Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Pretty sure all Gloria Allred wants for her clients is a settlement.  She's there to parade her victims in front of news cameras, wag her finger, make bold statements and collect a check.  She's a one trick pony, but oh what a great trick it is.  

 

Anyway, I hope you're right.

 

You're dead on. She's the Al Sharpton of Sexual Harrassment. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, profusion said:

 

The Jerry Richardson situation is what really opened the door, but the other owners didn't actually vote him out, as I recall.

 

The point is that the precedent for removing an owner becomes set. The next time it gets easier, and maybe it doesn't have to something as serious.

Jerry Richardson stepped down, I'm not really sure or not if he would have gotten voted out. 

 

I also think the amount of substantiating evidence (42 victims), really does factor into it. If one victim came forward, maybe that's an isolated case but 42 and likely more? That's a ton of women and if Snyder is found to be at the head of it, would be years upon years of involvement and enabling of this culture. I think it's enough to show he's unfit. Maybe this encourages other owners to look at their own procedures and working environments?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

100% classless and disrespectful. Yes. It’s a way of judging someone for going to a new team. They’re allowed to do that without being told “don’t let the door hit you on the way out”. 

 

I'm not judging anyone.

 

If they want to leave for whatever reason, more power to them.

 

But that door swings shut fast. You shouldn't let it hit ya where the Good Lord split ya. 😛

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I said it before, I'll say it again here.  If the NFL investigates this and it turns out to be something that can kick Snyder out, then all of a sudden all of the other NFL owners are opening themselves up to be taken down for the same things. 

Buddy I'm sorry but other NFL owners aren't doing what Dan Snyder is doing. Yeah misconduct and sexist/racist comments happen but there isn't sex trafficking and years of treating women like objects in every organization. There's a reason people think Dan is the worst owner in sports. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bcl05 said:

For years, I thought Snyder was an inept, incompetent, bumbling owner.  I thought he wanted to win but just kept getting in his own way.  Now, it is clear that he is not only incompetent, he is malevolent.  The culture in this franchise is despicable, and indefensible, and his fault.  

 

I feel dirty and complicit for having cheered for his team.  I love the memories I have of the good times, and I value the friendships that have grown through shared fandom, but I cannot, in good conscience, continue to support this team.  I will not be cheering for them until he's gone.  I can't wait for the time when I can come back to Washington Football with a clean conscience.

 

In the meantime, I'm adopting the vikings.  I live in MN and they seem likable enough.  A lot of my local friends here are hard core vikes fans, so it will be fun partying with them.  And I get to root for that goofball Cousins some more.   

Good luck with the Vikings.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

I'm just trying to figure out how other owners are "opening themselves up"? Nobody cares if they lie on their taxes, I'm sorry that's just not a story even if every billionaire does it.

 

Just now, JoggingGod said:

Buddy I'm sorry but other NFL owners aren't doing what Dan Snyder is doing. Yeah misconduct and sexist/racist comments happen but there isn't sex trafficking and years of treating women like objects in every organization. There's a reason people think Dan is the worst owner in sports. 

 

Regardless of the reason, every time an owner is given the boot, you are adding to the playbook on how to make such a thing happen. It is in every owner’s best interest to keep that playbook as small as possible, as the things within it could be used against them at a later date.  To get rid of an owner, every other owner has to basically collectively make themselves more vulnerable.

 

Even if the owners don’t like a guy, it would take a tremendous bomb to force the other owners to take action. They won’t make themselves less secure unless they absolutely have to. There has been 1(?) accusation against Snyder himself. The rest is running an organization that is hostile towards women. If that is enough to lose your team, I guarantee you that a whole lot of other owners would begin to sweat buckets considering how women are treated in the workplace across the country, not just in the NFL. How many of these franchises have never had a sexual harassment claim? At what number is it enough to call for an owners head?

 

No Owner is opening themselves up to those questions unless they have to. Otherwise there would be a absolute ton of dead men walking. (Zombie Pun)

It does not matter how they stack up compared to Snyder. The dominoes are all in a row, and it only takes a single bump to cause a chain reaction

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

 

 

Regardless of the reason, every time an owner is given the boot, you are adding to the playbook on how to make such a thing happen. It is in every owner’s best interest to keep that playbook as small as possible, as the things within it could be used against them at a later date.  To get rid of an owner, every other owner has to basically collectively make themselves more vulnerable.

