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

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Dan, just go man. It’s hasn’t worked. To Become a better man your first step is to sell the team. You’ve had your chance to change your ways, it’s time to leave. Please!

[Mr. Sinister]

4 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Tell that to Kraft, Isray and an endless list of NFL owners. Dudes have been charged with felonies.

 

You need a megaton Bomb. Absolute overkill. Double tap in a single blow

 

Not even a zombie can survive that 

 

[FootballZombie]

3 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

 

Not even a zombie can survive that 

 

 

"Overkill is underrated."

 

That quote is the bane of all zombie kind.

Its also true for the removal of owners

[robotfire]

On 8/27/2020 at 8:20 AM, Cooleyfan1993 said:

Soo....I’m an “immoral person” for watching my favorite NFL team on tv? LOL that’s laughable. I’m not going to just not watch my favorite team play games just because the owner is a piece of ****. Sorry. I think it’s a horrible take to say anyone who watches on tv is an “immoral person”. It’s possible to cheer for the players on the field while also thinking the owner is a horrible man. 
 

 

I get you.  I love my country, but I don't think highly our president.  I still root for our greatness.

 

The struggle I'm having is the part where I remember this is entertainment.  I'm directly supporting a monster, for entertainment.  I don't judge anyone for *not* having that struggle, and I bet there's a part of you that *is* having that struggle.  Dwayne Haskins throwing a touchdown has little to do with Dan Snyder's personal sins.  I'm still trying to find a way to support this team, but Snyder is making it extremely difficult for me.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

8 hours ago, bearrock said:

I pray that Snyder gets ousted so that I can root for this team again.  What was the smoking gun for Richardson?  Is there anything we can look to there for hope?

 

Direct evidence of sexual harassment of female employees, proof of him paying hush money to the victims for their silence, and using a racial slur against a black employee.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Califan007

[Koolblue13]

Wasn't Jerry Jones caught with some of Michael Irvins hookers doing blow? And didn't we just all laugh?

[LD0506]

I get it, honestly I do, I get the angst and the anger and the fed up/I'm outta here disgust and I will not say a word about anyone that has reached their limit.

 

Kudos for hanging on this long

 

BUT (cuz I like big buts) I do genuinely believe that this is how change happens, this is what it takes to drag the blood sucking tick of TheDan's ego and insecurity and narcissism off the neck of the franchise. If it was easier he wouldn't be this bad and there might be other options.

 

Apparently there aren't

 

We have all waited for decades (say it out loud, decades) for him to grow the **** up or get a clue or listen to someone that brought their own clue or just look in the mirror and see what the actual problem is. He hasn't, he doesn't, he won't, he can't. It is beyond his power to even comprehend it, we are all crying because that giraffe won't play the piano no matter how much we spend on lessons. 

 

So the pressure builds. There are more stories out there, I guarantee it, someone just needs to find that certain, critical one that even he can't see come out. So we drag on, waiting for that kill shot, that abusive embarrassing incident to bubble up like a corpse in a poltergeist pool that breaks the camel's back.

 

Everything will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end.

[FrFan]

12 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Tell that to Kraft, Isray and an endless list of NFL owners. Dudes have been charged with felonies.

 

You need a megaton Bomb. Absolute overkill. Double tap in a single blow

Unity is needed to take him down, no more sponsors of any kind, no stadium deal wherever, no WFT fans in the stands, lowest TV ratings ever, more testimonies, video tapes, some godzillionaires pushing to purchase the franchise, etc....

Danny boy already made panic moves hires, he must be really stressed. I know Goodell is a clown, nevertheless I hope more and more testimonies and evidences will come out to force him to sell.

Edited August 29, 2020 by FrFan

[Califan007 The Constipated]

22 minutes ago, FrFan said:

Unity is needed to take him down, no more sponsors of any kind, no stadium deal wherever, no WFT fans in the stands, lowest TV ratings ever, more testimonies, video tapes, some godzillionaires pushing to purchase the franchise, etc....

Danny boy already made panic moves hires, he must be really stressed. I know Goodell is a clown, nevertheless I hope more and more testimonies and evidences will come out to force him to sell.

 

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Koolblue13]

You can't tell a bunch of billionaires how to manage their stables. But if there is one thing a billionaire does want, it's to be a trillionaire, which Bezos.

