Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

I just called into The Team 980 Kevin Sheehan show about offering Snyder a small ownership share so that a majority owner could take over and Snyder would

be forced to be a silent owner and just take his yacht all over the world and stay away from the day to day activities of the team.  Keven Sheehan did not like

the idea at all. He said Snyder would never take that offer from the NFL owners because he is used to always being in charge of his own business.

Yes, most of us would like to see Snyder gone.  But if appears Snyder wants to stay on for another 30 years as majority owner so I was looking for a way to

get him less influential with overall team decision making.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

How common is it for a major news publication to give their entire article ahead of time to the lawyers of the article's subject? zi know they will try and get the subject to comment for the article ahead of time, but to go over it and edit it with the subject's lawyers?...That doesn't seem realistic. Now, could the Skins' lawyers send communication ahead of time threatening legal action if (fill in the blank)? Sure. But in my eyes that's significantly different than giving the Redskins editing powers over the story.

I’m not saying they actually edited the article. I’m saying lawyers can and do influence articles to be edited.  And that Dan would be a fool not to have his lawyers all

over this.  I know Dan is a fool in the general sense, but he’s been quick to get the lawyers involved for much less.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

 

That's the story, I think Synder has has avoided.  He's an enabler of toxic culture, why wasn't Synder setting the example of the workplace culture?  15 women signed NDA's, why is Danny shutting them up? (more than likely this culture lasted for years) Why not release them from their NDA's?  Is Synder telling us he didn't know?

Edited by heyholetsgogrant
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

I dont think I read them all, but the immediate impression I got from the ones I read were that they were playing along to find out more information about what was going on and trying not to act really offended. Its what I would do when getting texts like that, suck more info from the person before they get defensive so I am better aware of the situation.

 

I read those texts though and I am just blown away by the mentality. Not only do these guys have the mentality of talking about these women, their coworkers, like that. But they also think its cool to, that the women will have no problem with, them talking to them directly that way. Are they just so out of touch with reality? With decency? 

 

I'm not blown away by it, unfortunately. I've seen how guys act when no women are around...some of the seemingly most respectful and genuine guys around will talk about women we all know in vile and disgusting ways. I never found any pleasure in doing that and would become incredibly uncomfortable when these "men" assumed I was one of them and spoke that way in front of me. I remember when I was working as a manager at a Little Caesar's a LONG time ago, the two male owners stopped by the store to talk to me, and took me out back for some privacy (no offices in the stores). As we're out back a woman walked by--I barely noticed her but the two owners start catcalling her, and doing that tongue-wiggling towards her and saying all sorts of sexually graphic things about what they wanted to do to her. She was not in earshot, thankfully, but it was disturbing how quickly they went from discussing business matters to becoming vile pigs.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DJHJR86 said:

 

It's will be insane to me if the NFL doesn't step in and take over the investigation.  They have to.  

 

I don’t think the NFL has to or even has a basis to step in. I read examples above about the Dolphins,Saints and Patriots but those were either actual cheating in the rules of the game or players. None of the accusations involve rules violations from a game or NFL players.

 

there are accusations of misconduct by employees of the Redskins against employees of the Redskins or Women working for news outlets covering the Redskins.

 

to my knowledge there have not been any legal actions/ fillings against the Redskins or any of their former employees.

 

those I see here wishing/wanting there to be more to the story IMHO is sad and pathetic. why would you want there to be more to this? Why would you want our team to be in more turmoil than we already are?

 

i understand the hate and vitriol for Dan but wishing,hoping for more damage to our team is idiotic. Let’s be thankful that we weren’t cheating,bribing having drug parties and all the other things that were speculated.

 

Yes there were people in the organization that took advantage of their position and behaved in an unacceptable manor with female employees both working for them and covering the team. We wish those things didn’t happen ever anywhere but they do. The Redskins need to handle this professionally and quickly. 

