Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

there will be more btw---this piece won't appear as  any "big deal" to a number of folks and that can be a discussion in itself, but either way it is a relevant theme i expect to see more of...understand than in more recent times (as in the last 15 years)  many people have known what a buddy-bro alcohol-fueled ****-show featuring all kinds of low character behavior that this fo/org has routinely manifested, level of severity fluctuating over that time

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/opinion-allegations-against-washington-nfl-team-are-nothing-new-for-this-organization-–-it-happened-to-me-too/ar

 

Opinion: Allegations against Washington NFL team are nothing new for this organization – it happened to me, too

 

Quote

 

The sexual harassment and verbal abuse of 15 former female employees of the Washington NFL team, as reported Thursday by The Washington Post, is appalling and unacceptable. If true, and there’s no reason to believe it’s not true, the NFL’s punishment should go to the very top of the organization, to owner Dan Snyder. If you’re running this kind of a cesspool of a sports franchise in 2020, you shouldn’t be running that franchise anymore.

 

That said, I can tell you this isn’t a recent development within the walls of the headquarters of Washington’s NFL team. It was a different building and a different time, but there were bad things happening to the first woman reporter to cover the team back in the mid-to-late 1980s.

I know because that woman was me.

 

I was The Washington Post’s beat writer covering the team for three seasons from 1985-87, ending with the Super Bowl in 1988. Those were the days when the team actually won games, and Super Bowls. Even now, I value the time I spent reporting on Joe Gibbs, one of the classiest, most honorable people I’ve ever covered, and his excellent teams. It helped make me the journalist I am today, and for that,and for that, I will always be grateful to The Post and to Gibbs and many of his players.

 

But I did have to navigate some difficult moments. Back then, the owner of the team, Jack Kent Cooke, would sometimes pat me on the head (not an easy thing to do when I, at 5-11, was several inches taller than he was), and talk about my clothes and hair. I smiled and tried to ignore it, which is what women did back then, while charging ahead with a few questions. Cooke laughed and answered half of them.

 

Twice, Cooke kissed me. He shook all the male reporters’ hands but leaned in for a kiss with me. Both times, I was able to turn my head and take it on the cheek. Cooke eventually got the hint and I simply got firm handshakes.

 

General manager Bobby Beathard made it clear early on that he didn’t want a woman covering his team. “It messes up everything that they’re sending you out here,” he told me.

 

He was concerned about my presence in the locker room, which was the place where reporters interviewed the players. I told him I had no problems with it.

“I know you’re a nice girl and I know you don’t really want to go in there,” Beathard said.

 

I reiterated that it wasn’t an issue. I don’t think he heard me.

 

As for the players themselves, unbeknownst to me, I was the alibi for one veteran who was cheating on his wife. One of the player's buddies on the team stopped me one day and said that if the player's wife ever asked, I had called their house to interview him.

 

I didn't get it.

 

"You see, (the mistress) called one night and (the player) told his wife it was you."

 

"Oh, great," I said.

 

Another time, a player told me word was out in the locker room I was having an affair with a local sportscaster who was married. I wasn't, but that didn't stop players from giggling every time they saw the unsuspecting announcer talking to me. I later told my TV friend. He told his wife. I told the man I was dating. I think we had the last laugh.

 

Another player asked me once to stop talking to him as I passed by his locker.

 

"The players are gossiping," he said.

 

This was my first year on the beat, so I asked him why this was happening.

 

"Remember, we're talking about football players," he said. "They have nothing better to talk about."

 

I had about a dozen players ask me out. Some were married, some weren't. Maybe I should have expected this. I didn't, at first. Politely, I said no. In the 1980s, you had to do it that way. What if I had to interview them the next day?

 

One night, right on deadline, all alone in the press room typing on my portable computer, I looked up and saw a married member of the Washington organization staring down at me, smiling.

 

"Do you stay at the same hotel as the team?" he asked.

 

"Yes."

 

"Would you like to get together this weekend?"

