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

[JSSkinz]

2 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

loses a draft pick

The other 2 things I have no issue with but the league would be smart not to do this, all you're doing is beating down an already dwindling fan base.

 

It's one of the worries I had through all this is that the league would pencil whip the process and penalize us by taking cap space and/or draft picks.

Edited August 31, 2020 by JSSkinz

[Skinsinparadise]

18 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Good. Snyder’s public perception problem becoming the NFL’s public perception problem is a huge step towards either pushing him out or reigning him in, imo. When his behavior and actions reflect on the other owners in a real, tangible way in the public eye is when change might be possible. Unlikely might, as we all know, but still. 

 

Being a bit of a local and national media hound, my 2 cents is Dan being a bad dude has gone viral in a bigger way than anytime in the past as for a national narrative.  I think the main perception of Dan nationally was that he was incompetent and brash and a loser.  The idea that he arguably is a major jerk and a bad guy has been floated out there as part of the soup but it hasn't really been the main plot line.

 

The main plot line now is about what kind of person is Dan.  And the fact that there is a major narrative out there that owners will protect their own, etc -- I think also is progress.

 

In short from a PR standpoint, Dan presents a bigger problem IMO for the NFL now than he would have years ago -- considering the politics of the NFL of late.  And the fact that its out there so loud that fellow NFL owners will have Dan's back had put them in the crosshairs of the media more so than in the past.

 

IMO its the perfect storm.  But my gut is there needs to be one more layer to these stories to tip everything.  My gut is that layer is coming.  Maybe its wishful thinking on my end, will see.

 

I hate these stories but at the same time I think we as a fan base suffered enough with 20 years plus of losing, incompetence and sleaze.  We deserve something much better. 

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

I mean, I'm hoping they roast Snyder in the depths of a slor for this one.

 

I want the truth to come out. And I'm fine with the realization that the truth doesn't always match our expectations...and when it doesn't, that does not by default mean a conspiracy.

 

One thing I had not thought about was having Snyder suspended until the investigation is over...not sure how that works exactly but that's an interesting thought.

[bh32]

Only way Dan gets in trouble is if there is evidence that he was the one committing it or knew it was going on and did nothing about it..

[Skinsinparadise]

1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

 

One thing I had not thought about was having Snyder suspended until the investigation is over...not sure how that works exactly but that's an interesting thought.

 

It would be ironic for me.  I am a Yankee fan and I like to compare Dan to Steinbrenner.  Arguably the Yankees resurgence was driven by Steinbrenner's suspension which gave Gene Michael time to rebuild the roster with young players (George typically didn't have the patience for that).  That according to many set the nucleus for the Yankees run in the 90s.   

[Califan007 The Constipated]

7 minutes ago, bh32 said:

Only way Dan gets in trouble is if there is evidence that he was the one committing it or knew it was going on and did nothing about it..

 

Along those lines, part of the truth I want to come out is was Vinny involved in any of this, or Bruce?...Nothing's been mentioned of either of these guys other than Bruce had to know because his desk wasn't too far away from one of the women in the article who said she cried at her desk so Bruce had to have known something was wrong. Also, the minority owners are not mentioned, either...would want to know what they knew (if anything) and what they did to stop it or perpetuate it (if anything).

Edited September 1, 2020 by Califan007

[skinsfan4128]

While I like most of you revel in the continued attacks on Snyder (I absolutely loathe that little **** and am completely appalled by this adolescent behavior), I have to admit that up until now I simply didn't see this going anywhere other than making him look even more like the assclown we all know he is.  

 

But I can't help but wonder if this may have have a more desired effect than what we realize.  Consider this,  how much more can he afford to have happen before it becomes a detriment to his family? He's a son, husband, and father that is continuing to dredge his family through his embicilic misgivings (and that's being polite considering the heinous acts he has been involved with or allowed)? 

 

At what point does his wife begin to say enough is enough? Does she threaten him with divorce if he doesn't walk away from the franchise? Does his family begin to alienate him or turn their backs on him? 

 

It simply could be wishful thinking on my part, but I have to wonder how much more his family can tolerate his bad behavior and constantly being cast negatively in the media spotlight (I realize that it's really Snyder that is being attacked,  but they're guilty by association). Of course,  he may not care. But it certainly warrants consideration for if he truly cares anything about his family,  he would cease to continue putting them through this.