 

 

 

Even if the owners don’t like a guy, it would take a tremendous bomb to force the other owners to take action. They won’t make themselves less secure unless they absolutely have to. There has been 1(?) accusation against Snyder himself. The rest is running an organization that is hostile towards women. If that is enough to lose your team, I guarantee you that a whole lot of other owners would begin to sweat buckets considering how women are treated in the workplace across the country, not just in the NFL. How many of these franchises have never had a sexual harassment claim? At what number is it enough to call for an owners head?

 

No Owner is opening themselves up to those questions unless they have to. Otherwise there would be a absolute ton of dead men walking. (Zombie Pun)

 

 

It does not matter how they stack up compared to Snyder. The dominoes are all in a row, and it only takes a single bump to cause a chain reaction

 

Exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

I know you wrote a ton here, but I just want to let you know that this bit alters your entire post. There isn't a team out there that has one HR Rep, that you can't even report problems to, and a culture in the NFL as bad as this. If Dan goes down, his word against other owners isn't going to mean ****, there will be no outrage by anything Dan claims and people will already hate the guy. It will make him look even worse. Dan would also have to have evidence linking into what he's claiming about other organizations if he does go down with a fight like that. 

 

I'm just trying to figure out how other owners are "opening themselves up"? Nobody cares if they lie on their taxes, I'm sorry that's just not a story even if every billionaire does it.

 

You don't know that this is the worst culture in the NFL.  We can be pretty sure it is but we don't know that.  How many of us follow other teams as closely as this one?  We don't know what's going on in, say, the Raiders franchise.  

 

My point wasn't about Dan's word against the other owners, or Dan trying to have a beef with other owners.  It was exactly what @FootballZombie said, that every time an owner can go down, that example becomes a precedent.  And if the other owners or the NFL are going to kick Dan Snyder out, it's not going to be because he has sexual harassment claims against them personally or people in their front office...because guess what?  A lot of them probably do.  What, you think that only the WFT is the only franchise that has hired and enabled scumbags in the front office?  You think the WFT is the only team with a despicable owner?  And if all of a sudden you've got 10 or 12 owners under fire all at once because Dan Snyder was made an example of, the NFL has a real problem on its hands.  The NFL doesn't want that.  No, the NFL wants to sweep this under the rug and make you think about how Week 1 is coming up soon.  The NFL does a fantastic job of not taking a lead on any social justice issue.  And when their feet are held to the fire, when there's something that's so blatant that they have to confront it, they bungle it.  That's not about to change here, no matter how bad we want Snyder gone, unless the WaPo's third article is a true bombshell.

 

 

1 hour ago, JoggingGod said:

Buddy I'm sorry but other NFL owners aren't doing what Dan Snyder is doing. Yeah misconduct and sexist/racist comments happen but there isn't sex trafficking and years of treating women like objects in every organization. There's a reason people think Dan is the worst owner in sports. 

 

You don't know what other NFL owners are doing.  You didn't know what Jerry Richardson was doing.  You didn't know that Woody Johnson was making sexist and racist remarks.  You didn't know that Donald Sterling was a racist piece of ****.  

 

In regards to sex trafficking, that story came up years ago and it's water under the bridge at this point.  And all Dan has to say is "I didn't know."  Because he probably didn't.  Unless he's super involved in the Redskins cheerleading calendar which I doubt.  

 

No years of treating women like objects in every organization?  You obviously haven't heard many women in sports talk about how they're treated.  You think this is a unique problem to this franchise?

 

Dan is certainly in the running for worst owner in sports, that's for sure.  But being a bad owner isn't reason enough to be forced out.

Edited by Spaceman Spiff
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

 

Regardless of the reason, every time an owner is given the boot, you are adding to the playbook on how to make such a thing happen. It is in every owner’s best interest to keep that playbook as small as possible, as the things within it could be used against them at a later date.  To get rid of an owner, every other owner has to basically collectively make themselves more vulnerable.

 

 

 

Even if the owners don’t like a guy, it would take a tremendous bomb to force the other owners to take action. They won’t make themselves less secure unless they absolutely have to. There has been 1(?) accusation against Snyder himself. The rest is running an organization that is hostile towards women. If that is enough to lose your team, I guarantee you that a whole lot of other owners would begin to sweat buckets considering how women are treated in the workplace across the country, not just in the NFL. How many of these franchises have never had a sexual harassment claim? At what number is it enough to call for an owners head?

