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

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Peregrine said:

Is it not a simple sit down and count the votes?

According to what was posted - no. 
 

I’m not even sure it’s a secret thing or whatever. I believe the source in the article was someone “familiar with sports ownership contracts”

 

so 🤷‍♂️ 

[Peregrine]

6 hours ago, tshile said:

According to what was posted - no. 
 

I’m not even sure it’s a secret thing or whatever. I believe the source in the article was someone “familiar with sports ownership contracts”

 

so 🤷‍♂️ 

By who?  What do they know?  Care to link it?

 

"Im not even sure its a secret thing" and then the only source being "someone familiar with sports ownership contracts" contradict brutally.

[profusion]

Since a vote-out has never even been attempted, I think it's fair to say that no one on Earth knows exactly how it would go down. Expect lots of lawyering and arguing on all sides. The owners will have to run the risk/reward numbers on that proposition, I'd expect.

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

31 minutes ago, profusion said:

Since a vote-out has never even been attempted, I think it's fair to say that no one on Earth knows exactly how it would go down. Expect lots of lawyering and arguing on all sides. The owners will have to run the risk/reward numbers on that proposition, I'd expect.

 

Like I've said, I have a hard time believing that the owners would just turn a blind eye and 'forgive and forget' about Snyder hiring PI's to dig up dirt on his fellow owners. Obviously they could do the same to him, but if they didn't and let Snyder stay in the league, how would they act going forward? Are they just going to ignore him when he speaks at meetings or refuse to pass the caviar to him at league dinners?

 

Of course, this could happen...I'm sure every exec who was ever fired says he was 'wronged' and that he could expose the people who fired him. But how often has that threat actually been carried out? Someone said the league could force him out and make him sign NDAs to prevent 'kompromat' from coming out on him...at this point, who knows?

 

As far as avoiding litigation...that's funny, considering this league always seems to be involved in some kind of litigation! If they wanted to avoid that they would act in a different manner...but they haven't. Shouldn't someone have said to Goodell that if they buried the Wilkinson report that the issue would likely NOT go away and lead to more legal issues down the road? Or is Goodell surrounded by yes-men like Snyder is who never tell him about consequences?

 

Burying things may have worked 50 years ago, but it's a different world today and eventually things will get out.

[Redwards]

15 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

You have a point when it comes to the market, but I'm not sure what you're saying with the bolded part of your post. The Detroit Lions franchise is older than the Washington Commanders franchise and has been in Detroit longer. They had 4 NFL championships in the NFL's infancy (1930s - 1950s). The Cleveland Browns joined the NFL a decade after Washington, so they aren't exactly newcomers and also have 4 pre-Super Bowl era NFL titles during the 1950s - 1960s. I would make the argument that the Lions and Browns were a far bigger influence as the NFL was starting to gain more and more popularity in the 1950s and 1960s than the Redskins were...

The NFL has, repeatedly over the years, referred to the Washington franchise in this way.  Over several Commissioners.  The fact that it's the team in the nation's capital sets the team apart from every singe team in the NFL.  So, that's where the bolded part was coming from.

 

The NFL has also admitted several times that it's in their best interest for political reasons to have the team in the nation's capital running well as a franchise and playing well.  It's just a completely different situation than Detroit or Cleveland.

[profusion]

52 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

 

Like I've said, I have a hard time believing that the owners would just turn a blind eye and 'forgive and forget' about Snyder hiring PI's to dig up dirt on his fellow owners. Obviously they could do the same to him, but if they didn't and let Snyder stay in the league, how would they act going forward? Are they just going to ignore him when he speaks at meetings or refuse to pass the caviar to him at league dinners?

 

Of course, this could happen...I'm sure every exec who was ever fired says he was 'wronged' and that he could expose the people who fired him. But how often has that threat actually been carried out? Someone said the league could force him out and make him sign NDAs to prevent 'kompromat' from coming out on him...at this point, who knows?

 

As far as avoiding litigation...that's funny, considering this league always seems to be involved in some kind of litigation! If they wanted to avoid that they would act in a different manner...but they haven't. Shouldn't someone have said to Goodell that if they buried the Wilkinson report that the issue would likely NOT go away and lead to more legal issues down the road? Or is Goodell surrounded by yes-men like Snyder is who never tell him about consequences?

 

Burying things may have worked 50 years ago, but it's a different world today and eventually things will get out.

 

Completely agreed. I think this has gotten to the point where they have to do *something*, but it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Danny Boy's not going to go quietly unless the threat to him personally is severe, I suspect.

[tshile]

8 hours ago, Peregrine said:

By who?  What do they know?  Care to link it?

 

"Im not even sure its a secret thing" and then the only source being "someone familiar with sports ownership contracts" contradict brutally.