 

HTTR.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It would be ironic for me.  I am a Yankee fan and I like to compare Dan to Steinbrenner.  Arguably the Yankees resurgence was driven by Steinbrenner's suspension which gave Gene Michael time to rebuild the roster with young players (George typically didn't have the patience for that).  That according to many set the nucleus for the Yankees run in the 90s.   

 

Why was Steinbrenner suspended again?...I don't remember.

[Conn]

22 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

I don't see this reflecting on the other owners, I just see an almost Pavlovian response from a percentage of fans (less so from media members) of anything less than a scathing report on Snyder being due to a coverup. Remember how after the first article came out and it didn't include any of the more savory speculations and rumors, how a certain percentage claimed that Snyder's lawyers must have threatened the WP all week to get that stuff removed? I basically expect that mindset to come out again if the above happens.

Maybe. My point is that, at the right point in time with the right political/social conditions, public perception and pressure eventually created coalitions of people/groups that pressured big brands and sponsors into leveraging the name change. That was thought unthinkable even a year ago by many, and it’s all because alongside huge public and media discourse on the topic, big money businesses decided it was more profitable to side with the prevailing public perception than to stand by this team on this issue. 

 

If the pressure of public perception from people around the nation slowly makes our problem with Snyder the NFL’s problem with Snyder in the same way, and once again sponsors and big brands begin to flex their power with the league on this issue...that’s our best hope of getting rid of Snyder. To make it such a bad look to keep him around that it reflects poorly on the NFL as a whole and its stance on protecting women, etc. Tons more of these stories keep coming out, and it’s possible that the pressure will build in the same way until big brands start taking notice as well and basically treat this franchise and the NFL as entities that need to be essentially sanctioned for harboring a problematic bum like Snyder and standing by him. 
 

A lot of people don’t like how the name change stuff went down, but it’s also our best hope at ditching Snyder. That so much pressure builds outside the NFL that it’s not really the 31 other owners’ choice anymore, they just have to protect their product. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by ConnSKINS26

[Skinsinparadise]

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Why was Steinbrenner suspended again?...I don't remember.

In January 1990, the Yankees' owner paid $40,000 to "former" gambler Howard Spira for dirt on Winfield and the foundation - Spira had been an unpaid publicist for the foundation the previous decade. However, he had now got himself into a large hole, owing a total of $100,000 to various bookies with mob connections. On hearing of the latest Winfield lawsuit, he approached Steinbrenner and said that he could priovide proof that Winfield had been "squandering his foundation's money on trysts with girlfriends."

 

While Spira got some money, Steinbrenner refused to pay more and got Spira charged with extortion, allegedly using his connections in the Tampa FBI office [it's claimed he "entertained personnel from the FBI's Tampa office in the Yankee owner's luxury box at Tampa Bay Bucs games and otherwise curried favor with them"]. While admitting the $40,000, his explanations for the payment proved volatile. Initially claiming he paid Spira "out of the goodness of his heart," he then went on to say Spira threatened his family, or hinted he would tell the press about Lou Piniella's gambling habit. Regardless of the cause, it was a pretty clear contravention of baseball's biggest no-no: don't associate with gamblers, and so Commissioner Vincent took an interest.

 

Not that Winfield exactly comes out  smelling of roses. He had lent Spira $15,000 in 1981 - though first denied this, and then denied knowing Spira was a gambler. Multiple sources suggest that innocence is unlikely to be true, and there's some evidence to support Steinbrenner's claims suggesting Winfield himself was no stranger to sports betting (albeit not on baseball). And in 1989, he settled a suit, admitting that some of the Foundation's income had been "inappropriately expended," agreeing to pay almost $230,000 in delinquent contributions. None of this, however, was the subject of Vincent's investigation.

 

On July 30th, 1990, Vincent banned the man who had just been labeled "The Most Hated Man in Baseball" on the cover of Newsweek George from the game for life. The weird thing is, it was Steinbrenner who requested the ban, instead of the two-year suspension originally suggested by Vincent. At  the time, George thought a suspension would mean he would lose his position as vice president of the United States Olympic Committee. At the time, Steinbrenner was tired of the game, but - as so often - changed his mind, and Vincent relented and revoked the lifetime ban, shortly after two years had passed.

Shortly before Steinbrenner's ban was announced, Winfield was finally traded to the California Angels, and on returning to New York unleashed the following broadside:

 

https://www.azsnakepit.com/2011/4/18/2095444/baseballs-greatest-scandals-steinbrenner-winfield

[CommanderInTheRye]

Any word on if the new owner(s) are going to retain Rivera, Wright and Julie Donaldson?