 

No Owner is opening themselves up to those questions unless they have to. Otherwise there would be a absolute ton of dead men walking. (Zombie Pun)

 

 

It does not matter how they stack up compared to Snyder. The dominoes are all in a row, and it only takes a single bump to cause a chain reaction

Right, but this specific instance is opening up a playbook that likely features our team on the cover. This only opens up doors if other teams in the NFL are like this, and it's pretty obvious that even if there is some form of sexual harassment involving other teams, it isn't even close to what's been going on here. They really only open themselves up if you believe by doing so they're entering a slippery slope, and it will just get easier and easier to throw an owner out. When you think about the process of it all, even if another owner had allegations against him or her, 2/3rds of the owners still have to vote on it regardless. The reasonings owners get pressured to sell or forced out in major sports leagues has never been consistent so it's easier for me to look at each incident as a case by case basis. It's pretty much the reason why I feel like this isn't opening doors for an owner to be removed, unless the severity was similar to this. 

 

It seems like I share a differentiating opinion with some people here about the volume this is happening around the league. I'm positive smaller sexual harassment incidents happen on occasion with these other teams, I won't deny that. What I do think that the NFL would more likely do for smaller incidents is suspend an owner or issue out a fine or loss of draft picks. The ban hammer probably wouldn't happen unless it was huge, like this. 

Edited by Burgundy Yoda
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Dan is certainly in the running for worst owner in sports, that's for sure.  But being a bad owner isn't reason enough to be forced out.

 

You keep saying this over and over. "Being a bad owner" is such a nothing, general statement in this case. It says nothing. It pretty much means nothing because it could mean anything. Does it mean he's bad at making football decisions? Won't spend money? Hires bad coaches? There are so many SPECIFICS in Snyder's case that point to him being far more than a "bad owner," but an owner who's EASILY veered into "detrimental to the league" territory, not to mention "despised by pretty much everyone" territory.  

 

As far as "we don't know this is the worst culture" ... please name me ONE other NFL team owner that has seen even REMOTELY the amount of withering NATIONAL press that ours receives over and over again. There's no one. Not even close. Please name one NFL team that has had ... SO FAR ... 42 women come forward to complain of sexual harassment and a horrific, degrading environment like the one that's been portrayed in story after story now. Sexism in other organizations? Of course. Like this one? You can imagine all you want, but I don't see any actual evidence of anything that comes close to this place. 

 

When was the last time you saw multiple national news people or sportscasters demand that an NFL owner "must go"? Happens to Snyder relentlessly. Just google the most recent issue, you'll find so many non-fan, unbiased takes basically scratching their heads as to why the NFL continues to put up with this cesspool. And this has been happening for years. You hear anyone outside of Dallas demanding Jerry Jones get canned year after year? Or Mara? Or anyone? 

 

And everyone keeps acting as if the owners are some coven of warlocks desperate to "keep their dark secrets." Maybe I'm naive, but while there are clearly some epic douchebags among that group, I can't imagine they're all cowering because they're afraid that forcing Snyder out is going to unravel all their own sordid tales of debauchery. Some, sure. Perhaps. But all? More than 3/4? I think it's a stretch to believe that 3/4 of the ownership or more are doing/running things anywhere close to the way Snyder has been for so long. 

 

Is this enough? No one knows. Yet. We could look back on this story as the true beginning of the end for him a year from now. Or maybe not. But this isn't a matter of being a "bad owner" anymore. No one's suggesting that's what will get him kicked out of the coven. This is a matter of a guy who's a HORRIFIC owner, a terrible human being, and, most importantly, a guy who CONSISTENTLY brings horrible press to a league of billionaires that does their utmost to avoid that very thing at all times and at all costs. This is a guy who makes the entire league look bad by his very existence, who cheapens their product and who actually inspires people to question not just the team he owns, but the ENTIRE NFL because of their inaction to his actions. THOSE are the kinds of things that COULD end up getting him out. Being a "bad owner" is the least of his problems at this point. 

Edited by Dissident2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s terribly ironic is for the first time in 20 years, Dan has hired competent, diverse, high character people to oversee and run his organization, and NOW is when all the **** is really hitting the fan. 

