Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


JSSkinz

Recommended Posts

My guess is that they can't break the NDA's because there was no real "crime". Probably lots and lots of scummy stuff, sexual harassment... but no rape or anything that could hold up in the courts if need be. I also believe that they probably have anyone who leaves the company sign an NDA to protect themselves against stuff that could hurt the team... and I'd assume all the other NFL teams do the same thing. Just a legal thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

Two things. The NDA probably prohibits talking to reporters, etc. But not pressing charges.

Yeah, I get that. I heard a lawyer on with Sheehan a couple days ago who was going through all the stipulations of "normal" NDAs and which clauses would and would not apply in this situation, obviously not having read the NDA the women signed. Her conclusion was is was somewhat unlikely they were bound to confidentiality for illegal acts.  My conclusion was I'm really damn glad I'm not a lawyer.      

 

2 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

As for a suit, you'd have to imagine there was a payout to these women to alleviate that risk.

We don't know that.  There might have been, but that hasn't been reported.  If there was, since they are speaking on the condition of anonymity anyway, they could have reported that.  I'm SURE there are more than 15 of these cases out there, so it's not like the team could sue all of them for breach of contract, they'd have to figure out who it was, and the Post aint giving that up.

 

So while it'a a dot that's easy to connect, there's no proof of it.  And THAT would be a fairly salacious piece of news, if it happened, I'm SURE the Post reporters know about it, and they would have worked like hell to get it into the story.  

 

 

I'm not trying to argue just to be argumentative, btw.  There's just so much we don't know.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I don't know about all that.  There are so many good fan created proposals out there, I'm sure they're consulting with some high-power branding people, I think they have a decent shot of getting that "not wrong." I don't think there is a "right."  They have said they don't want to change the basic burgundy and gold (which I really appreciate), regardless of what they pick, I think there is a better than even money chance it's actually pretty good.

 

Now, there is definitely going to be a bell curve, no matter what they choose.  10% will hate it no matter what, 10% will immediately fall in love with it, and the remaining 20% will lean to not like it, 20% will lean to like it, and the rest (50%) will just be in the middle.  At least, that's unless they come up with something as atrocious as the Washington Wizards with their original logo, which was a crime against branding.  I doubt that's going to happen.  

 

However, this might be the easiest of all of the things to "get right" at the moment.  Which is absolutely WILD.  If you said a year ago the name change would not be the top of the list of things the organization had to deal with, I'd have slapped you on the side of the head with a dead fish to get some sense into you.  But they can get the name/logo thing right.

 

The culture is so much harder to deal with.  

 

This is better suited for the name change thread, but I think the burgundy and gold on WHATEVER name they choose to run with will look silly. It's gonna look like they took the Redskins old colors and patched it over to a new team. Also, I think there's a strong tie in between those colors and the native heritage. The whole color scheme is to draw upon Native Americans. If you plaster that on a Red Wolves team name then it's just silly. It could work with Warriors, I guess, but that's just a lazy rebrand.

 

Now is the perfect time to reinvent the team. Make it something different. But right now, it just seems that it's going to be the same crap but on an unfamiliar logo. Great, the fans can still wear their old Redskins stuff. Big win for Native Americans. Why bother even changing the name.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I'm SURE there are more than 15 of these cases out there, so it's not like the team could sue all of them for breach of contract, they'd have to figure out who it was, and the Post aint giving that up.

 

Agree, many assumptions. It unfathomable that there are this many cases, and those are only yet ones we know about, and Snyder will get a slap-on-the-wrist fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, what were the truly wild accusations where were made and getting traction before the story hit?   I remember:

 

- Paying off refs

- Dan abusing Drugs and Alcohol

- (I never believed this one, but it was out there) Dan being involved in some human trafficking ring. 

- Bibbs and Jay sharing a receptionist, leading to Bibb's benching and Alex Smith almost dying.  

 

Where there others?  It seems as though there were others.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Voice_of_Reason said:

Where there others?  It seems as though there were others. 

 

Did you read Rhiannon Walker's account in The Athletic? It's gut wrenching. Lays everything out in explicit detail.

 

She touches on how pissed she was at the wild rumor mongering and speculation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Out of curiosity, what were the truly wild accusations where were made and getting traction before the story hit?   I remember:

 

- Paying off refs

- Dan abusing Drugs and Alcohol

- (I never believed this one, but it was out there) Dan being involved in some human trafficking ring. 

