Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

If I'm the owners of the other teams... Snyder is my favorite.  His franchise went from $800 million to $3+ billion while it hasn't won squat.  Not only is it making money, but it's more often than not a soft spot on my teams schedule.  

 

I BELIEVE their tune will change once sponsorship money comes under fire.  If these parties start rallying to the big name sponsors for supporting the team, then the owners tune may change... which I think inevitably happens. 

 

Franchise value doesn't pay into profit sharing. Selling tickets, Jerseys, Stadium Sponsorships. They are losing money as far as a % of the pot. They need this team to be a top earner. Not the Bills or Bengals. 

 

https://bit.ly/3b3Fg4J - How The NFL Makes Money

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

Franchise value doesn't pay into profit sharing. Selling tickets, Jerseys, Stadium Sponsorships. They are losing money as far as a % of the pot. They need this team to be a top earner. Not the Bills or Bengals. 

 

https://bit.ly/3b3Fg4J - How The NFL Makes Money

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/#header:revenue_sortreverse:true

 

Everything i've seen shows us as being top 10 in Revenue which is what's actually shared, at $493 million.  We are still contributing money to the NFL despite being terrible.  Where the money actually comes from... ?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some interesting dots one could connect if they were the conspiracy type:

 

1. We still haven't heard anything on the minority owners sale. That's a big, Paul Bunyan-sized boot waiting to drop.

2. The dual statements. That screams there is a disconnect somewhere--and in a good way. They referred to Snyder's statement as his "personal" statement, and the 2nd one was the official one from the team. Why 2 statements? The owners statement was VASTLY different from the team's. Something doesn't add up there.

3. They Rivera, Wright, and Donaldson consulted with Snyder to cancel practice. How much did they run by him? It seems to me they informed him and they called it "consulting." Our triumvirate has not mentioned Snyder much at all, have they?

4. The stadium. No politician in their right mind, that values their political career in this area is going to give Snyder ****. There was slim chance of him getting a stadium done before all of this, now? 0.00%. And this is the big one--this is the big carrot at the end of the stick, and the league knows it. And it is not getting done with Snyder.

 

Are the league and the minority owners just waiting for Wilkerson to finish her investigation as the necessary leverage to push him out and ensure a new stadium deal? Seems like there are some machinations behind the scenes we aren't hearing about.

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

 

That may be true.  I too like the Ron hire, Jason - I wasn't really for or against, but I liked his first interview.

 

I've just become so cynical toward Dan, that I assume his motives are all to try to convince the public that he isn't a terrible owner.  That being said, I'm happy if there is someone more competent (Rivera?) making all of these decisions.

 

That's a great point...many, if not all, of his moves seem to have an ulterior motive. Not surprisingly, he even referenced it in his statement when he said that they already made "...major changes in personnel bringing in new leadership to drive cultural transformation..."

 

Is there truly ANYONE who doesn't think that Donaldson and Wright were brought in over the past month to mitigate these types of stories? It's not like people didn't realize more was to come from the July story. I believe they were for the very reason of being able to appear proactive, which is ironic since they were reactionary hires to the controversy earlier this summer. 

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

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/#header:revenue_sortreverse:true

 

Everything i've seen shows us as being top 10 in Revenue which is what's actually shared, at $493 million.  We are still contributing money to the NFL despite being terrible.  Where the money actually comes from... ?  

 

#1. He owns his stadium. 

#2. Yes, this franchise still contributes more than a lot of teams in smaller markets.

#3. They used to be a larger contributor by % when more people went to games and bought swag

#4. It's the market. It's why the MASN thing with the Nats is insane. What they get is less than what the Rays in Tampa get for TV money. Pro teams with rights agreements in bigger markets bring in more. They also have more potential. 

 

A team in Washington making the playoffs most years is best for the wallets owners from Dallas to Jacksonville. A team in Washington doing that with an African-American owner, a whole new wave of sponsors, a new stadium in the city, etc etc. That would be more than anything Snyder will ever be able to do now that his rep is set.

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

Is there truly ANYONE who doesn't think that Donaldson and Wright were brought in over the past month to mitigate these types of stories? It's not like people didn't realize more was to come from the July story. I believe they were for the very reason of being able to appear proactive, which is ironic since they were reactionary hires to the controversy earlier this summer. 

 

I'd prefer to think that they were hired because they were the best fit for their respective jobs.  I like Donaldson and I like Wright. 

 

That said, I can't help but be cynical about this.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

That's a great point...many, if not all, of his moves seem to have an ulterior motive. Not surprisingly, he even referenced it in his statement when he said that they already made "...major changes in personnel bringing in new leadership to drive cultural transformation..."

 

Is there truly ANYONE who doesn't think that Donaldson and Wright were brought in over the past month to mitigate these types of stories? It's not like people didn't realize more was to come from the July story. I believe they were for the very reason of being able to appear proactive, which is ironic since they were reactionary hires to the controversy earlier this summer. 