 

(Or am I jumping the gun a tad.)

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

1 minute ago, TrancesWithWolves said:

Any word on if the new owner(s) are going to retain Rivera, Wright and Julie Donaldson?

 

(Or am I jumping the gun a tad.)

????

[Califan007 The Constipated]

1 minute ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

Maybe. My point is that, at the right point in time with the right political/social conditions, public perception and pressure eventually created coalitions of people/groups that pressured big brands and sponsors into leveraging the name change. That was thought unthinkable even a year ago by many, and it’s all because alongside huge public and media discourse on the topic, big money businesses decided it was more profitable to side with the prevailing public perception than to stand by this team on this issue. 

 

If the pressure of public perception from people around the nation slowly makes our problem with Snyder the NFL’s problem with Snyder in the same way, and once again sponsors and big brands begin to flex their power with the league on this issue...that’s our best hope of getting rid of Snyder. To make it such a bad look to keep him around that it reflects poorly on the NFL as a whole and it’s stance on protecting women, etc. Tons more of these stories keep coming out, and it’s possible that the pressure will build in the same way until big brands start taking notice as well and basically treat this franchise and the NFL as entities that need to be essentially sanctioned for harboring a problematic bum like Snyder and standing by him. 
 

A lot of people don’t like how the name change stuff went down, but it’s also our best hope at ditching Snyder. That so much pressure builds outside the NFL that it’s not really the 31 other owners’ choice anymore, they just have to protect their product. 

 

One thing that never crossed my radar was the 600-billion-in-investments-firm letter to the sponsors about the name. I thought any pressure on sponsors would have to originate from fans and boycotts and whatnot, and that even in this atmosphere of heightened focus on racial injustice few people were gonna start boycotting businesses during a pandemic due to the team being called the "Redskins".

 

I'm wondering, though, if too many around the country are truly outraged by the WP articles. As mentioned, it was the billion-dollar investment firm that spurred a change, not the outrage of the name during protests on race. I'm still curious as to the behind-the-scenes story on that lol...I mean, investment firms and their clients aren't exactly known as activists for racial justice and equality. And I'm assuming the Skins name was their only move in that arena during all this, but I could be wrong.

[bh32]

10 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Along those lines, part of the truth I want to come out is was Vinny involved in any of this, or Bruce?...Nothing's been mentioned of either of these guys other than Bruce had to know because his desk wasn't too far away from one of the women in the article who said she cried at her desk so Bruce had to have known something was wrong. Also, the minority owners are not mentioned, either...would want to know what they knew (if anything) and what they did to stop it or perpetuate it (if anything).

We all know Dan is an asshole ,but i don't see him as a womanizer..I think if he was there would be reports of it way before now..i do believe that there was sexual harassment going on,but i don't think he knew about it..I think Bruce kept a lot of that stuff away from him and we all know not one of those women were gonna approach Dan and tell him about it. 

[Skinsinparadise]

I would be just our luck if the verdict is Dan stays and we lose draft picks.  That net result is the fans get punished some more. 

 

We've all had our share of debates over the years but in the scheme of things no fan base deserves the run we've had under Dan.  It's not even been a fun loser run.  We aren't like lets say the Cubs were -- lovable losers, underdogs.  We've been losers and cool to hate, too.   It's really been the reverse of the 1980s where the Redskins were both classy and winners.

 

The optimist is me thinks it has to change eventually. 

 

 

 

[CommanderInTheRye]

14 minutes ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

????

 

That guy TrancesWithWolves  is always writing sarcastic comments like that.  Don't take him too seriously. 

 

I suspect he was just pulling our collective legs and offering a bit of caution to those (including himself) who are hoping for immediate change. 

 

Just my guess. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by TrancesWithWolves

[Califan007 The Constipated]

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

A lot of us were saying that, in situations of possible illegal actions, NDAs should not be enforceable. So this is good. Not sure how much additional damage it will cause, though.

[Skinsinparadise]

Beyond the NFL taking over the investigation, the league also secured a release from non-disclosure agreements for former employees and current employees to cooperate with the investigation, which attorney Lisa Banks also asked Goodell to do. 

Although the NFL has taken over the investigation, Wilkinson will continue to lead the effort. She came recommended by the league office to the Washington Football Team. 