- Bibbs and Jay sharing a receptionist, leading to Bibb's benching and Alex Smith almost dying.  

 

Where there others?  It seems as though there were others.  

I believe there were also:

 

-Larry Michaels would use TV time as an incentive to try and get women to sleep with him

-Former CFO Nico Foris made his interns sleep with him

-There was an unofficial "no broads and blacks" back balcony in the building(not Snyder, but other members of the organization)

-Dan keeping mistresses of the execs on payroll so they wouldnt talk and encouraged the behavior

-Media personnel slept with front office regularly to get scoops

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Riggo#44 said:

 

Agree, many assumptions. It unfathomable that there are this many cases, and those are only yet ones we know about, and Snyder will get a slap-on-the-wrist fine.

Well, I hope to hell for the sake of the football team they don't have draft picks taken away.  Most of the folks directly named aren't here anymore.  It would be unfortunate to saddle Ron with that burden.

 

I'm not sure what else they can do though.  I just don't see a path to removing Dan as owner as long as there isn't a law suit.  If there is, it's possible.  

 

So what else is there?  Draft picks, and while I'm sure Mara would love to dock the team their next 47 first round picks, I'm not sure that's really warrented given they've been ejecting people out of the building "as soon as they knew."  THAT is what needs to get reported next.  The women DID NOT implicate Snyder saying he knew what was going on.  They blamed him for not having a structure to report the incidents.  But they never said, "I told Dan and he covered it up."  Or "I told Bruce and he covered it up."  The woman said she thought Bruce "had to know" she was having problems because he sat 30 feet from her and she cried several times a week.  I don't mean to be obtuse, or let Bruce off the hook, but that's a line you can't really draw. 

 

An example: Our recruiter sits literally in the office across the hall from me, and the office walls are glass. The doors aren't, but we can kindof see into each others offices from across the hall.  She went through a tough personal patch a few years ago (entirely not work related, she was dating an ass hat) and apparently was crying in her office several times, and I had absolutely no idea. Not because I was trying not to know, but I never heard her cry, and I couldn't see it, and frankly concentrating on what I was doing and not what's going on outside my office.  If I had heard, I would have checked on her to make sure she was ok.  The way I found out is we were chatting in the break room a few weeks after, and she told me she had broken up with her ass hat of a boyfriend, and was moving on.  So it's not that much of a stretch that Bruce, who probably has a big office and keeps the door closed a lot, doesn't really know what's going on 30 feet from his office.  

 

So while there are allegations Dan set up an organization structure conducive to verbal abuse and sexual harassment, there's no allegation he partook in it, knew about it directly, or took steps directly to cover it up.  Absent any of those things, removing an owner of an NFL team is virtually impossible.  What changes that is a law suit which alleges Snyder DID know, and did nothing about it.  But that hasn't happened, and wasn't even reported in the Post article.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Did you read Rhiannon Walker's account in The Athletic? It's gut wrenching. Lays everything out in explicit detail.

 

She touches on how pissed she was at the wild rumor mongering and speculation. 

I don't subscribe.  Was it pasted earlier in the thread?

 

Just now, Riggo#44 said:

 

And take them for himself.

Exactly because he was so personally offended.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

don't subscribe.  Was it pasted earlier in the thread?

This was the part that got me:

Quote

Instead of worrying about his recovery, he’s worried about what is going to happen to me. My parents have gotten calls to their house looking for a comment from me.

I hate that.

I hate that I had to let my family know this happened to me.

I hate how much it still hurts me and makes me upset.

I hated seeing the wild, irresponsible and reckless speculation around this story, as well.

I was a part of this story and said nothing as the Post reported it out. I am beyond disappointed by the speculation that occurred in the days leading up to this story. It was harmful and hurtful behavior, and doing such things makes it harder for people to want to talk about these matters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

I believe there were also:

 

-Larry Michaels would use TV time as an incentive to try and get women to sleep with him

-Former CFO Nico Foris made his interns sleep with him

-There was an unofficial "no broads and blacks" back balcony in the building(not Snyder, but other members of the organization)

-Dan keeping mistresses of the execs on payroll so they wouldnt talk and encouraged the behavior

-Media personnel slept with front office regularly to get scoops

I didn't hear the "no broads/no blacks" balcony thing.  