 

I have been the GM for large companies for over 29 years, these things do happen, you have policies, procedures, programs and oversights to attempt to prevent them. All companies are run by people and people do stupid ****, when it comes to the attention of the upper management often it is to late and the damage is done. The question is what do you do from there? From my experience you terminate those you can prove guilt ( not as easy as you would think when nobody filled and actual complaint ) you hire a legal team to assist as terminating employees can bring legal issues if not done properly. You reach out to those accusing and you discuss what you can do to make it right (as right as possible). Usually they don’t want to return to the company so the logical and common “making it right” involes monetary compensation which inlcudes an nondisclosure agreement. 

 

🍺🍺 to getting back to football soon 👍👍

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I’m not saying they actually edited the article. I’m saying lawyers can and do influence articles to be edited.  And that Dan would be a fool not to have his lawyers all

over this.  I know Dan is a fool in the general sense, but he’s been quick to get the lawyers involved for much less.

 

Like I said, sending legal threats if certain things are in the article is one thing...it's up to the WP's lawyers to determine if any aspect of the story puts the outlet at legal risk, but they're supposed to do that anyway, regardless of whether or not the Skins' lawyers to do anything. Whatever did not make the article did not make it because the WP's lawyers and/or editors nixed it, not because Snyder's lawyers did.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Agreed.  At the very least, I bet you see other people in other organizations coming forward.

 

Apparently the Daily Caller is going to run the "rest" of the story. I would prefer a more reliable publication to run the story. They do, however, have a right-wing bias, so that will remove any sort of political-bias disqualification.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, with all of this going on how are they going to announce a new team name and logo? Can you imagine the circus that would be? The ridicule coming from this entire situation? There would be no fan fare or excitement just bitterness and sadness. I'm really curious how that change will be impacted by this.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Like I said, sending legal threats if certain things are in the article is one thing...it's up to the WP's lawyers to determine if any aspect of the story puts the outlet at legal risk, but they're supposed to do that anyway, regardless of whether or not the Skins' lawyers to do anything. Whatever did not make the article did not make it because the WP's lawyers and/or editors nixed it, not because Snyder's lawyers did.

 

Not necessarily.  I think they'd get more mileage to do two runs at this anyway with two different themes.  If they have a certain amount of information that is 100% verified that plays off of a theme then run that theme first.   If you got a different twist on the story with some info verified and some not yet -- you keep investigating to finish up that part of the theme.  And then run that story. 

 

I've seen that play out with some of my own clients -- sometimes sadly so.  And heck it's part of what made All the President's Men such a great movie.  Things can be discovered and reported in layers.  Sometimes you hold back on purpose.

 

I don't know if this story is over.  But I'd be far from stunned that there is another layer to it that is still being vetted some.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

The other owners desperately trying to jump ship is a strong indicator that there is much more to this. Don't overlook the obvious. 

 

I was VERY surprised this was not included in the article. This is a really significant factor that no one is talking about--other than to say they are selling. Snyder needs to go. I dare say he's gotten worse.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

The other owners desperately trying to jump ship is a strong indicator that there is much more to this. Don't overlook the obvious. 

 

If the other owners' reaction to this was simply to preserve their own skins, I have no respect for them whatsoever. They actually have the power to do something to help other than sell their stock.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to quote comments from hours ago, but here are some points:

 

1. Companies often settle with disgruntled employees in return for NDAs/noncompetes, even in the absence of formal complaints. It's the path of least resistance. It does make it more likely that Dan knew, of course. We're really dancing around this. The "damn good culture" IS Dan Snyder. Period. As long as he's around, nothing will change regardless of the window dressing around him.

 

2. Media outlets will often send drafts of controversial stories to the subjects (or their attorneys) as part of the reaction/rebuttal process. Helps ward off defamation claims and can also avoid misunderstandings and get more accurate stories. The subject doesn't get a veto, but they do get their say. Dan, whatever's left of FO, and the league knew this was coming days ago. Everyone is in CYA mode and won't put themselves at risk. Dan will take advantage of this and skate through it.

 

3. Yes, I was disappointed there wasn't more lurid, tabloid-worthy content about Dan personally. I want him out. I hate the name-change and am almost ready to check out after 45+ years. Getting rid of Dan was a small glimmer of hope that I might want to stick around. Instead, this story is just more proof I've been buying into something horrible for the last 20 years, but it won't actually excise the tumor.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just something else to add here...