 

"No thanks," I said.

 

He pressed the issue. I politely stood my ground. Within a few seconds, he turned to go, then swung back toward me.

 

"Would it be okay if I kissed you?"

 

"No!"

 

He walked away. I looked back at my computer screen. The phone rang. It was one of my editors.

 

"What's taking so long?"

 

"If you only knew.”

 

That was a very different time, a time when you didn’t mention things like that to your editor, or anyone else. It was a time when you tried to ignore the harassment and the sexism and keep right on going, which is exactly what I did.

 

Now, however, terrible behavior like that is eventually reported. Men lose their jobs. People are outraged.

 

I think we call that progress.

 

 

 

 

  • Sad 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I have no idea who Harrison Weinhold

I think he's handles Fred Smoots PR, that's what his Twitter account says.

 

He may have some access to info others don't.

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

 

They had a LOT more in their arsenal than buying Dan out. Again, if they knew (and let's face it, they'll probably say they did not) and either buying Dan's stock or selling their own stock is their go-to move, it was probably not so that they could change the team culture. They've been minority owners throughout Snyder's tenure (I assume that hasn't changed), and this has been going on throughout the last 15 years if not longer. If they knew what was going on, they had ample opportunity to do something. Wanting to buy Dan's stock or sell their own sseems more tied to the dwindling attendance rates and the overall value of the Skins starting to drop over the last 4-5 years...the timing fits better for that than for sexual harassment culture making them want to get out.

 

 

that's definitely hard to argue... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no justifiable reason for the NFL to waste any more of its reputation on Snyder. He has little to offer the league besides losing and disgrace. Football already has a long and shameful history of ambivalent reaction to women who accuse team personnel of misconduct. With the sports world still quiet and recovering, this is no time for the NFL to remind people how callous it can be.

“These matters as reported are serious, disturbing and contrary to the NFL’s values,” the league said in a Friday morning statement, declaring it will monitor the situation.

 

A fair process is warranted, but the NFL should do more than wait out this one.

 

...Snyder must go. If NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell doesn’t think he has the leaguewide support to force Snyder all the way out, he should figure out a way to make him a figurehead owner who takes the money but leaves it to the league to build a functioning organizational structure. If Goodell doesn’t have the spine for it, those corporate sponsors should apply the same pressure that worked in convincing Snyder to change the team name.

 

In reaction to this story and the 2018 cheerleading scandal, there is a pattern in Snyder’s leadership, or lack thereof. He doesn’t take the accusations seriously at first, and he doesn’t take action until he has no choice. He doesn’t have a concrete plan to fix the larger organizational issues. He doesn’t show any willingness to be accountable by answering even the most basic questions.

 
 

The team released a statement detailing it had hired the firm Wilkinson Walsh “to conduct a thorough independent review of this entire matter and help the team set new employee standards for the future.”

Still, it is embarrassing that Snyder can’t manage the concern to tell the public how troubling the allegations are to him. He can’t express his determination to fix it.

Rather than an owner, it seems the Washington [Redacteds] have a squatter who intends to stay right where he is until someone has the nerve to uproot him.

In its bylaws, Goodell has the power to pursue ousting an owner. He can take the issue to the NFL executive committee, which is made up of all 32 owners. It requires three-quarters, or 24 owners, to vote out an owner if Goodell convinces them he “has been or is guilty of conduct detrimental to the welfare of the League.”

 

Most owners would rather not set the precedent. The NBA forced Donald Sterling to sell after he was caught on a recording spewing racist hate. Jerry Richardson sold the Carolina Panthers after allegations of harassment and racism. Snyder hasn’t been busted doing anything like that.

 
 

But I’d like to know where on the scale of “detrimental to the welfare of the League” perpetuating a toxic culture of abuse falls. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/07/17/daniel-snyder-must-go-nfl/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_redskins

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A-Lost-Wolf said:

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. 