 

Honestly, if there's ONE thing you really can't put on Dan is any type of racism.  Hell, he tried to make a 22 year old black kid his BFF. If you really are a racist, you don't do that, and when Cousins shows he can play a bit, you latch on immediately.  

 

And hired a minority HC.  Of all of the things he's been accused of, this is one that I've never, ever heard, and actions being what they are, I really wouldn't believe.  

 

The rest I get I had heard in some way.  

 

I told a friend of mine that if the story didn't include Mob AND Cartel ties, drug, weapon and human trafficking, prostitution, drug and alcohol abuse, illegal gambling and game fixing and murder the story would not live up to the hype.  

 

I want to take JLC and some others out and drop a dead tuna on them. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

And hired a minority HC.  Of all of the things he's been accused of, this is one that I've never, ever heard, and actions being what they are, I really wouldn't believe.  

He also hired the 1st black female coach to a staff. Snyder is many things, but he's not a racist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KDawg said:

The key for me is, “did he know”?

 

If he did, he’s a scumbag.

 

If he didn’t, he’s obviously not connected and out of touch... which makes him a poor leader... but not a scumbag. 

 

Poor leader is being soft.  His actions, like forcing execs to do humiliating stuff in front of people as a show is part of what starts a culture like this.

 

Lack of empathy and bullying trickles down to those below, and then trickles down again.  To the point where demeaning behavior that harms others isn't given a second thought.  So you get a scumbag culture that eventually distorts into one that fully preys on women.

 

That's completely on Dan's leadership.  He fostered a scumbag culture through his own actions.  He didn't care about what was happening in the building.  Not a, he didn't know (there were complaints), but rather it didn't bother him.

 

He's a scumbag.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know some here reflexively discard anything that Russell says.   He did look like a clown on the Cowher story year ago.

 

But he's not exactly been wrong all the time.  He's the dude that broke the Scot story before it came out.  Broke the Doug story.  Had info on the defensive coordinators interviews before anyone else years back.

 

So he has some source at Redskins Park who is far from always wrong.

 

Anyway on the radio today he is saying there are more legs to that story among other things and if some more people are willing to talk over there, there will be more to come. 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I didn't hear the "no broads/no blacks" balcony thing.  

 

Honestly, if there's ONE thing you really can't put on Dan is any type of racism.  Hell, he tried to make a 22 year old black kid his BFF. If you really are a racist, you don't do that, and when Cousins shows he can play a bit, you latch on immediately.  

 

And hired a minority HC.  Of all of the things he's been accused of, this is one that I've never, ever heard, and actions being what they are, I really wouldn't believe.  

 

 

My take on Dan just via stories over the years.

 

The good:  I agree he's not racist.  I also don't buy the stories that he tried to buy off referees.  in addition. I believe he goes through bouts when he doesn't interfere with the operation of the team.  I do believe in recent years he's mostly let Bruce run it albeit not always.  He does a lot for charity and usually does it quietly which is admirable.   I do think he'd take his shirt off his back for a friend and or player in need.  I don't think the dude is evil.  I think he has a good side to him.

 

The bad:  He's a jerk.  He's not a dumb guy but he's a dumb owner who doesn't understand how to build a winning culture.  He takes no responsibility.  He has learned from "some" of his mistakes but hasn't learned from most of his mistakes.  He's very immature behavior wise.  Like Steinbrenner, he fosters an environment that is based on office politics-scapegoating-fear. 

 

If you are high up on the echelon with him, Bruce, Gibbs, Vinny he will treat you like a king.  So they will always swear by Dan and they should because I got little doubt he treats his closest friends-advisors like royalty.  He though can treat others like dirt, berate them.    

 

He perhaps was a dude who wasn't cool in school but now thinks he's cool because he's an owner.  On that front, he comes off like he's living his 14 year old desires or something like that.   He probably will never want to sell the team because as some say it's his identity.  I'd add its his social life.  He wants players to be his friends.  Coaches, too.  I thought it was wild when a source was quoted recently that Alex is good for him because he always needs a close friend from the team or something like that.  

 

 i am not saying i am right.  We got little information about Dan.  All we can do is guess based on the tidbits out there.  And this is my best guess. 😀

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I know some here reflexively discard anything that Russell says.   He did look like a clown on the Cowher story year ago.