It’s in the thread and no I’m not going searching for it

 

you can though 

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/oct/27/nfl-waiting-smoking-gun-probe-against-dan-snyder-s/

 

LOVERRO: NFL is waiting for a smoking gun that’s sitting in plain sight

Excerpt:

 

Bullying, intimidation and a toxic workplace in July 2021 earned a slap on the wrist and a $10 million donation to your own charity.

 

But things change. Life comes at you fast. 

 

In October 2022, bullying, intimidation and a toxic workplace are suddenly so problematic that the United States Surgeon General has issued a national report on the impacts on our society.

 

Working for a bad boss is the cancer, complete with a warning label: “Warning, employment here could be hazardous to your health.”

 

“Toxic workplaces are harmful to workers — to their mental health, and it turns out, to their physical health as well,” Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said in the report, “Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being.”

 

The report, released last week, details five essentials for workplace mental health and mental well-being. One of them is “Mattering.”

 

“It rests on the human needs of dignity and meaning. Dignity is the sense of being respected and valued. When the dignity of workers is affirmed and supported in the workplace, it enhances well-being. Conversely, being made to feel disrespected or not valued may lead to an increase in stress and feelings of anger, cynicism, hostility, and withdrawal.”

 

Anger, cynicism, hostility and withdrawal sound like Skipper Dan’s four horsemen for failure.

 

Workplace intimidation and behavior is now in the spotlight. When Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay spoke out against Skipper Dan after the NFL owners meeting on Oct. 18, he specifically used the word “workplace” in his comments.

 

“I just think what’s happened in the workplace.” Irsay said. “Having three daughters, seven granddaughters, that’s just not — again, we have to look at the investigation and see the finale of certain things that happened because there’s a lot of different things that have happened. You can’t shy away from the fact of — it’s an unfortunate situation — but I believe it’s in the best interest of the National Football League that we look it squarely in the eye and deal with it. I think America and the world expects us to as leaders.”

 

According to an ESPN account, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver apologized to Phoenix Suns employees before the team’s opening game for “enduring years of workplace misconduct under Suns majority owner Robert Sarver,” who after being suspended for a year following a report revealing workplace misconduct, is now selling the franchise.

 

“I’m incredibly empathetic to what many of you have lived through,” Silver said.

 

That report — made public by the NBA — did accuse Sarver of using racist language in the workplace, the sort of smoking gun that observers believe may be needed to force an owner out. Nothing like that has surfaced involving Skipper Dan, though remember, there is no such report to be reviewed publicly by the NFL, which has refused to reveal the details of the Wilkinson investigation.

 

But in the fast-changing world of public judgment, a “toxic workplace” alone may be a bridge too far to be tolerated any longer without severe consequences — especially a toxic workplace that existed over 20 years.

 

Maybe we’ve come far enough in our culture that being the bad guy in charge is a smoking gun.

 

And now this: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/10/27/lawyer-restrictions-on-daniel-snyder-ended-on-november-1-2021/

 

Lawyer: Restrictions on Daniel Snyder ended on November 1, 2021

 

“Well, it ended November first,” Brownlee said. “Now, [Snyder] could go to all the games and I think he did go to the games even during that time period, but there were other restrictions as far as going out to the facility and those kinds of things that he didn’t do, because of that sanction that was imposed by the NFL. . . Once November firrst came and went, he was free to do whatever he wanted to do. There were no restrictions. That being said, I still think that they agreed because of everything that was going on, that it was in the best interest of the team for him not to do certain things.”

 

The explanation sharply conflicts with things repeatedly said by Commissioner Roger Goodell, as recently as earlier this month. Indeed, when PFT asked the league office for comment on Thursday regarding Brownlee’s contention, the NFL directed us to the fact that Goodell said on October 18 as to Snyder’s status, “It hasn’t changed. There’s been no change.”

 

In late March 2022, Goodell said that “Dan Snyder has not been involved in day-to-day operations,” and that Goodell “[doesn’t] believe he’s been in the facility at all.” Three months later, in sworn testimony to the House Oversight Committee, Goodell said “to the best of my knowledge, [Snyder] has not been involved in day-to-day operations at the Commanders.”

 

While Brownlee didn’t expressly say that Snyder has returned to his prior role, Brownlee made it clear that, in the team’s estimation, Snyder was free to do so as of nearly one year ago. That characterization meshes with the league’s consistent position that Snyder remains subject to league-imposed restrictions.

Brownlee added that, since November 1 of last year, Snyder has curtailed certain activities “by his own choice.”

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 hour ago, Redwards said:

The NFL has, repeatedly over the years, referred to the Washington franchise in this way.  Over several Commissioners.  The fact that it's the team in the nation's capital sets the team apart from every singe team in the NFL.  So, that's where the bolded part was coming from.

 

The NFL has also admitted several times that it's in their best interest for political reasons to have the team in the nation's capital running well as a franchise and playing well.  It's just a completely different situation than Detroit or Cleveland.

