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

[FootballZombie]

3 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

VERY interesting read. 
 

https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/09/08/dan-snyder-nfl-mark-leibovich-lose-ownership-question/

 

Baaaaaiiiiittttt

 

Get me a pole and this article and I'll have everything I'll need to go fishing.

 

A few of you seemed to like it tho. What did you guys see in that article? I thought it was terrible.

 

Mullin's dismantles his whole argument as many of the points that made Snyder safe in the beginning of the article are still applicable at the end.

 

A new owner can bring a new team name, and a stadium in DC... But wait, Snyder can too

A new owner will be beloved an bring in money... But wait, we are currently a top 10 franchise in the league

 

Worse of all he put the odds at 50-50. Didn't even commit to anything.

 

The only thing of value I read was that Snyder was currently weak politically, making him more vulnerable. Aristotle level insight right there.

 

That article felt like a waste of my time. I've seen 6 or 7 posters here make better cases in half the characters

[Dissident2]

 

This link should take you to a series of four videos of Megan Imbert's appearance on Fox 5 DC this morning. Really riveting stuff. Again, click below the video to go to the tweet itself, where all four videos are embedded. Guess the appearance was too long for one twitter vid.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Dissident2

[Skinsinparadise]

22 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

 

 

A new owner can bring a new team name, and a stadium in DC... But wait, Snyder can too

 

Can Dan?  Will see.  He's not off to a hot start on that front and some who have covered this story thinks he ends up stuck at Fedex at the end where he'd have to use that land.  Politicians who ultimately might need to vote for the approval of a stadium will tie their reputations to Dan?  Some say they won't considering how low people think of Dan at the DMV.  Another owner in all likelihood would have a better shot than Dan to secure a stadium.   And as the author stated a new owner will likely be embraced by fans/community by sheer virtue of not being Dan.

 

The article quoted Leibovich on the subject, the dude knows a thing or two about the owners, he wrote a book about the owners years back, which I read.   Good book including an excerpt about Dan which I cited at the time.   The dude knows the owners so I doubt he's just throwing stuff against the wall.

 

27 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

 

A new owner will be beloved an bring in money... But wait, we are currently a top 10 franchise in the league

 

 

We continue to slide down the scale, we were once first and then 2nd and we keep sliding.  I forgot the category but if I recall we were dead last in recent years as for % increase in value on some key variable. 

 

The NFL doesn't even care to give us a mere prime time game anymore.  It started with no Sunday Night games.  Now its no Monday Night games either. Our local ratings are sliding.  NFL attendance isn't hot.  We don't sell jerseys like marquee clubs anymore.  This is a franchise on the decline as for national relevance. 

 

The arrow is trending down with Dan.  That's not hard to see.  I think the author made a good point that Dan got off to a hot start business wise in his younger years.  He knew how to make the team relevant even when they were losing.  Now the team is irrelevant and a punchline.  Things aren't looking up for Dan as for business trends aside from just being in a big market and being part of the NFL where everyone makes money.  

[JSSkinz]

I listened to the videos in the previous post and I heard Meghan Imbert say the following.

 

"ultimately there's probably going to be some civil or criminal charges here so sooner or later you will have to speak up"

 

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that while there was an ongoing investigation, especially concerning sexual harassment.

 

 

[Dissident2]

1 minute ago, JSSkinz said:

I listened to the videos in the previous post and I heard Meghan Imbert say the following.

 

"ultimately there's probably going to be some civil or criminal charges here so sooner or later you will have to speak up"

 

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that while there was an ongoing investigation, especially concerning sexual harassment.

 

 

 

I could be wrong, but I think she was talking about the videos, not necessarily pending sexual harassment cases. It's possible the videos could have a criminal component and it's DEFINITE that they could have a civil component. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I will start believing Tonya is an active member of the leadership team when she gets in front of a group of reporters and says so and answers questions.   Until then, it feels like a sham.