 

 

You don't "make it right" by firing 2 employees and letting one quietly retire when you know a damaging story about the garbage organization is going to drop exposing these creeps...you do it when they are accused after a thorough investigation.  A formal complaint and internal investigation was done on Santos in 2019.  It's very telling that last week was the time they chose to fire him.  "Making it right" by compensating an employee leaving the company but also making them sign an NDA...means Snyder knew.  

 

No one is actively rooting to have more victims.  No one takes pleasure in reading what these women went through.  But if you think that the only men in that organization were doing this were the only ones named in the WaPo story, there's a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you.  

 

And the NFL did take over the investigation into the Carolina Panthers...which didn't have anything to do with rules violations.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

One other point that bears mentioning is all the other non-sexual bad behavior mentioned in the Post article. Snyder making his director of marketing do cartwheels in the meeting because he'd been a male cheerleader? Said marketing director thinking that skimpy female outfits were a viable marketing strategy to sell this horsepoop of a product? The corporate counsel essentially getting ignored when it came to important corporate matters?

 

The headline calls being at Redskins Park a "dream job." Maybe 40 years ago. Only a moron would want to work there, now. Toxic workplaces tend to have multiple layers of toxicity for everyone who works there, not just the women suffering harassment. And no, I'm not downplaying that. But don't think that you'd have a grand ole' time at Redskins Park just because you're a white man rather than a statuesque female. It'd almost certainly suck for you, too.

 

I'm not saying the Post spiked any aspect of this story or will roll out more bad stuff. It was focused on one specific bad aspect that they had enough sourcing to run with. However, I can virtually guarantee that there are many, many more horror stories that could come out of Ashburn if enterprising reporters and editors want to take up the challenge. And yes, I'd be highly surprised if Dan wasn't personally involved with any or all of it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

Now, however, terrible behavior like that is eventually reported. Men lose their jobs. People are outraged.

 

I think we call that progress.

I think what is important in all of this, nobody is saying that this stuff is exclusive to Washington or simply Dan Snyder's Redskins.

 

The difference with Dan Snyder's Redskins is that there has been a lot of progress since the early 80's in regards to women in the workplace.  When I read stories like yesterdays WaPo report, it's just mind-boggling to me that this is still going on.  As someone who worked as a leader for a large national bank from 2006-2018, I knew that I was always under the microscope and that anything I said or did can and would be held against me.  Most of my peers felt the same way.  We had to be very calculated in our messaging because some people couldn't wait to find a reason to call HR.  To think that an organization like the Redskins had a one person HR department, no onboarding about how to report events like this, and so on is disturbing in it's own right but fitting for what we know of Dysfunction Junction in Ashburn.  But what is more alarming than what these guys were doing and saying, was that they felt so brazen to do it, and do it openly as if nothing bad would ever come of it.  That stinks and that smell is a dumpster fire.

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

 

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.

 

I don't know if they delayed it.  It's doubtful.  They might have though some indirectly.     Personally I don't find that angle that interesting.

 

The irony for me though on that front is people were debating this here I was in the process of getting information out on an opponent on a deadline and out of nowhere it got delayed because a consultant above me heard that the opponent was lawsuit happy so he wanted to vet it with an attorney first.  He did.  The upshot was he did make me change the communications some -- not as to the content but the lawyer recommended modifiers to make it tougher for the opponent to sue.  In short, I didn't use as strong language as what was there originally.

 

I agree with the point that the lawyers directly probably did not prevent parts of the story from coming out.  But they might have indirectly.  Let's say the report had 3 legs to it so to speak.  You might want to lead first with one story, the one that is 100% verified and seal proof.   And then keep vetting the next one, etc.   

 

Some people in my business intentionally leak stories in stages to get multiple stories versus just one.  And I've been on the other side of this too where we got hit with a press story and knew other shoes were going to drop and the media was just milking it one story at a time.   Not saying you are saying otherwise.  Just saying I wouldn't be shocked if this whole thing isn't over after that story alone. 

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

I think he's handles Fred Smoots PR, that's what his Twitter account says.