 

The NFL is always going to talk up the team or franchise it's discussing. But, I'm not disputing that Washington is exponentially more significant market than Cleveland or Detroit. But when you say they "helped build the league" and it was a "flagship franchise" I think that can be disputed for sure. The Redskins came out of the gate quickly but then didn't do another thing for 30 years. In that time, both the Browns and Lions were winners and that coincided with the popularity of the league growing.

 

Once the NFL became much closer to what we know today, the Redskins became relevant again. Becoming successful within an already beloved sport isn't quite the same thing as being one of the teams that helps the league gain popularity and helps a country move away from baseball and fall in love. For that reason, I think the Browns and Lions are just as significant in the history of the sport. 

[Peregrine]

40 minutes ago, tshile said:

It’s in the thread and no I’m not going searching for it

 

you can though 

I went looking for it, searched, turns out it does not exist.  Thank you for proving my point.

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 hour ago, Redwards said:

The NFL has, repeatedly over the years, referred to the Washington franchise in this way.  Over several Commissioners.  The fact that it's the team in the nation's capital sets the team apart from every singe team in the NFL.  So, that's where the bolded part was coming from.

 

The NFL has also admitted several times that it's in their best interest for political reasons to have the team in the nation's capital running well as a franchise and playing well.  It's just a completely different situation than Detroit or Cleveland.

 

Guys I'll say it again, the don't remove an owner just because he burned a once proud franchise to the ground.  The league had 23 years to throw out this owner if all it took was ruining a franchise.  They had every opportunity after the Wilkinson Report to do the same. It should be obvious by now that they had no intentions of throwing out an owner just because his product sucks and fans have turned away regardless of where the franchise is located and its history.   They are only in this position now as a direct result of public pressure alone. Thank you Congress for listening to your people. If not for that there was no chance they would have removed him, that should be perfectly clear.  

Edited October 28, 2022 by Darrell Green Fan

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

Guys I'll say it again, the don't remove an owner just because he burned a once proud franchise to the ground.  The league had 23 years to throw out this owner if all it took was ruining a franchise.  They had every opportunity after the Wilkinson Report to do the same. It should be obvious by now that they had no intentions of throwing out an owner just because his product sucks and fans have turned away regardless of where the franchise is located and its history.   They are only in this position now as a direct result of public pressure alone. 

 

I agree with this and will add/continue that due to this public pressure danny boy is not just hurting the Washington franchise whihc they don't give a **** about, his ignroance is now starting to seriously hurt the brand and as a result other teams profiability. That is the only reason they would consiuder getting rid of him. They couydl care less about the workplace issues or how bad th team is. I am not sure they care if he gets a new stadium or not. But when he starts hitting thier bottom lines and making the ewntire league look bad, that is when they will go after him. 

 

I think they are waiting for the next report, not because they expect there to be some smoking gun, but to give them cover so they can interpret the results in a way that it becomes a smoking gun they can use to oust danny. We will see. 

 

If it were another franchise I would find this facinating. Instead I find it nauseating. **** dan snyder! Ignorant POS! 

Edited October 28, 2022 by goskins10

[Wildbunny]

3 hours ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

Like I've said, I have a hard time believing that the owners would just turn a blind eye and 'forgive and forget' about Snyder hiring PI's to dig up dirt on his fellow owners. Obviously they could do the same to him, but if they didn't and let Snyder stay in the league, how would they act going forward? Are they just going to ignore him when he speaks at meetings or refuse to pass the caviar to him at league dinners?

If that part of Dan Snyder hiring PIs to dig dirt on fellow owners is true, then if they don't do **** because of that, they'll just be basically telling Dan: "OK, you're the boss now".

 

They have two solutions right now:

1. Do as Jim Irsay did and stand up against the guy and call his bluff.
2. Bow to Grand Lord Farquaard, and it's M. Snyder btw.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Peregrine said:

I went looking for it, searched, turns out it does not exist.  Thank you for proving my point.

You know, I was legit busy at work and I figured searching the forum (or the internet in general) was a pretty simple task even 10 year olds manage to master

 

but I came back to your arrogant, pompous idiocy so I took 30 seconds to find it

 

in short:

yes it was posted in this thread

No it’s not as simple as counting the votes

you should check your arrogance at the door, you’re clearly not as smart as you think you are 😂 

 

https://es.redskins.com/topic/438561-a-new-start-the-reboot-the-front-office-ownership-coaching-staff-thread/?do=findComment&comment=12348675

 

 

 

Ps- it was posted 6 days ago 😂 

[Conn]

 

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

34 minutes ago, Conn said:

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/10/28/commanders-lawyer-decisions-on-whether-to-sue-espn-will-be-made-at-a-later-time/

 

It’s also a fool’s errand for someone who has found himself in multiple controversies to pursue a defamation case against anyone. Even if it can be proven that ESPN acted with “actual malice,” the damages are determined by assessing the harm to Snyder’s reputation. This requires Snyder’s pre-existing reputation to be determined. Which opens the door to aggressive discovery efforts regarding anything and everything Snyder has ever said or done that would diminish his reputation, in any way.