And defending Haz. And defending Barry.  Saying he would resign over signing DJax.  He's looked like a clown a lot.  I'd argue he's looked like a clown more than he hasn't looked like a clown. 

 

I don't disagree he has gotten some things right, and he typically has 1 source at a time who feeds him good information.  He was going completely nuts over the firing of Eric Schaffer.  Why? My bet, his source.  And in the recent Eric Schaffer meltdown, he was trying to stretch it into "Ron has too much on his plate" when the Eric Schaffer role was one of Ron's first hires.  So, while the point that Ron has too much on his plate is accurate, complaining because they let Schaffer to go, isn't factually accurate,  because they replaced him immediately with that other guy (I can't remember and don't care to look up his name), but it fit his meltdown narrative so he wrote about it in SI and (I'm assuming, I don't typically listen to him on the radio) went on and on about it, often saying, "AGAIN ...(21 second pregnant pause) lots of screaming and ranting with some laughing thrown in for good measure."

 

Remember when you were saying Russell was "on fire" when it came to reporting on the front office?  I'd be willing to be all the money in my front left pocket against all the money in your front left pocket the source was Schaffer.  And he got some of that right... So kudos on that.  But Schaffer is gone. So who's the new source?  Rob Rodgers? (I remembered his name!) Or is he just extrapolating on what Schaffer told him?

 

Yeah, he's not my favorite. He can be entertaining though.  I'll give him that.  

 

20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Anyway on the radio today he is saying there are more legs to that story among other things and if some more people are willing to talk over there, there will be more to come. 

I haven't listened, but the way you say it, it could be true, or it could be crowing.  "If some people are willing to talk" is a great way of saying, "I kinda know pieces, I can't report it, maybe i will come out if specific people want to talk, but it might not, so nobody will ever be able to confirm or deny anything I'm saying here."  

 

Shrug.  Intuitively, I think there's more here than has been reported.  But I DON'T think it will implicate Snyder directly.  If Russell had a wiff of that, then I bet the Post did also.  And if they did, they would have sat on this story until they could have gone for the whole enchilada.  There's no reason to fire a shot across the bow and allow the organization time to prepare and batten down the hatches. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russell going on to say if he were a betting man, Dan will be either forced to sell or will sell. It maybe take some years but his gut is it will happen.

 

He's said he's heard the same as WP reporters that other owners and Goodell that they see Dan is an incompetent dude that has ruined a good organization and they are upset about it.  And that Lafemina was pushed on Dan from the league.  

 

He suggested there are other skeletons in the closet. 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My take on Dan just via stories over the years.

 

I basically agree with most of this.  I actually think he might be a good person not in the context of business.  From what we've heard, everybody loves his wife, and his kids are apparently top-notch.  I doubt Tanya would stick around if he was a jerk at home.  (That's conjecture, but based on everything we know about her, she's a really good person).  They do a lot of charity work. 

 

I think when it comes to business, he is a self-absorbed know-it-all, arrogant ass.  He has tremendous faith in his abilities because he built a pretty successful business by the time he was 34 years old, and was able to buy an NFL team.  Say what you want about him, that takes skill.  And HE knows that.  So he trusts himself and his abilities, and what made him successful in the first place.  

 

He trusts his instincts too much, and he berates and belittles people who work for him because he can.  I don't think, for the most part, he's living out his 14 year old fantasies in his private life, but he is in his professional life. 

 

Shrug, as you said, we don't know much about him or his family. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

And defending Haz. And defending Barry.  Saying he would resign over signing DJax.  He's looked like a clown a lot.  I'd argue he's looked like a clown more than he hasn't looked like a clown. 

 

 

Yeah I don't care about a reporters opinion.  For my taste, he can love whomever he wants.  Sheehan worships Shanny like he's Belichick.  I don't care much about their quirky opinions but if they are sharing a story do they get it right?  That's why I mentioned Cowher and not Haz.  

 

28 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Remember when you were saying Russell was "on fire" when it came to reporting on the front office?  I'd be willing to be all the money in my front left pocket against all the money in your front left pocket the source was Schaffer.  And he got some of that right... So kudos on that.  But Schaffer is gone. So who's the new source?  Rob Rodgers? (I remembered his name!) Or is he just extrapolating on what Schaffer told him?