 

That goes along with my thought above about behind the scenes stuff we may not be hearing about. They're great moves on their face, but they scream "save my ass." Just about everything Snyder does has ulterior motives.

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

 

I'd prefer to think that they were hired because they were the best fit for their respective jobs.  I like Donaldson and I like Wright. 

 

That said, I can't help but be cynical about this.  

 

Of course...and don't get me wrong, it's not a knock on them. I believe they deserve a job in the NFL. I just believe the reason they were hired HERE was to get out in front of the public backlash. It's like a middle school kid knowing he's about to bring home a D- and setting up a study session with the teacher right before telling his parents. 

 

"Yeah, I should have done better but look, I've already turned over the new leaf and am taking this seriously. I have a study session with Mrs. Smith Wednesday!"

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Of course...and don't get me wrong, it's not a knock on them. I believe they deserve a job in the NFL. I just believe the reason they were hired HERE was to get out in front of the public backlash. It's like a middle school kid knowing he's about to bring home a D- and setting up a study session with the teacher right before telling his parents. 

 

"Yeah, I should have done better but look, I've already turned over the new leaf and am taking this seriously. I have a study session with Mrs. Smith Wednesday!"

 

Yep, we're in agreement.  

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

 

#1. He owns his stadium. 

#2. Yes, this franchise still contributes more than a lot of teams in smaller markets.

#3. They used to be a larger contributor by % when more people went to games and bought swag

#4. It's the market. It's why the MASN thing with the Nats is insane. What they get is less than what the Rays in Tampa get for TV money. Pro teams with rights agreements in bigger markets bring in more. They also have more potential. 

 

A team in Washington making the playoffs most years is best for the wallets owners from Dallas to Jacksonville. A team in Washington doing that with an African-American owner, a whole new wave of sponsors, a new stadium in the city, etc etc. That would be more than anything Snyder will ever be able to do now that his rep is set.

 

 

Not arguing any of it... Just don't think that stuff alone is viewed enough as a financial gain that would push the other owners to oust him.... yet.  The team is making 'good' money right now, with a guy who likely goes with the likes of Jerry Jones when it comes to league decisions.  It's also, as I pointed out, a soft spot on the schedule for a lot of the big money market teams.  If Bezos was able to buy the team RIGHT NOW, he could presumably make the NFL even more money because he could fund the new stadium and give it a big shiny new sponsorship.  He also likely thinks for himself which could give the other owner pause.  If Snyder had to sell elsewhere to someone who would need to finance the stadium deal, have a question regarding sponsorship, and possibly bring that revenue down because cost of doing business goes up... it may not be worth it to them. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Not arguing any of it... Just don't think that stuff alone is viewed enough as a financial gain that would push the other owners to oust him.... yet.  The team is making 'good' money right now, with a guy who likely goes with the likes of Jerry Jones when it comes to league decisions.  It's also, as I pointed out, a soft spot on the schedule for a lot of the big money market teams.  If Bezos was able to buy the team RIGHT NOW, he could presumably make the NFL even more money because he could fund the new stadium and give it a big shiny new sponsorship.  He also likely thinks for himself which could give the other owner pause.  If Snyder had to sell elsewhere to someone who would need to finance the stadium deal, have a question regarding sponsorship, and possibly bring that revenue down because cost of doing business goes up... it may not be worth it to them. 

 

The money the Redskins pull in isn't a problem for the other owners, but I'm guessing the way the team is run isn't maximizing what it could pull in. I remember the team being in the top-5 on Forbes even for some time after Snyder took over. The slow descent is something I think a better owner could stop or even reverse. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guardian, English newspaper

 

Yet for all of Snyder’s missteps, nothing has ever stuck except for a rotten reputation and the shame of having to release soulless statements with vows to change a toxic culture that he created and has always condoned.

But could the latest egregious act do the trick? Could Dan Snyder, the most hated team owner in American professional sports, actually be ousted?

A noticeable and key differentiator in the latest Post report is the distinct possibility of Snyder’s direct involvement. In addition to being the recipient of cheerleader soft porn, Snyder is also accused of attempting to pimp out one of the team’s cheerleaders to one of his high school friends at a charity event. “We have a hotel room,” Snyder is accused of saying to former cheerleader Tiffany Scourby. “Why don’t you and Tony [also the team ophthalmologist] go upstairs and get to know each other better?”

 

... it’s hard to have full buy-in when Snyder still sits at the top. When Snyder makes a decent decision about anything, it’s almost always in the name of self-preservation.

It’s that inner fight to keep hold on power, that instinct to call a lawyer when he stubs a toe, to ignore cries of racism that will make Snyder especially hard to oust.