 

WaPo only reported on 2 reporters that don't work for them and the treatment they received.  No way events like that only happened to 2 people.  There is probably a pandora's box of local reporters and higher-ups engaging in nefarious activities that were not reported on.  The media has a tendency to protect their own just the same as organizations like the Redskins do.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The alleged abuses in the article took place over the course of 15 years. Snyder has been running the team for 20. He allowed this toxic culture to fester and as a result, he let these men stick around in the organization.

Yes, you can point to the fact that since Snyder isn’t directly implicated in the report, it’s possible he didn’t know about the abuses occurring in his front office. But that’s incredibly hard to believe given that 1) the office culture outlined in the piece had been occurring for such a long period and 2) that three of the men implicated in the scandal were referred to as members of Snyder’s “inner circle”.

 

As Emily Applegate said in the piece, she assumed Bruce Allen knew something about the behavior in the organization.

“I would assume Bruce [Allen] knew, because he sat 30 feet away from me … and saw me sobbing at my desk several times every week,” Applegate said.

And if Allen knew, Snyder had to have known, too.

But even on the extremely remote chance that Snyder didn’t know what was going on, he is still at fault. As the owner of the team, he must protect his employees and create a safe work environment. At the very least, allowing this culture to persist and thrive is negligent behavior on his part. And if he did know, then it’s even worse.

It’s also worth noting that the article did outline some of Snyder’s poor behavior as well. 

 

https://riggosrag.com/2020/07/16/daniel-snyder-must-face-consequences-for-redskins-sexual-harassment-scandal/

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, bakedtater1 said:

Apparently you haven't seen much of me around...and why do you still have an account here?

He is entitled to feel that way but if you do feel that way, why continue to post on the team owned message board?

 

If you really want Snyder removed, you go after the sponsors. Boycotting the team isn't going to do much. If Rivera has this team winning, most fans will be there. 

You have to hit the team and the NFL where it really hurts, their sponsors. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Not necessarily.  I think they'd get more mileage to do two runs at this anyway with two different themes.  If they have a certain amount of information that is 100% verified that plays off of a theme then run that theme first.   If you got a different twist on the story with some info verified and some not yet -- you keep investigating to finish up that part of the theme.

 

I've seen that play out with some of my own clients -- sometimes sadly so.  And heck it's part of what made All the President's Men such a great movie.  Things can be discovered and reported in layers.  Sometimes you hold back on purpose.

 

I don't know if this story is over.  But I'd be far from stunned that there is another layer to it that is still being vetted.  

 

I don't disagree with that at all, but it speaks more towards how the WP is deciding to approach running an expose' on the team...it doesn't speak nearly as much to me into how Snyder's lawyers meddled in things and only allowed the sexual harassment stuff to be published. I just keep seeing people state the "Skins lawyers delayed the publishing of the article" stance being stated as if it's come out as a known fact. I haven't seen that anywhere and it feels more like trying to connect the dots but connecting them wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

If the other owners' reaction to this was simply to preserve their own skins, I have no respect for them whatsoever. They actually have the power to do something to help other than sell their stock.

 

 

there were reports they tried to buy dan out and he dug his feet in.  Its possible they were trying to do something about it and Dan just wont let go, and their next plan of action was to get out... or at least leverage their 40%

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, A-Lost-Wolf said:

 

those I see here wishing/wanting there to be more to the story IMHO is sad and pathetic. why would you want there to be more to this? Why would you want our team to be in more turmoil than we already are?

 

i understand the hate and vitriol for Dan but wishing,hoping for more damage to our team is idiotic. Let’s be thankful that we weren’t cheating,bribing having drug parties and all the other things that were speculated.

 


 

Its all born out of the desire to rid the team of Snyder.  Would you rather another 20 years of incompetence and embarrassment with Snyder, or a massive low point followed by a reboot with a new owner? I’m not sure which path is better, but I’m very sympathetic toward those who want to see Snyder burn...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...