[FootballZombie]

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

He makes a statement regarding lack of support from the other owners for years in the first half of the article, but claims it is an important factor in the second half. For a very long time, Snyder has been on the outside of other owners and Goodell, with only one ally in Jones. Now he continues to have a lack of support from other owners. In other words, the status quo has not changed. At all. Furthermore, Snyder does not even need the direct support of other owners. As long as they sit on their hands and stay silent, that is best case scenario for Snyder, and by all means they have. If the argument that the owners don’t like Snyder puts him in line for dismissal, it’s a bad argument.

  

Then there is the financials and the stadium. While it is still possible for us to move to DC under Snyder, (especially after the name change) any franchise will locate to whoever gives them the best deal. If another location gives them the gambling rights, and pays for a large chunk of the new building, I don’t care who the owner is, the team will choose that other location. That is less on the owner and more on what the various districts are willing to give up, and Wash will likely have several areas playing against each other. If DC is not willing to meet those demands w/ Snyder, unless a new guy does not want gambling, I don’t see their offer changing very much in the wake of new ownership.

 

If making as much money as possible is as much of an issue as the writer implies, it starts with taking maximum advantage of any area willing to throw cash your way. And if the second main argument is that the guy who was untouchable before because he was bringing in lots of money, is still making you top 10 money today, then again, that is not a very strong argument, even if we are trending downward.

 

The lack of support has not changed. Any owner will choose the best financial stadium deal, so purely focusing on a DC location would go against the very monetary argument he himself presented. Any owner can choose a new name as we already transitioning, so that has no impact either. The writer chose the absolute worst areas to focus on, just so he can tell people what they want to hear.

Edited September 9, 2020 by FootballZombie

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

He makes a statement regarding lack of support from the other owners for years in the first half of the article, but claims it is an important factor in the second half. For a very long time, Snyder has been on the outside of other owners and Goodell, with only one ally in Jones. Now he continues to have a lack of support from other owners. In other words, the status quo has not changed. At all. Furthermore, Snyder does not even need the direct support of other owners. As long as they sit on their hands and stay silent, that is best case scenario for Snyder, and by all means they have. If the argument that the owners don’t like Snyder puts him in line for dismissal, it’s a bad argument.

  

 

The idea that he lacks support from fellow owners (that dude isn't the only one making that point) when its elaborated on by some of the writers  covering the story isn't about:

 

A.  The owners don't like Dan so that's why he is in trouble.  And that point is a just a general one in a vacuum that is meaningful regardless of any of this stuff.

 

But this:

 

B.  This isn't a point in a vacuum at all.  Of course owners not liking him won't result in his dismissal in itself.  If it did he'd be gone long ago.   But this whole thing might have a tipping point and the fact that the owners don't like him then might become very relevant.

 

2 hours ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Then there is the financials and the stadium. While it is still possible for us to move to DC under Snyder, (especially after the name change) any franchise will locate to whoever gives them the best deal. If another location gives them the gambling rights, and pays for a large chunk of the new building, I don’t care who the owner is, the team will choose that other location. That is less on the owner and more on what the various districts are willing to give up, and Wash will likely have several areas playing against each other. If DC is not willing to meet those demands w/ Snyder, unless a new guy does not want gambling, I don’t see their offer changing very much in the wake of new ownership.

 

 

If you've been following the story closely, I've posted a lot on articles on it.  Snider and Liz Clark and to a lesser degree Loverro have checked in on this with sources following it -- Snyder's unpopularity has been a factor in the stadium.  It's not easy these days to sell the public on a stadium.  Their consensus is Dan will ultimately fail to secure it and will end up having to build the new stadium on the current Fedex land.  Who knows and will see.  Yes, Dan is interested in gambling rights and there is some progress where both Maryland and Virginia are proceeding on that front.   And maybe based on that, Dan will fully pay for the stadium himself and work on a deal.  But even with that, he still has to get help to secure the land.  Its not been a fun ride for Dan thus far including the Gov of Maryland saying he's out as for offering the National Harbor area to Dan.

 

It takes quite some time to build  a stadium. Dan is getting behind schedule right now as for pulling off the timetable to get out of FEDEX by 2027 and that's not (according to those covering the story) from a lack of effort but because it hasn't pulled together for him. 