 

He may have some access to info others don't.

 

I saw that, too.  But I don't know how you make a living off being Fred Smoots PR guy.

 

Either way, hats off to him and I hope he's right.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Snyder must go. If NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell doesn’t think he has the leaguewide support to force Snyder all the way out, he should figure out a way to make him a figurehead owner who takes the money but leaves it to the league to build a functioning organizational structure. If Goodell doesn’t have the spine for it, those corporate sponsors should apply the same pressure that worked in convincing Snyder to change the team name.

 

"If FedEx, PepsiCo and others didn’t want to be associated with a racist team symbol anymore, it makes no sense then to turn a blind eye to misogyny.

Left alone, Snyder will not fix the culture in any meaningful way. Ron Rivera, the new coach and de facto team president, seems like a good and earnest man, but he’s a newbie trying to lead what a seasoned executive would consider the challenge of a lifetime."

 

This is so important. First of all, that the media is actually calling out the NFL and calling out Snyder. But second of all, that they also call out the sponsors. That's where the money comes from and that's where you can force change as we have seen.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

You don't "make it right" by firing 2 employees and letting one quietly retire when you know a damaging story about the garbage organization is going to drop exposing these creeps...you do it when they are accused after a thorough investigation. 

 

Things will never be made right as long as the employer and employee relationship remains skewed to the degree it is, which essentially the employee is utterly powerless. It needs to change ASAP. Employers, IMHO, have entirely too much control, power, protections, and influence. This is why half of Americans have been relegated to nothing more than modern day low-wage slaves. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

To think that an organization like the Redskins had a one person HR department, no onboarding about how to report events like this, and so on is disturbing in it's own right but fitting for what we know of Dysfunction Junction in Ashburn.  But what is more alarming than what these guys were doing and saying, was that they felt so brazen to do it, and do it openly as if nothing bad would ever come of it.  That stinks and that smell is a dumpster fire.

 

I work as a leader at a large company and my experience is similar to yours. As a manager, your first assumption is that you are ALWAYS in the crosshairs. It sucks, but there are sociopaths out there who will take advantage of the system for a payday (and take you down, too). I treat my employees like a second family (I really do care about all of them), and yet I had some wacko try to do that to me (it wasn't a sex-related claim). You know what we did? We paid the toxic sociopath to quietly go away and stop making a mess of our organization.

 

Companies that listen to their attorneys have extensive policies in place to protect both the employees and the company. It makes life a lot more complicated, but it also works for everyone if followed.

 

Dan Snyder clearly believes that the power of the Redskins brand in this market (and the NFL nationally) means that he and his team can get away with almost anything. Who needs an HR department if there are platoons of eager young college graduates who will put up with anything to be a part of the team and if the media is invested in your success and won't say anything about it? I hate to say it, but historically Dan has been correct in his assumption. The very fact that an idiot like him could reap the benefit of a fourfold increase in valuation despite not adding a cent of value himself is telling. Let's hope that era is coming to an end.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Panninho said:

 

"If FedEx, PepsiCo and others didn’t want to be associated with a racist team symbol anymore, it makes no sense then to turn a blind eye to misogyny.

Left alone, Snyder will not fix the culture in any meaningful way. Ron Rivera, the new coach and de facto team president, seems like a good and earnest man, but he’s a newbie trying to lead what a seasoned executive would consider the challenge of a lifetime."

 

This is so important. First of all, that the media is actually calling out the NFL and calling out Snyder. But second of all, that they also call out the sponsors. That's where the money comes from and that's where you can force change as we have seen.

 

Correct.

 

But you've got 31 other owners today passing out NDAs like Halloween candy and making sure everything is not being leaked to whatever media outlets the deal with.

 

The NFL bungles a lot, they will probably bungle this.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ain't sh*t gonna happen to Danny boy. That lawyer defended Rapo Kavanaugh and he's sitting on the supreme court.