[Darrell Green Fan]

The difference between Richardson and Snyder is Richardson elected to sell the franchise after the criticism and Snyder will refuse this.  I also agree with the comments that the good old boys do not want to set the bar too low for removal or they put their own ownership at risk.

 

But then again these are different times. I'm sure the league is a bit tired of all the bad publicity this owner is giving them, but without more this isn't enough to oust him.  

[dyst]

As for the video tape request, Larry Michael is a stooge as was evident by his “retirement”, so I wouldn’t put it past him to say “Dan needs these tapes” instead of saying Larry requesting them himself.

[Dissident2]

57 minutes ago, dyst said:

As for the video tape request, Larry Michael is a stooge as was evident by his “retirement”, so I wouldn’t put it past him to say “Dan needs these tapes” instead of saying Larry requesting them himself.

 

It's possible. But I can't see that as making a lot of sense. Number one, this apparently happened multiple times over multiple years. Sounds like it was almost an annual thing after the calendar shoot. You have two different employees from different times saying Larry said "we have to make this for Dan." You have another employee who just remembers Larry asking for it but then asking him to burn it onto a DVD saying "Executive Meeting." Two DVDs, in fact. Why would Larry ask for that if it was just for his own jollies? 

 

From what I understand, Larry controlled all the video stuff. If he wanted those clips so badly for himself, don't know why he would've come up with some elaborate scheme over different years to get that done, and why would he risk himself even further by lying to people and saying the order came from the head of the entire organization, his boss?? If wind of that got back to Dan, and it wasn't true, he'd have been screwed. Doesn't make sense he'd risk his whole career multiple times just for what appears to be glimpses of cheerleaders' breasts. Again, I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy. To me, what makes the most sense is easily what the Post suggests: Dan asked, Dan got. No questions. 

 

That said, still hard to prove at this point. What will be interesting will be if there are lawsuits (which there will be) and someone like Larry decides to flip rather than take the fall, or one of the two video people who went on record denying the request (who just happened to be two people another employee went on record saying he saw actually putting the piece together) decide to change their story. 

 

The plot "sickens"!

[Califan007 The Constipated]

49 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

You have two different employees from different times saying Larry said "we have to make this for Dan."

 

I thought I read it the opposite: that 2 employees said they don't remember Dan's name being mentioned and one saying Larry said it was for Dan? Please don't make me go back and read it to see what it said lol...

[Dissident2]

1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

I thought I read it the opposite: that 2 employees said they don't remember Dan's name being mentioned and one saying Larry said it was for Dan? Please don't make me go back and read it to see what it said lol...

 

No need to read it again, I'll summarize: One employee said he was personally told by Larry in 2008 - with two others present - that "we need to make this video for the owner today." According to that employee, he later saw the other two guys actually putting the video together. Those two denied any of this happened. 

 

Another employee caught a totally different editor two years later in the process of making the 2010 video. When the employee (doesn't say whether they were male or female) asked for an explanation, the editor said, "We were told we had to make this for the owner." That's according to the genderless former employee who actually grabbed the video. 

 

The editor said anonymously that he doesn't remember Dan being mentioned, but says he just remembers Larry asking for it and then asking for two DVDs labeled "For Executive Meeting." 

 

So you have two who say they were told it came from Dan. One says they heard it from an editor, the other from Larry himself. You have two (including Larry) going on the record saying this never happened. Of course, those two (including Larry) are named as being a part of the video's creation. Another guy says he just shot the footage and can't speak to what was done with it after he "turned it in," despite the on-record guy from 2008 identifying that person as helping to assemble the "good bit" video. 

 

So there you have it. There is definitely some lying happening here. If I was a betting man, I know where I'd put my money. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

No need to read it again, I'll summarize: One employee said he was personally told by Larry in 2008 - with two others present - that "we need to make this video for the owner today." According to that employee, he later saw the other two guys actually putting the video together. Those two denied any of this happened. 

 

Another employee caught a totally different editor two years later in the process of making the 2010 video. When the employee (doesn't say whether they were male or female) asked for an explanation, the editor said, "We were told we had to make this for the owner." That's according to the genderless former employee who actually grabbed the video. 

 

The editor said anonymously that he doesn't remember Dan being mentioned, but says he just remembers Larry asking for it and then asking for two DVDs labeled "For Executive Meeting." 