 

And all of this was before all the sexual harassment stories.     Will Dan end up getting a stadium.  Maybe?  But is Dan just as capable of getting a stadium as any owner in the league?  I doubt it.  And those who has been covering the story says he won't pull it off if it keeps going on this track but instead will have to do what NY did (where they built stadiums side by side) and build a stadium right next to FEDEX..

 

Part of the problem according to some is Dan doesn't have a lot of friends-connections in the community like most other owners do.   And then you couple that by the dude being grossly unpopular then that doesn't make it easy.  I've worked in an arena where I've seen up close in another state how the sausage is made on gaining public support for a stadium, I've talked about it in another threads.  And in short, its not easy in normal circumstances let alone for an unpopular owner without many connections.

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

8 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

I listened to the videos in the previous post and I heard Meghan Imbert say the following.

 

"ultimately there's probably going to be some civil or criminal charges here so sooner or later you will have to speak up"

 

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that while there was an ongoing investigation, especially concerning sexual harassment.

 

 

 

The Post writers on the radio talked up hearing legal proceedings are likely coming.

 

Does Dan survive this story or not?  Don't know.  But does the story have legs and likely get uglier, I would bet on it.

 

Multiple people who cover the team think there is a fighting chance that Dan goes down.  It should get interesting.  

 

Following what's being said, it looks the two wildcards are this:

 

A.  Other women who supposedly were harassed may or may not speak out.  The women who have spoken out are clearly trying to get others to come out of their shell.  Among other things, Russell said he knows some of these women personally and they exist.

 

B.  Whoever was involved in creating that video need to come out and testify.   

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[Dissident2]

40 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

B.  Whoever was involved in creating that video need to come out and testify

 

I think this whole "ouster" utterly depends on what happens with the videos, barring some huge sexual harassment bombshell that comes out in the interim that directly implicates Snyder. I agree with those who say what we have now (what we know as the public) is probably not quite enough. However, if the videos can be tied to him, that's when things will turn very quickly. 

 

One thing to remember, though, these are videoS, not video singular. And they seem to have been created by people in different years. And we have people both on and off the record in that Post story who WERE involved in some way, so they have to know who the main "players" are in this. Just a matter of getting them to talk. 

 

The person who leaked the videos said they grabbed them after witnessing them being made by an editor in 2010, and they also suggested they were told that the order came from Snyder. That editor DID speak in the Post story, but anonymously. He expressed regret and embarrassment for making the videos, but he didn't connect them to Snyder very directly. However, he DID connect them to Larry, who apparently asked for two DVDs labeled "For Executive Meeting." (Said this before, but to think Larry would go to these lengths just to get some nip slips or whatever for his own amusement beggars belief.)

 

Then we have Brad Baker, who went ON the record about the 2008 video, saying that Larry directed the crew to make it but told them the order came from Snyder. We have two more people who were identified by name by Baker as actually making that video (can't remember the names at the moment). Those two of course denied it completely. As of course did Larry. 

 

What I'm getting at here is we DO have names of people who were supposedly involved in making these. The Post and apparently the lawyers now actually have the videos. They had them analyzed at Carnegie Mellon, which showed they were legit and not tampered with. The Post says it's clear the footage was shot by the team. 

 

So there is a LOT there already for these lawyers to start sinking their teeth into. They have names, they have the videos, etc. Hopefully they'll wear some of these people down and someone will end up corroborating Baker's story that the order came from Snyder himself. I can't see any scenario that makes sense where Baker would be lying about what he saw and heard directly. If Larry ends up flipping and admitting that, then it's game over. But I don't see that happening with this guy. I'm sure he's already got his "30 pieces of silver" and a lot more in exchange for Snyder owning his soul and his conscience. He needs to re-think, though, because it sounds like, at least at the moment, he's the one who's most likely to take the fall for this. 