"We communicated our strong belief that without this type of transparency, there can be no real accountability, and moreover, that victims of this type of abuse should be able to tell their stories when and how they wish to do so, without threat of legal action," lawyers Lisa Banks and Debra Katz said in a statement. "We are pleased and encouraged that the league is taking this matter seriously and we expect that it will take appropriate action against Daniel Snyder and the Washington Football Team upon conclusion of the investigation.”

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/washington-football/nfl-taking-over-investigation-washington-football-teams-culture

[Conn]

Just now, bh32 said:

We all know Dan is an asshole ,but i don't see him as a womanizer..I think if he was there would be reports of it way before now..i do believe that there was sexual harassment going on,but i don't think he knew about it..I think Bruce kept a lot of that stuff away from him and we all know not one of those women were gonna approach Dan and tell him about it. 

This is weird to say because even as far as reclusive rich guys go, we really don’t know ANYTHING about Snyder the person, on the whole. 
 

Not to relate Snyder to him directly, but just as an example of how little we know about public figures—the much more publicly available Bill Cosby completely hid his crimes and hushed his victims for decades, though there were whispers among those in the know, until it all finally came out. Most people were beyond shocked.

 

Again, not to compare the potential transgressions in any way. 
 

The point is that your arbitrary layman’s opinion from the outside (like all of us) that you don’t “see him as a womanizer” (or anything else, setting aside the fact that that’s not really what he’s being accused of at all, but just for argument’s sake) means absolutely nothing at all. Less than nothing.

 

We can’t know anything about the private lives of any public figure...much less so about a reclusive isolated billionaire who works to stay off the radar and never puts himself in the spotlight on purpose. To act like we have any sort of reasonable feel for Snyder at all, beyond what we know about his penchant for football-related badness and his general rep as an insecure prick...it’s illogical. You know nothing about this guy, really. 

[Dissident2]

32 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Snyder gets fined, loses a draft pick and maybe gets suspended for a year.

 

Not if they tie him to those videos. If they tie him to those videos, he's DONE. And you can put that in CAPS. 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Dissident2

[skinsfan4128]

3 minutes ago, bh32 said:

We all know Dan is an asshole ,but i don't see him as a womanizer..I think if he was there would be reports of it way before now..i do believe that there was sexual harassment going on,but i don't think he knew about it..I think Bruce kept a lot of that stuff away from him and we all know not one of those women were gonna approach Dan and tell him about it. 

Though possible,  it's highly unlikely.  As meddlesome as that ****nut has been over the years,  it would be damn near impossible for him not to know at least some of what was going on if not completely in the loop (let's not forget he isn't exactly the poster child for being a good human being).

In fact,  I  would say he was well aware of what was going on.  It feeds his narcissistic behavior and makes his sorry weak ass feel powerful. 

[bakedtater1]

14 minutes ago, TrancesWithWolves said:

 

That guy TrancesWithWolves  is always writing sarcastic comments like that.  Don't take him too seriously. 

 

I suspect he was just pulling our collective legs and offering a bit of caution to those (including himself) who are hoping for immediate change. 

 

Just my guess. 

3rd person?

[Skinsinparadise]

4 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

Not if they tie him to those videos. If they tie him to those videos, he's DONE. And you can put that in CAPS. 

 

Agree, that's the smoking gun.  While I get some being skeptical that there will be any consequences.  I  do think if by chance that can legitimately tie him to that video in a meaningful way, he's likely done. 

 

I also do think the more the media puts forth that the owners will protect their own the better the chances they won't.  I do think the owners would much rather play that game in the shadows.  So as much as I at times can't stand some of Sally Jenkins' takes, I do think she is helping with her narrative of putting fellow owners on the spot.

 

I got little doubt that the owners would prefer to sweep this under the rug.  I do think the one shot to get them not to is to telegraph in advance and loudly that the owners intend to protect their own to protect their own potential skeletons.  

 

I believe the owners might hesitate more if they know that they will share in Dan's bad PR and would be considered complicit.  It's not that I think its the be all and end all.  But I do think our only shot at getting the owners to act is to spell out their game in advance and I love the fact that some in the media are doing just that. 

[bh32]

7 minutes ago, skinsfan4128 said:

Though possible,  it's highly unlikely.  As meddlesome as that ****nut has been over the years,  it would be damn near impossible for him not to know at least some of what was going on if not completely in the loop (let's not forget he isn't exactly the poster child for being a good human being).

In fact,  I  would say he was well aware of what was going on.  It feeds his narcissistic behavior and makes his sorry weak ass feel powerful. 

I don't think Dan cares about the business side of the team and left that up to Bruce..He likes to meddle in the football side