Like, it couldn’t have happened 3 years ago? Good grief.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad part about the NFL voting Dan out, he only needs 7 people to keep him.  It would take 24 to vote him out.  Don't think he would have a problem getting 7 people to keep him.  The NFC East would keep him just so they can continue to whip his a$$.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

You don't know that this is the worst culture in the NFL.  We can be pretty sure it is but we don't know that.  How many of us follow other teams as closely as this one?  We don't know what's going on in, say, the Raiders franchise.  

 

My point wasn't about Dan's word against the other owners, or Dan trying to have a beef with other owners.  It was exactly what @FootballZombie said, that every time an owner can go down, that example becomes a precedent.  And if the other owners or the NFL are going to kick Dan Snyder out, it's not going to be because he has sexual harassment claims against them personally or people in their front office...because guess what?  A lot of them probably do.  What, you think that only the WFT is the only franchise that has hired and enabled scumbags in the front office?  You think the WFT is the only team with a despicable owner?  And if all of a sudden you've got 10 or 12 owners under fire all at once because Dan Snyder was made an example of, the NFL has a real problem on its hands.  The NFL doesn't want that.  No, the NFL wants to sweep this under the rug and make you think about how Week 1 is coming up soon.  The NFL does a fantastic job of not taking a lead on any social justice issue.  And when their feet are held to the fire, when there's something that's so blatant that they have to confront it, they bungle it.  That's not about to change here, no matter how bad we want Snyder gone, unless the WaPo's third article is a true bombshell.

 

You're right, I don't know for sure but we can both guess that this is most likely the worst I would hope? I follow a few teams closely, especially the Titans/49ers (since moving to California) and the NFC East teams. There really isn't a team besides ours that's just had constant leaks about the owner, and is under as much scrutiny as ours. Now, Dan is hated and we know that people are going to dig a little harder to find stuff on him, so maybe other teams have bad cultures but people don't dig on them. I can be convinced of that.

 

All these owners really have a lot to lose, owning an NFL team is a guaranteed way to make your money grow. I just find it hard to believe that another owner would actually put themselves in the position that these allegations are claiming Dan did. He really does think he's untouchable and is arrogant enough to think he can get away with it forever probably. 

 

My counterpoint to what @FootballZombie said is that it all comes down to a vote at the end of the day and these leagues seem to never show consistency with things like this. Makes it hard for me to think they're opening themselves up. Jerry Richardson wrote a perverted letter to an employee while also (I think as you mentioned to me yesterday) said some racist things, which caused him to put the team up for sale. The Saints owner (Gayle Benson) had some pretty wild allegations against her about aiding to conceal sexual abuse being conducted by the Catholic Church. Some wild stuff but I guess nothing more came from that. Mainly, there does seem to be a lack of consistency here though, racism seems like an automatic out. Sterling wasn't in any real trouble until the recording, I'm guessing undeniable evidence is probably the key to owner removals. 

 

This is going to be a hard for the NFL to just sweep under the rug. Lawyers are now requesting the NFL conduct their own investigation because they don't trust the lawyer the team hired. Is the NFL really going to ignore this request? Seems like there's potential for bad press there. I still can't be on board with believing there are other teams, let alone 10+ that would be sweating because of this. Harassment from a trainer, for example, to a female employee from another team is not going to hold much water at all compared to an owner potentially concealing this culture for years, being involved in it, and then lying about it. It will hold even less water if there was a proper reporting procedure and that trainer was let go. I think it only opens up doors if another team is as bad or worse than ours. 

Edited by Burgundy Yoda
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dckey said:

The sad part about the NFL voting Dan out, he only needs 7 people to keep him.  It would take 24 to vote him out.  Don't think he would have a problem getting 7 people to keep him.  The NFC East would keep him just so they can continue to whip his a$$.


I don’t think this is the right way to look at it, but I could be wrong of course. I think there will be enough back room chatter about this kind of thing that if it EVER got to a point where an official vote was actually held, it would mean they’ve already decided to boot him. Maybe there would be some owners that abstain or vote against on principle, but that would be such a bad look if it gets to that point some day that I actually doubt it. They aren’t bringing this to a vote and letting people know about it unless the way the wind is blowing is super obvious, because if they hold an official vote and are on the record as supporting him and keeping him among their number, and something even worse comes to light—everyone who voted to keep him has to wear that forever. It opens them up to a ton of criticism and bad PR. 
 