 

Quote

 

6. Do not attempt to circumvent the profanity filters.
Type in your word and let the filters do their job of substituting asterisks for letters. Then check your post to see if all profanity was filtered. Veiled or "subtle" attempts at using profanity are unacceptable. We allow the use of either all asterisks/symbols or none at all. For example "****" and "*&*%$" are acceptable, while “s**t” or “sh*t" are not.

Members quoting profanity filter violations (or other rule violations) without editing the violation out of the quote are simply creating another violation of this Rule and may be penalized accordingly.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A-Lost-Wolf said:

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.

None of these actions improve the culture. It's bureaucracy. You're managing, not leading if you're have policies but aren't proactive in building the culture that ensures you don't have staff that puts down sexual harassment or any other issues "your culture doesn't stand for". Too many companies just put rules in place to selectively punish rule breakers—and most of a time it involves a calculus of how much money that person brings in.

1 minute ago, FrFan said:

Cut danny boy's money pipe, no sponsors, no new stadium deal, no merchandise sales, TV blackout, .....

 

This is the way.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Correct.

 

But you've got 31 other owners today passing out NDAs like Halloween candy and making sure everything is not being leaked to whatever media outlets the deal with.

 

The NFL bungles a lot, they will probably bungle this.  

Yes, which is why you need to get the sponsors involved. It's the only way to force a precedent here (where we now know of these issues) and ultimately change the cultures in other franchises as well. If it is legt it to the NFL alone to force the change nothing will come out of this.

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

Ain't sh*t gonna happen to Danny boy. That lawyer defended Rapo Kavanaugh and he's sitting on the supreme court.

 

 

so you get both the rule 6 violation and an add on for the xtra political polemic

 

learn by example, fellas, cuz the bans are getting longer the slower you are to get it :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn between whether to put my faith in Rivera or move on. I know as soon as Rivera gets the can in 3-4 years, that nothing will have changed. I feel this is my best time to get out, if Snyder isn't forced to sell.


I cannot support a team that is run by this guy. I've always felt this way, but if this gets pushed under the rug, I feel even stronger about it.

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

I'm torn between whether to put my faith in Rivera or move on. I know as soon as Rivera gets the can in 3-4 years, that nothing will have changed. I feel this is my best time to get out, if Snyder isn't forced to sell.


I cannot support a team that is run by this guy. I've always felt this way, but if this gets pushed under the rug, I feel even stronger about it.

 

I'm hoping Ron is a beacon of light.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I'm hoping Ron is a beacon of light.  

 

Ron IS a beacon of light. But so was every other reputable coach before him. I have very little faith that this will work long-term. Once Rivera is gone, there's no guarantee this organization won't revert back to its old ways, as long as Snyder is at the helm.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

I'm hoping Ron is a beacon of light.  

I think Ron is a beacon of light.  I think all this stuff coming out into the light - the WaPo story, the minority owners wanting out, the sponsors removing themselves from the team, etc. all will serve as help to institute meaningful change.  But what it really boils down to is us still having an owner that needed two decades of failure, a bunch of shady dealings to come to light, sponsors pulling out, and the like to make meaningful change happen.  It's hard to root for a guy that is forced into doing right vs. a guy that does right all on his own.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Will Hobson who co-wrote the story was just on 106.7.  i was half listening to it because I am in the throes of a deadline at work.   So I have to relisten to make sure i got it 100% right.

 

From what i took if I heard correctly:

 

A.  The women (or at least most of them) do believe that Dan and Bruce are culpable in the mix as for knowing or having some responsibility

 

On Dan's front they think even if he didn't know, the fact that he's so cheap (seems to be a theme with him on many fronts) with his human resource department that it worsened the situation plus Dan's habit of belittling people in a sophomoric way set the tone for the culture there.

 

B.  I didn't get per se the impression that this is the first in a series of stories.  But he did say he's been flooded with text messages and emails since it came out.  It gave the vibe that these are people giving them more goods-gossip.  And he said there are other rumors they've heard that there might be some interest in pursuing.  

 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 7
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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...