'm guessing you wouldn't feel that way if this Norton person, who actually happens to be an elected member of Congress and not some staffer, said something you wanted to hear 

[Zim489]

 

 

This timelines of this video doesnt make any sense. 

 

First they are talking about GB with specifically about 16. Meaning they have already done the trade back. Talking about 53 "not being enough". Back on draft night Ron and Co talked about how "had another opportunity to move back".

 

Then they go back to talking about the move back from 11. They spliced the hell out of this vid to make it look like they didnt miss an opportunity to swindle another team in a trade back.

The value of 16 for im assuming 22+53 is a net gain for the commanders in value to about a mid 3rd round pick. Thats massive value.

 

Jets and Steelers also tried to move up. Jets had picks 35+38 and makes sense chart wise

 

Edited July 31, 2022 by Zim489

[Conn]

1 hour ago, Redskins Diehard said:

I'm guessing you wouldn't feel that way if this Norton person, who actually happens to be an elected member of Congress and not some staffer, said something you wanted to hear 

She watched less than 10%, nobody should have an opinion on something with 10% of the possible knowledge (when that knowledge is forthcoming especially). I’d selfishly like to see him savaged in the media, sure, but it’s objectively irresponsible either way and I don’t really need to look far to get my fill of negative Snyder comments in the media anyways lol. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Conn said:

She watched less than 10%, nobody should have an opinion on something with 10% of the possible knowledge (when that knowledge is forthcoming especially). I’d selfishly like to see him savaged in the media, sure, but it’s objectively irresponsible either way and I don’t really need to look far to get my fill of negative Snyder comments in the media anyways lol. 

For whatever it’s worth Elenor Homes Norton has been the District of Columbia’s non-voting member of Congress since 1991.  She’s going to go down as one if the most influential DC politicians of all time. (This is not a political statement.  It’s just a fact that an African American woman has served in Congress for 31 years, she’s been a pioneer, and a local power broker for decades.) 
 

She is probably as familiar with Snyder as anybody on the Hill, and has never been a fan of his, I don’t believe.

 

I think it’s fine for a member of congress to come in and give an opinion of what he/she witnessed.  I didn’t read the quote to say she knew anything about the whole testimony, but just what she witnessed while she was there.  
 

That seems like a fair thing to say.  “I went for an hour, he seemed like he was answering questions without dodging them for that hour, I haven’t reviewed the rest of the testimony”. That’s how I took the quote. 
 

I think she probably would have preferred to eviscerate him, to be honest. She did quip “he doesn’t have a home” when it comes to the stadium. 
 

Politics aside. I do think Norton has earned the right to give her opinion and assessment of the situation, and I think she gave a qualified remark.  I get that’s not what you want, but I also think the truth is somewhat important. 

[Peregrine]

On 7/29/2022 at 8:43 AM, Mrshadow008 said:

First off he was out of the country before there was any threat of Subpoena and before they even issued the original date for him to testify in June. Secondly I have read the law. I suggest you go read the supreme court ruling from 2020. Hell go read the Reuters article from 2020 as well. I wont post the link here because I dont wanna get to far into the politics but ill post some snippets for your reading about the Supreme Courts ruling on the matter. 

Here is how the congressional subpoena, contempt and enforcement process works.

What is a subpoena?......

Or how about this one from A politico article. .......

So lets recap shall we? Dan Snyder's testimony under subpoena would have no legitimate legislative purpose. There would be multiple other avenues to get the information needed to write legislation based on toxic workplace environments and NDAs just from the NFL alone. That statement from Maloney sure sounds like its being used as a punishment and to literally expose wrongdoing for exposure sake to me. And you wanna tell me I'm wrong fine. But I guess multiple other legal experts on various Dc radio shows etc are all wrong too but yup you're the one with all the answers. 

So lets recap, you ignored what I said, pretended because you read an article one time that talk about the Mazars case that you understand it while demonstrating you DONT understand that ruling, and then posted a couple of random quotes from the internet and call it a day, all on the backs of basically saying "Dan totally didnt hide out in international waters, he was already there and then just refused to come back for a long time while his attorneys refused receipt of the subpoena in a rare move".

 

First, I said receiving a subpoena is mandatory. Yyou didnt address that or the absolute legal fact that dodging a subpoena is not a proper legal challenge to whether it should be issued.  Once received, then you can take it up with the courts as to whether it was justly issued or not.

 

Second, you absolutely completely and conveniently ignored the brutal proof that Dan Snyders OWN attorneys view the subpoena as justified, or else they wouldnt have hid from it, and instead would have had much more fun embarrassing congress in a year long court date.  The fact Snyder testified at all, unless you havent been a fan of this team for very long, is proof again that it was valid, because there's no way Snyder voluntarily does that unless he believes they can make him do it, and thats the best option he gets.

 

Third, despite being the great internet lawyer you think you are, the oversight committee is not done with the investigation and may continue to investigate legally until they feel they have everything they need.  You have no idea what they intend to do and who they intend to investigate in the future.

 

Fourth, again despite being a great internet lawyer you clearly dont understand the basics of law regarding it or the 2020 Mazars supreme court case you seemingly referenced.  What the court ruled wasnt that congress had their subpoena powers reduced in any meaningful capacity(after all, congress literally can just write a new law giving themselves more powers in that department) EXCEPT for the separation-of-powers of the federal government.  Their ruling over a case about whether congress can force the executive branch to give any documents it requests, and with a long history of congress trying to do this with presidential records, is that congress cannot just request any and all documents from the presidential office. This is because limitless authority to subpoena the executive branch would then give congress an imperious control over the presidency through political means or otherwise, which would violate the separate of those powers.

 

if you want to get your legal advice from random guys on a DC radio show by all means, but no sane person would.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Peregrine

[CommanderCarson]

14 hours ago, Conn said:

She watched less than 10%, nobody should have an opinion on something with 10% of the possible knowledge (when that knowledge is forthcoming especially). I’d selfishly like to see him savaged in the media, sure, but it’s objectively irresponsible either way and I don’t really need to look far to get my fill of negative Snyder comments in the media anyways lol. 

The point is, you wouldn’t have made that remark if it were what you wanted to hear. Cause you wouldn’t have cared how long it was, it’s what you wanted to hear. 
 

The thread basically became crickets when that article was posted, because it’s not what anyone wanted to read or hear.

 

I want all of this nonsense to go away unless it actually means removing Dan. And I know many think that it will eventually lead to removing Dan, but I just don’t see it ever being possible and Dan Is not Jerry Richardson. He would drag the NFL through the mud if it ever got to that point, who knows maybe the Gruden emails were a warning to the rest of the league that they better watch out or the whole party is over. 

[Zim489]

I think if the stadium doesnt get built or scheduled to be built to be finished by the end of the decade the league could step in then. Stadiums mean too much 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

17 hours ago, Redskins Diehard said:

I'm guessing you wouldn't feel that way if this Norton person, who actually happens to be an elected member of Congress and not some staffer, said something you wanted to hear 

 

Nah, Conn is legit in his consistency…he might say it with a different tone lol, but he would still bring it up.