So imo they will never go to an official vote that people know about unless they already know and have essentially agreed, as a group, how the vote is going to go, leading to his removal from the NFL. There is no upside to publicly putting your name down in defense of a guy like Snyder, just so it can maybe bite you in the ass later. If there’s a vote it will be a formality and it will already be decided, I can almost guarantee it. If the numbers and understanding aren’t there behind the scenes to boot him, there will never be a vote. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

They really only open themselves up if you believe by doing so they're entering a slippery slope, and it will just get easier and easier to throw an owner out.

 

This is not just a slippery slope, this is a black ice covered drastic incline.

 

If you believe that other owners will give Snyder the boot for what is mostly a bunch of sexual harassment claims (the severity of which does not matter) that have been collected over numerous years, I think you have another thing coming. Give me a dart board of large corporations or NFL teams, and I guarantee a blind guy can hit one that has accrued at least 10 or so harassment cases.

 

Here is a scenario in a world where owners have tossed Snyder aside: Women feel empowered to share their stories after the WaPo articles. 10 women come forward against NFL Team X for cases over the last… 20 years. The severity of this harassment is irrelevant as the headline is all that matters. Now that owner is facing the threat of removal because precedence has been set on the matter.

 

That is not hard to envision for any massive company or organization.

 

Even if it’s not as many cases, you have at least opened the door to the possibility and started a conversation because of what happened to Snyder. If 40+ is enough to get the boot. What about 20? 10? 5?

 

No owner will willingly open that window. There is laughing in the face of danger and then there is spitting into that same face. So many owner’s would be in hot water in that kind of world.

 

You would have to be a legit Zombie to have any hope of surviving that environment,

1 hour ago, Dissident2 said:

As far as "we don't know this is the worst culture" ... please name me ONE other NFL team owner that has seen even REMOTELY the amount of withering NATIONAL press that ours receives over and over again.

 

The Patriots origination is constantly facing scrutiny, it just gets overshadowed by their success. They have been punished by the league and nationally crushed for what, 4 cheating scandals? Every other year we gotta talk about some kind of Patriots “gate” story. The have created a culture that both accepted, and continues to accept dirty tactics at every level. That starts at the top, and permeates the entire operation. The owner even personally adds to the problem. On top of being in a feud with the Commish, Kraft is in actual ongoing legal trouble over prostitution.

 

Wash is not the only team creating massive levels negativity on a near constant basis.  

 

Edited by FootballZombie
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, RWJ said:

Politics has taken over the ENTIRE Pro Sports and college teams.  Sad!


Sounds like something you should complain about in the Tailgate, where people can not care about your opinion in the proper space. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the other NFL owners will vote him out. I think if they want him out, they will try to handle this internally and make him step down.

I strongly believe that they want to prevent to establish a precedent by all cost. If that will work? We will see, but I fear Snyder won't go down easy.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

 

You keep saying this over and over. "Being a bad owner" is such a nothing, general statement in this case. It says nothing. It pretty much means nothing because it could mean anything. Does it mean he's bad at making football decisions? Won't spend money? Hires bad coaches? There are so many SPECIFICS in Snyder's case that point to him being far more than a "bad owner," but an owner who's EASILY veered into "detrimental to the league" territory, not to mention "despised by pretty much everyone" territory.  

 

As far as "we don't know this is the worst culture" ... please name me ONE other NFL team owner that has seen even REMOTELY the amount of withering NATIONAL press that ours receives over and over again. There's no one. Not even close. Please name one NFL team that has had ... SO FAR ... 42 women come forward to complain of sexual harassment and a horrific, degrading environment like the one that's been portrayed in story after story now. Sexism in other organizations? Of course. Like this one? You can imagine all you want, but I don't see any actual evidence of anything that comes close to this place. 

 

When was the last time you saw multiple national news people or sportscasters demand that an NFL owner "must go"? Happens to Snyder relentlessly. Just google the most recent issue, you'll find so many non-fan, unbiased takes basically scratching their heads as to why the NFL continues to put up with this cesspool. And this has been happening for years. You hear anyone outside of Dallas demanding Jerry Jones get canned year after year? Or Mara? Or anyone? 

 

And everyone keeps acting as if the owners are some coven of warlocks desperate to "keep their dark secrets." Maybe I'm naive, but while there are clearly some epic douchebags among that group, I can't imagine they're all cowering because they're afraid that forcing Snyder out is going to unravel all their own sordid tales of debauchery. Some, sure. Perhaps. But all? More than 3/4? I think it's a stretch to believe that 3/4 of the ownership or more are doing/running things anywhere close to the way Snyder has been for so long. 