 

For some, filing a defamation case amounts to pulling a pin on a grenade buried deep in the plaintiff’s own pocket. In this specific case, a defamation case would give ESPN license to explore all sorts of things about Snyder, starting with the still-hidden details regarding the Beth Wilkinson investigation.

 

That’s likely the real reason for not filing suit. Snyder realizes that going after ESPN would allow ESPN to go after him — and that it quite possibly would uncover facts that would make it harder for Snyder to persist in his refusal to sell the team.

[Wildbunny]

4 hours ago, tshile said:

No it’s not as simple as counting the votes

Even if the process and requirements are long and tedious, that is the kind of stuff that would be decided prior to the vote.

 

That is, owners and Goodell aren't gonna go this way if they know the vote won't get Dan out. Everything else will just be here for the show.

You just don't go this route if you aren't sure of the result.

 

Having the owners voting on removing Dan from the NFL and end up with a "NO" would be even more devastating for the NFL and it could significant tremors within it. The wound would be almost impossible to heal, and the NFL would be a national joke. So that's an outcome they just can't afford.

 

If they pull the trigger on the process, then Dan's fate is sealed at this very moment, because "NO" won't be an option and whatever happens between that moment and the vote would just be to comply to the process and will have no impact on the outcome.

 

So owners will count votes, if they have the required minimum of people that won't change their minds, they'll just go through the motions until the vote, then kick him out.

[profusion]

3 hours ago, Conn said:

 

 

Not at all on point, but that picture sure drives home how embarrassingly cheap and lazy the new helmet logo is. It's just perfect for the Dan Snyder Football Team.

[tshile]

24 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

So owners will count votes, if they have the required minimum of people that won't change their minds, they'll just go through the motions until the vote, then kick him out.

Well. The original question was what legal avenue snyder would have to challenge or cause problems for the league. The thought was - you just need to have 24 votes and that’s it. 
 

but no, that’s not how it works. Which I dony know why people are or would be surprised that no, people are not making multi-hundred-million, or even billion dollar investments in something without there being a process and rules about having it all taken away from you. 
 

Goodell has to actual issue charges (apparently their word - not mine) against him 
He gets to challenge that. He has days to review and respond. He’s allowed to have lawyers involved. 

They get to respond to 

and then they have a vote. 
 

so when the question is what legal recourse he could have - well any time there are a series of rules on a contract that must be followed, you have a built in challenge. Even if the challenge is ultimately worthless, you can still do it and cause problems. Both in PR and in costs and who knows what comes out once you’re in a real legal proceeding. 
 

I mean i doubt the nfl would screw it up. If I had to bet on one side losing I’d absolutely bet everything on Snyder pursuing lawsuits that are ultimately frivolous. But that’s what the legal avenues are or could be, and it’s part of what the other owners probably don’t want to deal with. 
 

that aside - you can’t look a process that ultimately ends in votes, handwave away the entire process and the reality of what it means to deal with a overly litigious person, and just declare that all that matters is you sit down and count the votes. 
 

[tshile]

Also - that’s probably what all the “not in the agenda” stuff was about with the last meeting. They don’t just vote. There’s a process. It calls for a special meeting. At one point snyder would have 15 days to respond and I’m sure the nature of the process builds in many more days (for example just calling a special meeting, then the 15 day review response, then you have to meet to vote). You could have that drag out for weeks with all the different meetings and ways of responding. 

[thebluefood]

On 10/27/2022 at 9:52 AM, Wildbunny said:

According to Dan this is some Mafia gang

"For as long as I can remember, I've wanted to own an NFL franchise..."

 

[Andre The Giant]

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Imagine owning the team you grew up loving, burning it all the way to the ground, changing its name, giving it a 💩 name and uniforms and the entire fanbase that’s left hates your guts and begs you to sell.

 

But you continue to hold on out of spite so you can pass it down to your kid, in effect causing everyone to hate him as well.

 

I promise you that if I was in his position, I would apologize for the damage I’ve done and sell.  

[hail2skins]

Or it could be that he knows how much damage he has done, but doesn't want that to be his legacy. And hopes this somehow it turns around 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

2 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

Or it could be that he knows how much damage he has done, but doesn't want that to be his legacy. And hopes this somehow it turns around 

I’m sure that’s part of the soup.  Imagine selling and the new guy immediately gets all the things he can’t - a new stadium pretty much wherever he wants, the fanbase both coming back and growing and eventually winning football.