 

 

I do remember.  But you are just assuming Schaffer is his source so mystery solved.  Guys from 106.7 joked with him and asked him that very question after Schaffer left as to whether that was his source.  He said nope.  He could be telling the truth or could be lying.  Will see.  He was the first guy from what i recall among the reporters saying something was brewing last weekend. He first tweeted it.  Then on the radio said his tweet was cryptic but he knows something is brewing.  So I am guessing he's not totally shooting in the dark now.  But will see.

 

28 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I haven't listened, but the way you say it, it could be true, or it could be crowing.  "If some people are willing to talk" is a great way of saying, "I kinda know pieces, I can't report it, maybe i will come out if specific people want to talk, but it might not, so nobody will ever be able to confirm or deny anything I'm saying here."  

 

Shrug.  Intuitively, I think there's more here than has been reported.  But I DON'T think it will implicate Snyder directly.  If Russell had a wiff of that, then I bet the Post did also.  And if they did, they would have sat on this story until they could have gone for the whole enchilada.  There's no reason to fire a shot across the bow and allow the organization time to prepare and batten down the hatches. 

 

Disagree they'd rather have the whole enchilada for one story.  From my experience with the media it the reverse.  They actually prefer to do multiple stories.  They don't just want Star Wars but want Empire and Return of the Jedi, too.  When I've been on the other side camp wise of a story that we've been dreading, we prefer the WHOLE thing to come out in one fell swoop.   You get it over with and some stuff gets lost in the sauce usually that way.  But if you get hit with three different stories each with a twist and slightly different theme -- that's often devastating.  That way if feels like momentum is building against you.  It feels a lot worse typically. 

 

For Dan, it would be a nightmare to get hit with a new story a few weeks from now if it's another juicy story.  Because it would be a new set of things for him to apologize for and deal with as opposed to knocking it all out at once. 

 

As for Russell's take.  It's not a shrug for me.  Sheehan has said similar things on and off about hearing some wild stories about what has happened over there.  

 

As for the Post, the dude that wrote the story said he was approached about other things too and there are rumors they might chase.   He didn't give the impression of yawn but it didn't sound like a new story was imminent.  

 

I am not a reporter but I've heard juicy things about colleagues and pretty high up people in politics that I haven't shared with anyone.  Why not?  Because I pride myself for keeping things to myself when I am asked to do that. If I didn't behave that way no way would trust me nor they should.   Now if some of that gossip turns later into a news story.  And its out.  Then I tell my colleagues what I knew since it's already out.  And I am not even a reporter looking for scoops but scoops find me anyway because i work in a public arena and people talk.  So when some media personalities say they knew about at least aspects of the story.  There is a good chance they are telling the truth. "Aspects" being the operative word.

 

If a friend or associate tells me something and I just blow it up -- they wouldn't like me and wouldn't share with me in the future.   It takes some integrity to actually to hear juicy things and just keep it to yourself.  I'd think that goes times two with radio personalities and reporters. 

 

For reporters if they want to be trusted in the future, you can't just blow up a source who tells you stuff off the record or on background without their being repercussions as to getting future stories.  So if you got something juicy, you'd want your source to be comfortable with you reporting it.  And you'd want corroboration from another source.  If its something wild.  I can take time for all of that to unfold. 

 

It's a process.  I'd judge based on what Russell said today and Sheehan has alluded to in the past, they've heard some wild stories.  They don't know for sure if they are true but they've heard enough of them to assume there might be some smoke to some of them.  Neither one of them are investigative reporters.  It's not their job to probe into those stories but they are assuming someone will eventually and among those stories if one or two end up true -- they would be damaging. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Dan "know" all this was going on at Redskins Park? I don't think so.

 

For him to "know", he'd have to be paying active attention to the wellbeing of his employees outside his little circle of drinking buddies and favorite jocks.

 

It's pretty obvious after 20 years that this isn't his MO. Too many credible stories of him treating regular people like dirt for me to believe otherwise. 

 

That comes from a place of deep insecurity. Unfortunately, a man in his fifties who's still that way is never going to change. 

 

He needs to go. Take his billions in profit out of the team (probably a good time to get of that biz, anyway) and go sail around the world on his ego yacht before he gets too old and creaky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

  And that Lafemina was pushed on Dan from the league. 

Lafemina, could have definitely been a spy and once team Snyder found out,  he was fired so the league wouldn't find out too much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...