 

Here's an interesting question, though. What if the NFL investigation finishes before these lawsuits conclude, which is very likely. And what if the NFL investigation doesn't find enough to warrant Snyder getting booted, but then, months later, it comes out in a courtroom that Snyder DID in fact order those videos to be made? I'd hope if that happened, the NFL could step in again and finally do what it needs to do. So, it's quite possible the investigation may not bring about what we want, but even if that happens, I don't think this is over until the whole video mess is taken care of.  

Edited September 9, 2020 by Dissident2

[Riggo#44]

10 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

"ultimately there's probably going to be some civil or criminal charges here so sooner or later you will have to speak up"

 

I heard that as well. At the very least, Larry Michael is going to have to talk. He is the one who directly asked for the videos. This HAS to be directed at him.

[Skinsinparadise]

42 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

I think this whole "ouster" utterly depends on what happens with the videos, barring some huge sexual harassment bombshell that comes out in the interim that directly implicates Snyder. I agree with those who say what we have now (what we know as the public) is probably not quite enough. However, if the videos can be tied to him, that's when things will turn very quickly. 

 

 

 

Based on current circumstances I agree.  But some who have been around the team who have observed this story have said they know there is more.  The wildcard is whether these people are willing to speak.  If so I guess we will see. 

[FootballZombie]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

The situation is not what I’m focusing on here, it’s that throughout the article he constantly undermines his own points, or introduces meaningless information.

 

Snyder’s ability or inability to get a stadium deal done is not a focus presented. Instead, it throws out the idea that a new owner can increase revenue. Once you have that however, you can not simply say he can also in turn deliver a DC based stadium deal in his words “pretty easily”. The two points are contradictory. By reducing the available sites in consideration, you will reduce the amount of competition for your services. Like a Free Agent, the less teams that are in on you the less you are worth, regardless of whether the owner is liked. Mullin’s raised the financial issue himself and then undermined his own argument. He also did this in the same paragraph, which is impressive. Mullin’s is trying to have his cake and eat it too. You can’t state that a new owner will boost revenue, than follow by saying he will take a hit by pigeon holing the new stadium deal to the DC area.

 

He makes sure to let you know the NFL did not like Wash’s old name, but says himself “The name is not an issue anymore”

 

He says Snyder was safer in the past due to the revenue he made, by this organization is still one of the NFLs biggest.

 

If the owners never liked him in the past, we don’t need to know that he continues to be disliked. Its pointless information that does not add to the situation. And this writer spent half the article beating this point over the heads of the reader.  

 

He does not indicate what will happen in his piece. He does not indicate what should happen either. All he states is what could happen, and in the most non-committal way possible. The majority of the arguments he proposes, he shot down himself. By solving its own issues, all it does is circle jerk the reader. This article was not opinion, or news. This was pure click bait with an incendiary title designed by someone who did five mins of research on the subject.

 

I’ve seen good articles on the problems Snyder faces, likely some of the one’s you yourself posted. But this one? It is terrible. I am amazed the editor let it through in this state. It’s got more holes in it than I have in my left arm. (Zombie Pun)

[TD_washingtonredskins]

10 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

 

I could be wrong, but I think she was talking about the videos, not necessarily pending sexual harassment cases. It's possible the videos could have a criminal component and it's DEFINITE that they could have a civil component. 

 

It's not possible, they are criminal in nature and I'm sure that's going to be pursued. There is a large group of cheerleaders represented by a couple different high-profile lawyers, so this thing isn't going away. 

 

Look up Lisa Banks and Gloria Allred and tell me you don't think this will be splashed on the news cycle for months...

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

1 hour ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

I heard that as well. At the very least, Larry Michael is going to have to talk. He is the one who directly asked for the videos. This HAS to be directed at him.

 

The only way Larry Michael gets out of this unscathed is if he takes the Jimmy Swaggart route.

 

[Dissident2]

33 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

The situation is not what I’m focusing on here, it’s that throughout the article he constantly undermines his own points, or introduces meaningless information.

 

You sure get worked up over what's basically an opinion piece from someone who actually has an understanding of how the NFL owners operate. I personally found a lot of useful information in the article. To go so overboard labeling it "terrible" and "meaningless" is just a bit bizarre. 