 

Is this enough? No one knows. Yet. We could look back on this story as the true beginning of the end for him a year from now. Or maybe not. But this isn't a matter of being a "bad owner" anymore. No one's suggesting that's what will get him kicked out of the coven. This is a matter of a guy who's a HORRIFIC owner, a terrible human being, and, most importantly, a guy who CONSISTENTLY brings horrible press to a league of billionaires that does their utmost to avoid that very thing at all times and at all costs. This is a guy who makes the entire league look bad by his very existence, who cheapens their product and who actually inspires people to question not just the team he owns, but the ENTIRE NFL because of their inaction to his actions. THOSE are the kinds of things that COULD end up getting him out. Being a "bad owner" is the least of his problems at this point. 

 

Dude, being a bad owner is the only reason we all want Snyder gone.  But again, "being despised by pretty much everyone" isn't enough to get kicked out of the league.  Look at James Dolan, Knicks owner.  

 

And we don't know if this is the worst culture.  Just because there hasn't been national press focused on someone else's culture like ours, that doesn't mean there's an organization out there that hasn't quietly settled sexual harassment claims from a lot of women over the years.  

 

But even then, you're downgrading sexual harassment by the amount of number of women that have come forward against the WFT vs. any other team.  Is the fact that it's happened here so much somehow worse than a team where it's happened 5 or 6 times?  No, it's all bad, it's all gross behavior and if one woman comes forward somewhere else it needs to be treated as seriously as 42 women here.  The measuring contest of WELL WE HAVE THE WORST CULTURE EVER BECAUSE 42 WOMEN AND COUNTING HAVE COME FORWARD is a pretty silly one.  The problem has been ignored and swept under the rug and that's how we got here.  It's very possible that it's being swept under the rug in other places, too.   You said it yourself, this is a league of billionaires that does their utmost to avoid that very thing at all times and at all costs.  Using that logic, that's how we've arrived at 42 women and counting.  Is this the only place?  The NFL somehow flew under the radar of the Me Too movement.  How?

 

You think just because Dan Snyder owns this team that automatically makes this the worst place for sexual harassment?  That no other team employs a guy like Larry Michael?  No other team employs a guy like Alex Santos?  Does Snyder go out of his way to corner the market on lecherous creeps or was it completely random that they all wound up here? 

 

You keep saying he's a horrific owner, consistently brings horrible press to a league of billionaires, etc.  But how much of it is he directly responsible for?  The cheerleader story that broke a few years ago?  He wasn't there.  The article that broke last month?  He wasn't sending pervy messages to female interns and employees and making comments.  All you've got against Dan Snyder at this moment is that he allegedly ordered up a nip slip video and made a comment to a cheerleader 16 years ago about how she should go to a hotel room with a friend of his.  Sure he pounded his chest a few years ago about how he was never going to change the name and done some other dumb **** over the years but it's not enough to get him kicked out.

 

Cheapens their product, how?  Isn't the NFL raking in the money year after year?  Isn't the league as rich as it's ever been?  The only blip on the radar screen for how much money the NFL has made might have been a few years ago when Kap took a knee and the conservative patriot chest beating contingent of NFL fans thought that someone exercising free speech was a terrible thing.  That also ties in directly with the notion that some fans are preferring to stay home and watch games on big screen, HD tvs, but that's another debate for another time.  Dude, no one outside of this fanbase gives a Frenchman's **** about Dan Snyder running this organization into the ground.  The NFL is doing just fine.

 

Add it all up, he's a bad owner.  Or a horrific owner.  Type another adjective in caps again to make your point again.  I hope you're right, that this is the start of something that can get him kicked out.  I hope the Post keeps digging and finding more information and publishes another article next month that actually has hardcore evidence of Snyder doing some terrible stuff instead of he-said/she-said tabloid material.  

 

But let's take a minute to address the elephant in the room here, let's talk about why we all really want Snyder gone:

 

139-185-1.

 

Are we having this conversation if the WFT wins 9-12 games each year and are in the playoffs?  Are we having this conversation if Snyder has a few Super Bowl titles?  

 

I'd bet a significant amount of money that we're not having this conversation if this team is consistently a winner no matter how bad Dan Snyder is as a human being.  What say you?