Former Raiders CEO Amy Trask says this is the big distinction between Snyder and the former Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, who sold the team in 2018 amidst sexual harassment allegations. Trask also points out that ridding the NFL of Snyder is not a decision that can be made by Goodell alone, even if Section 8.13 of the NFL’s constitution and bylaws allow him to determine if an owner is guilty of conduct detrimental to the league. It’s also worth noting that even if Snyder is forced to sell, he’ll collect around $3bn on a team he bought for $750m.

“Whether or not one believes the league should or should not seek to remove Dan Snyder as an owner it would be extremely difficult for the league to do so,” Trask told the Guardian. “The league is not an independent standalone entity, it is a collection of 32 teams. As such, it is those teams that will ultimately determine whether Dan will be required to divest himself of his holding in his team.”

 

 

The NFL is attempting to embark on a new era when it comes to societal awareness. There are programs to create pipelines in football operations for women and people of color. The commissioner has publicly said that Black lives matter and finally apologized to Colin Kaepernick for ignoring him and his message four years ago and letting him drift into the football afterlife. Whether authentic or not, the league is desperately trying to craft a new image of inclusiveness and respect. It’s a world in which Dan Snyder does not belong, but may well survive.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/aug/28/dan-snyder-has-made-washington-into-a-grubby-mess-dont-expect-him-to-leave?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1598606770

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

The money the Redskins pull in isn't a problem for the other owners, but I'm guessing the way the team is run isn't maximizing what it could pull in. I remember the team being in the top-5 on Forbes even for some time after Snyder took over. The slow descent is something I think a better owner could stop or even reverse. 

 

 

I agree with all of that.... 

 

But if the team is making money, the other owners are less likely to want to stir the pot.... the old 'if it aint broke, dont fix it' montra.  Until money is truly 'lost' i dont see them doing anything, which is why i said the next movement is going to have to get the sponsors involved... which directly effects the revenue.. that will get the other owners attention. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

The money the Redskins pull in isn't a problem for the other owners, but I'm guessing the way the team is run isn't maximizing what it could pull in. I remember the team being in the top-5 on Forbes even for some time after Snyder took over. The slow descent is something I think a better owner could stop or even reverse. 

 

They weren't just top 5 in the NFL, they were top 5 in the world. The Cowboys, Yankees, Man U and I think Barca were the only ones ahead of them. Maybe a team like the Red Sox. I remember it being a very short list.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I agree with all of that.... 

 

But if the team is making money, the other owners are less likely to want to stir the pot.... the old 'if it aint broke, dont fix it' montra.  Until money is truly 'lost' i dont see them doing anything, which is why i said the next movement is going to have to get the sponsors involved... which directly effects the revenue.. that will get the other owners attention. 

 

I do think there is a shot Dan gets removed but I also think the other owners aren't going to just do it on their own without more push.  I think there needs to be more layers -- another story, some boycott type of thing, etc.  I do think there is a chance that those things though do ultimately happen.

 

Negative PR can often snowball.  And I think the snowball is likely to get bigger.  Will see.  But I do think the lawsuits accompanied with the outcry that Dan should be removed helps.  I think its going to need to be other things heaped onto the pile where the fellow owners just don't want bad blood-publicity.

 

As for the last story, I think there is enough to remove Dan if they find that he asked for that video tape be made for him.  If they find the smoking gun on that front, I think he's gone.   If not, I think more things have to keep being added to the pile.   Hobson played it coy on the radio  this week when asked if more is to come.  I don't think he can flat out say yes there is because then that becomes the story which is that another story is coming.  C. Russell has said he knows there are more women who haven't spoken out, yet.

 

I think another story with another Dan angle in the mix might add up to being too much for the NFL to ignore.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I agree with all of that.... 

 

But if the team is making money, the other owners are less likely to want to stir the pot.... the old 'if it aint broke, dont fix it' montra.  Until money is truly 'lost' i dont see them doing anything, which is why i said the next movement is going to have to get the sponsors involved... which directly effects the revenue.. that will get the other owners attention. 

 

Yeah, like with the name, if sponsors start demanding changes, etc. the other owners might listen. Also though, if a market is under-performing consistently, owners may still want more from their partner in that market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I think another story with another Dan angle in the mix might add up to being too much for the NFL to ignore

 

You have to wonder if there is a part III coming. I firmly believe it'll be something coming from the minority owners

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I do think there is a shot Dan gets removed but I also think the other owners aren't going to just do it on their own without more push.  I think there needs to be more layers -- another story, some boycott type of thing, etc.  I do think there is a change that those things though do ultimately happen.

 

Negative PR can often snowball.  And I think the snowball is likely to get bigger.  Will see.  But I do think the lawsuits accompanied with the outcry that Dan should be removed helps.  I think its going to need to be other things heaped in the pile where the fellow owners just don't want bad blood-publicity.