 

34 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

He says Snyder was safer in the past due to the revenue he made, by this organization is still one of the NFLs biggest.

 

The organization is falling precipitously. From a season ticket waiting list when he took over to 27th in the league last year in attendance. TV ratings plummeting. Value of the franchise - while still high - continuing to fall every year (currently 7th). You see a trend like that in any business, you don't wait until it sinks even further. You change the trend. The NFL tried to help him do that with Lafemina. He spit in their faces. 

 

Here are just a few choice quotes from a few articles I've revisited recently detailing the decline of this team:

 

"In just the latest mark of previously unthinkable ignominy, this month saw the Baltimore Ravens, who just secured the AFC’s top seed, utterly eclipse viewership for a Redskins game in the same time slot—in the D.C. market."

 

"In 2008, the team led the league in average attendance, 88,604. By the end of the 2018 season, that number had plummeted 31 percent to 61,028, placing them dead last in the league in terms of percentage of the stadium filled."

 

"The Knicks have much in common with the Redskins—a storied franchise now mired in its own failures, with generations of followers desperate for change."

 

“What’s happened over the 20-year period is that he has taken a franchise that has been universally respected in sports, not just the NFL, and proceeded to drag it down to mediocrity,” Cooke said. “It’s no longer one of the premier sports franchises in the United States.”

 

“If you’d have told me that the Redskins would have been an afterthought in the D.C. market, I would have told you you were crazy,” one NFL power broker said. “But you’re starting to see that. And it’s a concern.”

 

“It doesn’t really affect our revenue sharing these days,” one NFL owner said. “But it’s an important market. It’s a market we need to have a successful franchise.”

 

“It’s more the perception of it,” the NFL power broker said. “You have a top-flight franchise that should be doing very, very well. But they’re not. … It’s just not being run properly.”

 

"Recent seasons have brought troubling external indicators — flagging ticket sales, opposing fans regularly invading FedEx Field, extensive personnel turnover on the franchise’s business side. The Redskins ranked 27th in the NFL in attendance last season and struggled to fill seats even after years of removing them, shrinking the stadium’s capacity."

 

You think owners aren't paying attention to this? 

 

34 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

If the owners never liked him in the past, we don’t need to know that he continues to be disliked. Its pointless information that does not add to the situation. And this writer spent half the article beating this point over the heads of the reader.  

 

This point makes no sense. How do you know the READERS of this piece knew that "the owners never liked him in the past"? I'm sure that's new information to many readers. I figured he wasn't well-liked, but only lately am I fully realizing the extent of that. Not pointless at all. In fact, adds a ton of important context to what could be happening behind the scenes. The example of Richardson played into that nicely. 

 

35 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

He does not indicate what will happen in his piece. He does not indicate what should happen either. All he states is what could happen, and in the most non-committal way possible.

 

This is laughable. He gives a 50-50 chance Snyder will be removed. That's actually the most specific prediction I've seen on that possibility so far. You want him to commit one way or another? How could anyone with sense do that at this point, with so much still unknown? 

 

Quotes like this, from someone who has actually had access to and spoken with these owners, are also new to me:

"The league would love an excuse to get rid of him. They have been looking for one for many, many years."

 

The inside info on his ironic friendship with Jerry Jones, and how that could be an issue with Goodell, was also interesting and far from "meaningless" to me and I'm sure others. I had no idea they were THAT close. Explains a lot, though. 

 

I'm all for a good debate, but the way you immediately appear and go through exaggerated mental gymnastics routines trying to discredit any of these articles makes it seem like you have two schticks now: the "zombie" and the Snyder defender. Are you angling for inclusion in Snyder's next press release? "Myself, Tanya and the Football Zombie assure you that all is well."  

[CommanderInTheRye]

56 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

 

The only way Larry Michael gets out of this unscathed is if he takes the Jimmy Swaggart route.

 

 

 

On a similar note Snyder seems to be following the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker playbook with his recent promotion of his wife to "Executive VP for claims of sexual harassment by a bunch of disgusting, lying, and ungrateful ****es    er uhm former female employees"

 

 

Dan and Tonya Snyder lament how their good name has been dragged through the mud as they beg for your forgiveness and continued donations to PTL er uhm WTF er uhm WFT by buying team merchandise and tickets so they can  continue to do good deeds and charitable work for the fans.