 

 

Edited by Spaceman Spiff
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont read much..for different reasons I dont read lengthy posts, I lose focus and have a hard time following..something about penmanship..idk...but I am able to read @Spaceman Spiff's stuff..its amazing the amount of people that dont get it like him and I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about ole Bob Kraft just north of that area?...he was being serviced in florida while his team was there for the superbowl and the media did its thing and it got swept under the rug. They just recently got there hands slapped from the Bengals incident..the cardinals owner is a drunk and has been hit with DUI's..woody Johnson, Richardson of the Panthers...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

Yes, a Latin coach, a black man as President, and a woman as VP.

 

Very different.

but is that what matters? That we are so diverse...I just want the best coach/president/vp/strength and conditioning and I don't care what race, sex or sexual orientation they are...

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Weighing in some.  Listening to multiple reporters in radio segments and some of the WP reporters crew. Here's how I'd sum the take on Dan's ownership.   And they could be wrong but for what its worth....

  

A. Dan isn't willing to sell.  The team is his identity, his life, etc. 

 

B.  Dan's reputation has sunk to new depths with fellow NFL owners.  Even though some like Sally Jenkins implies that the owners must love Dan's incompetence because it makes the Redskins easily beatable.  But others say its a business and the team in DC is an important flagship organization which Dan has destroyed and that's not privately celebrated by fellow owners.

 

C.  Dan has few friends among owners, the two main ones are Johnson from the Jets and Jerry Jones.  Most of them don't like him and see him as incompetent

 

D.  Some of the women who were sexually harassed ended up at other NFL teams and have flat out told the WP that its night and day at those other sports teams versus the Redskins culture being pervasive around the NFL.   In short, they claim its not that the Redskins are just part of a general NFL culture but the Redskins stick out as the bad guys here comparing it apples to apples.  Granted, its probably a short sample. 

 

E.  The owners would likely be reluctant to push Dan to sell in a direct food fight because personality wise he's a nasty litigious dude and they might not want that going on -- so if they try to push him out it might be more in a back channel type of way for whatever that means. 

 

Listening to talk radio, I notice some of Dan's few defenders like to suggest that this source or that source is biased against Dan hence they aren't credible.  I always find that amusing.  The thing is when a dude's reputation has been developed over the years for specific reasons and that image is by and large negative then why should people who formed that opinion be less credible?  Opinions are formed based on someone's take.  It's fair to have a take. 

 

If the only people who are credible are those who have a built in positive take about Dan or aren't bothered by how he conducted himself in the past -- then aren't those few people also opinionated?  It's just a different opinion.  I find it amusing that if a reporter has been bothered by previous Dan's transgressions or alleged transgressions then they in turn are disqualified to process new information about the dude. 

 

The whole thing about forming an opinion is yeah past information and your interpretation of that information is relevant.  Someone who is more neutral or positive about a dude based on that same information just happened to process that information differently and formed a different opinion.  But one opinion isn't superior of another.  

 

If I have 15 pieces of information about a person, I just don't outright ignore that and look at each new piece of information without falling back on the other evidence/patterns.  Someone's personality doesn't change day by day where every action is completely independent from the previous one.  If someone rolls a particular way and it fits a pattern that the dude IMO doesn't deserve an automatic benefit of the doubt that this time its different IMO.  And in Dan's case we got a 21 year sample size. 

 

If he was a Spring Chicken, spanking new owner, that would be different.  And with Dan specifically he's asked for patience years back and how he's learning and growing and or trust this new beginning -- rinse and repeat.  Been there done that.   And I don't blame anyone including a reporter for being skeptical and not giving Dan the benefit of the doubt -- he hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt.   Back when at least he had a little courage to occasionally speak, he more or less asked for the benefit of the doubt.   

 

If you watch some of the those old interviews his favorite line was more or less he was young and foolish but now he's older and wiser and a different dude.  Yet, the team continued to be a loser and sleaze has continued to follow him whether he was in his 30s or now in his mid 50s.  It's actually worse now then it was in the early years because at least back then, you can go on the ride that he was young and learning.   But all of this stuff that has piled on over the years to me is front and center why the team has lost its relevance and so many fans.  It's somewhat of a death by 1000 cuts with Dan and we are deep into it.    

 

In short, he's earned all the cynicism IMO that he's receiving.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
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...