 

So you have two who say they were told it came from Dan. One says they heard it from an editor, the other from Larry himself. You have two (including Larry) going on the record saying this never happened. Of course, those two (including Larry) are named as being a part of the video's creation. Another guy says he just shot the footage and can't speak to what was done with it after he "turned it in," despite the on-record guy from 2008 identifying that person as helping to assemble the "good bit" video. 

 

So there you have it. There is definitely some lying happening here. If I was a betting man, I know where I'd put my money. 

 

 

Unfortunately (for me lol), my curiosity got the best of me and I went back and read the article again. Here's what I saw--two videos were talked about in the write-up: one in 2008 and one in 2010. Brad Baker is on the record about the 2008 video. As you said, he claims Larry said the video was for Snyder:

 

"Baker said in an interview that he was present when Michael told staffers to make the video for team owner Daniel Snyder.

 

“Larry said something to the effect of, ‘We have a special project that we need to get done for the owner today: He needs us to get the good bits of the behind-the-scenes video from the cheerleader shoot onto a DVD for him,’” said Baker, who was a producer in the team’s broadcast department from 2007 to 2009."

 

That's the one I remembered mentioning Snyder. The two who were alleged to have actually made the video deny making it, so they wouldn't be saying one way or another if it was made for Snyder.

 

For 2010 video, I saw this (the producer is the same person as the editor you mentioned):

 

"The producer said Michael asked for the calendar footage to be scoured for “the good stuff” — partially nude and other salacious moments — and to splice it together onto a DVD titled, “For Executive Meeting.” Michael never said explicitly that the video was for Snyder, according to the producer, who said two copies were given to Michael."

 

I also saw this about a former employee walking in when the 2010 video was being made (which includes a section you posted):

 

"According to the former employee, the producer identified the footage as “outtakes of the recent cheerleader shoot” and said the video was being compiled for Snyder...[...the] former broadcasting producer for the team told The Post that Michael ordered that the 2010 video be burned to a DVD titled “For Executive Meeting.” The former producer did not recall Michael mentioning Snyder."

 

I did a search for the part you put in quotes ("We were told we had to make this for the owner") but came up empty. it's possible the WP has since edited that out for some reason, although if so, that's not a good sign to remove something that was previously written as a direct quote. Or you may have been paraphrasing what the former employee said he was told by the producer and the quotation marks weren't meant to indicate a direct quote from the article.

 

I think what I did was went on the comments of those either making the video, who were told by Larry to make the video,  or who witnessed Larry asking someone to make the video and skipped the former employee who didn't fit into any of those categories.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

15 hours ago, 09 said:

 

 

 

Funny...

 

I just feel that continuing to support a criminal as an owner is enabling his ownership to continue. 

[Dissident2]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

"According to the former employee, the producer identified the footage as “outtakes of the recent cheerleader shoot” and said the video was being compiled for Snyder...[...the] former broadcasting producer for the team told The Post that Michael ordered that the 2010 video be burned to a DVD titled “For Executive Meeting.” The former producer did not recall Michael mentioning Snyder."

 

I did a search for the part you put in quotes ("We were told we had to make this for the owner") but came up empty. it's possible the WP has since edited that out for some reason, although if so, that's not a good sign to remove something that was previously written as a direct quote. Or you may have been paraphrasing what the former employee said he was told by the producer and the quotation marks weren't meant to indicate a direct quote from the article.

 

 

Yeah, you're right, I was paraphrasing (and not very well) in that section. Ironically, I didn't go back and read the article, while you did, lol. I could've sworn I read that somewhere, though. It may have been in a comment section or someone else's paraphrasing, I don't know. Either way, sloppy on my part. I think the point remains, though, that the producer/editor said, according to the employee who took the video, that it was being made for snyder, and then baker also says he was told the earlier one was being made for snyder. So despite the paraphrasing sucking, you still have two separate people saying they were told by someone it was made for Snyder. And then a few others who not only deny that but that the video even was put together or asked for at all, each of those somehow mentioned in the story as being part of the videos' creation. 

[OVCChairman]

15 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

If Bezos really wants in, I guess we're just walking a line of Dan goes too far (which we absolutely have) and of how much the league can get from Bezos.

 

 

 

Bezos is a win - win - win for the league. 

 

1. He's not Dan Snyder

2. He can fund a stadium on his own

3. He already has a pretty new sponsor to go on that pretty new stadium

 

The only question is that I don't think Bezos will be an easy pushover that I believe Dan is when it comes to ownership voting.  Snyder, while he's a pain in the butt, is a member of that good ol' boy group.... Bezos has the power, and likely the attitude, to possibly buck that trend a bit.  