 

As for the last story, I think there is enough to remove Dan if they find that he asked for that video tape be made for him.  If they find the smoking gun on that front, I think he's gone.   If not, I think more things have to keep being added to the pile.   Hobson played it coy on the radio  this week when asked if more is to come.  I don't think he can flat out say yes there is because then that becomes the story which is that another story is coming.  C. Russell has said he knows there is more.

 

I think another story with another Dan angle in the mix might add up to being too much for the NFL to ignore.

 

 

Oh absolutely.  If I had to bet, I'm taking Bezos owning the team by Jan 1.  

 

This is calculated.  Look at the things that have been going on for months now.  

 

Forced name change - No chance Snyder sells the 'Redskins.'  A lot easier to convince him to sell Washington Football Team. 

Minority owners want OUT. 

Nike pulls gear.  NO chance the NFL sits back and lets that happen without signing off on it.  That's revenue in a season that a lot of revenue is already lost, right after the Redskins draft a player who, for the first time in A LONG time, could actually sell the most jerseys for a rookie in Chase Young.  

 

MAJOR reports about a 'damning' story coming out of Ashburn goes on for A WEEK without the content actually getting out (when was the last time that happened?)

Then the first story drops about the harassment shortly after multiple top level execs are relieved of their positions.   This story suggesting the cultural issues but does not directly link Snyder to any specific actions. 

Snyder hires an 'independent investigator' to look into the allegations 

 

Julie Donaldson and Jason Wright are hired, while both are seemingly deserving there is a large level of cynicism if this is Dan just trying to get ahead of it all.  Regardless, they appear to be positive hires and both are part of a larger cultural change.

 

The 2nd story now drops on Wed 8/26.  A day that NO PRACTICE WAS SCHEDULED.  All beat reporters and journalists now have an entire platform without practice reporting to get in the way.  This story directly link Snyder to the behavior. 

Goodell comes out with a statement and a line that reads : "An independent investigation into these issues is in process, led by highly experienced council RECOMMENDED BY OUR OFFICE"

 

There is a lot more to this.  We've only seen a couple of shots being fired.  There are likely more and more stories going to drop as this develops and Snyder OUT as owner is likely the end game.  

Edited by OVCChairman
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

You have to wonder if there is a part III coming. I firmly believe it'll be something coming from the minority owners

 

I would guess part 3 is coming.  I guessed that from the start when the first story came out.  My business deals with the media on a lot of fronts and from my experience when it comes to expose investigative type reporting, they often come out in multiple layers versus all at once.  It's better for the media's business model to spit these stories out in segments versus one and done.   

 

The other part of it as Hobson says is that the first story propelled others to talk.  According to the WP reporters some people who were employed there over the years were bothered with Dan's response to story #1 which was more or less he is part of the solution.  They wanted the WP to know he was a part of the problem.  Dan's statement on the story this week doubles down on him not being part of the problem and he claims the accusations are false.  I'd gather that might get some people stirred up and it wouldn't surprise me if more sources pop up.

 

As an example, I was aware of a major story relating to a client of mine that was a bit wild.  I got into an off the record conversation with a major investigative reporter and I was stunned how much he knew about it -- he had lots of detail on it.   But ultimately his first story on the issue only hit a fraction of it.  Then he had another.  Then he had another.

 

If there is a 3rd leg to this, I doubt the WP has all their ducks lined up now.  But I'd guess they are at least 50% deep in it and they are probing.  Hobson said to get some of their sources to talk, it took some time and cajoling.   If I were a betting man considering how bold the WP column writers have been this week about Dan needs to go -- I'd say a third story is coming and the people at the WP know the angle. 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This has to get him removed.  Too much garbage.  Involved or not, he owns the team.  He is either complicit  or completely incompetent.  Either way he should not be the owner.  

Edited by goskins10
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add if the WP writers-columnists don't like Dan, and I don't blame them for it, they would know that it is more damaging to Dan to have multiple layers of stories versus one expose. 

 

Multiple stories doesn't let a team regroup PR wise.  You are under siege.  And it also gives the impression that these stories will keep coming.

 

If you want to swing things PR wise positive or negative for it to stick, you keep the drum beating.  And if we want Dan gone, this is the best way to do it IMO, this style. 

 

I'd add the fact that Dan isn't liked should help as for others being willing to tell their story where they'd happily pile on.   

 

As to Dan being removed or not, no way to know.   But at the very least, this to me is the biggest threat he's had to his ownership and I doubt he's shrugging his shoulders about this.  I'd guess he's in a bit of a panic. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless something specific with proof can be tied to Dan; he isn’t going anywhere.

 

All we can hope is that, if more stories comes out; a smoking gun finally appears.

 

 

Otherwise those waiting for Dan to be out; are going to be waiting a long time.

 

If there’s real dirt on Dan himself; it will eventually come out.

Edited by Rdskns2000
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...