[CobraCommander]

11 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

 

Bezos is a win - win - win for the league. 

 

1. He's not Dan Snyder

2. He can fund a stadium on his own

3. He already has a pretty new sponsor to go on that pretty new stadium

 

The only question is that I don't think Bezos will be an easy pushover that I believe Dan is when it comes to ownership voting.  Snyder, while he's a pain in the butt, is a member of that good ol' boy group.... Bezos has the power, and likely the attitude, to possibly buck that trend a bit.  

 

 

Just because he can fund his own stadium doesn't mean he would. These Billionaires didn't get to where they are without taking tax payer funded handouts while paying little to nothing in taxes.

 

Also I don't see Snyder as part of the Good Ole Boy network. He's some sort of in between generation of slightly successful dot com bubble billionaires who bought his way in, demanded the other owners in the league treat him like a good ole boy but has never fit in. It's why owners like the Maras try to actively sabotage this team.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Florgon79

[TD_washingtonredskins]

12 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

 

Bezos is a win - win - win for the league. 

 

1. He's not Dan Snyder

2. He can fund a stadium on his own

3. He already has a pretty new sponsor to go on that pretty new stadium

 

The only question is that I don't think Bezos will be an easy pushover that I believe Dan is when it comes to ownership voting.  Snyder, while he's a pain in the butt, is a member of that good ol' boy group.... Bezos has the power, and likely the attitude, to possibly buck that trend a bit.  

 

I'd add that a better-run Washington, DC franchise generates more profits to share. 

[FootballZombie]

Man, I can see the angles, but I just don’t buy all this Bezos stuff.

 

Dude is stupid rich. So rich he has zero need to play the long game. I’m pretty sure he has more money than every other owner combined. If he wants a team that badly, he can just walk up to any owner and triple their net worth. Unless he specifically wants our team (Its close to HQ2, bring clients to home games!) It all feels like unnecessary beating around the bush.

 

Sure, he’d pay more money to acquire a team, but he likely would have made a lot of it back by now with his Amazon stock explosion for having a partner like the NFL and the likelihood of stadium name deal on the way.

 

He honestly might be too rich to be an owner. We would not be his top priority. Zombie’s like to be noticed. Bezos will straight Scrooge Mcduck.

[OVCChairman]

6 hours ago, Florgon79 said:

 

 

Just because he can fund his own stadium doesn't mean he would. These Billionaires didn't get to where they are without taking tax payer funded handouts while paying little to nothing in taxes.

 

Also I don't see Snyder as part of the Good Ole Boy network. He's some sort of in between generation of slightly successful dot com bubble billionaires who bought his way in, demanded the other owners in the league treat him like a good ole boy but has never fit in. It's why owners like the Maras try to actively sabotage this team.

 

 

True, but if the NFL could guarantee a Super Bowl within 5 years of the stadium opening, the profit would likely outweigh the cost.  Add the potential world cup games and concerts.... it would be easy for him to value ownership if DC was to push back.  He may not pay out of pocket, but Amazon Field could easily be a thing.   That alone could cause the NFL to get excited.  

 

 

He may not be totally liked, but hes a member of the club.  He seems to have Jones' ear and likely follows suit when Jones speaks.  Hes easy to 'control.'  

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by OVCChairman

[bh32]

It's gonna take more than sexual harassment on women to get him to sell..Dosen't matter how many women come forward as it is old news..Has to be something new and extreme and i don't see it happening. the shock and awe was over on the first story..Got to come up with some new allegations.

Edited August 30, 2020 by bh32

[Koala]

On 8/28/2020 at 5:40 PM, dyst said:

To those who are leaving and want nothing to do with this team until Snyder is out, I commend you and respect your decision.

 

However, you should also consider staying because one of the most effective ways to bring change is from within. 

Stay, complain and **** with us....until he is gone.

 

We tried that.  It didnt work, as is clearly obvious.  Do you know how die-hard you had to be as a fan, to put up with the last two decades of the on-field product.  But we dealt with that, and stuck it through.  However, for me and many others, cheerleader-gate is just too much to deal with.  It's not just embarassing or disappointing (like the on-field performance), its flat out repulsive.  Its becoming almost a moral obligation for anybody with respect for women, and a general sense of morality  -- to simply stop supporting this product.