Edited September 9, 2020 by TrancesWithWolves

[Busch1724]

18 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

From who? Dan’s being rightly crushed from every angle and outlet despite his attempted distractions via new hires, statements, and pretending his wife is now some sort of interested and influential party. 

 

18 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

There really isn't. He had a racism and sexism situation on his hands, so he quickly hired a female VP and black president. My guess is that they are perfectly qualified for their jobs, but that they weren't hired for those reasons. He also only changed the name because sponsors were pulling out.

 

We have one data point of Dan doing something without ulterior motives and it's his ridiculously tone-deaf statement calling the article a "hit job", blaming the cheerleader whom he tried to pimp out, and pointing out that these allegations are a decade old.  

 

 

I poorly worded what I wanted to say. There's been too many smart decisions being made  the last few months. The name change, hiring Ron, hiring Julie, hiring Jason, Covid testing center, changing the road names to Gibbs and Taylor, and maybe another thing or two. It's like someone competent is at the wheel while all the crazy is going on. For evidence, he issues his own statement about the Washington Post "Hit Job" while the team then releases a separate statement from competent folks. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

 

 

 

I poorly worded what I wanted to say. There's been too many smart decisions being made  the last few months. The name change, hiring Ron, hiring Julie, hiring Jason, Covid testing center, changing the road names to Gibbs and Taylor, and maybe another thing or two. It's like someone competent is at the wheel while all the crazy is going on. For evidence, he issues his own statement about the Washington Post "Hit Job" while the team then releases a separate statement from competent folks. 

 

I understand what you're saying...but think many of those decisions were reactions to things he knew were coming, not some measured plan or approach for the right reasons. 

 

The name change happened once sponsors pulled out. The hiring of Rivera was fine, so I'll go ahead and give him credit for that. The woman/black hiring was so transparently a reaction to the stories coming out. Renaming those roads after fan-favorites is the ultimate deflection. I'll also credit him for the Covid thing...that was a good idea and could have had no ulterior motive. 

 

But the main ones people are crediting him for were all deflections or reactions. 

[FootballZombie]

39 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

 

 

I think your getting the wrong idea here. I’m not focusing on the outside situation presented in the article, rather its own poor construction. I’ve pointed out several ways where this author has contradicted his own writing in my previous posts. I don't feel the need to repeat myself, I pretty clearly laid out the problems, so I wont re-cap those again. Outside of that one guy who could moonwalk, Zombies can only move forward. We don't have the ability to go back.

 

That specific article reeks of poor effort in comparison to other journalism. It was pure click bait. I’m just calling it as such

.

There are plenty of quality articles on the subject out there. This one just is not one of them. If you have to introduce outside information to make an article's point, then said article did a poor job of making its own point. But that is by design. This article was all about funneling some clicks.

If an article is all about that and not about brains or Football, then naturally FootballZombie is not all about that article. Waste of my time.

 

39 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

the "zombie" and the Snyder defender.

 

No way, not even close. You can look at my previous posts. I have never defended Snyder. Him leaving would be a boon. I’m just of the mindset that what we currently know is not enough to get rid of him by all available important metrics. If it was, he’d be gone already. If we learn more than removal is absolutely possible, but that is speculation at this point and we can speculate just about anything.

 

That is the only stance I have taken on this matter. Just because I think he will stay, does not mean I think he should

[Malapropismic Depository]

I like how JDR is super mum, when asked any questions that might reveal any type of gameplanning.

I honestly don't remember our previous DC's being that careful.

[88Comrade2000]

The person who compiled the video needs to say why he was told to make that compilation and who told him to make it and whether he was told Snyder wanted it.

 

Larry Michaels needs to spill the beans.

 

Until this thing is completely resolved with the investigation and the lawsuits against Snyder; there will be a dark cloud over this team.

I would prefer this be resolved sooner than latter but since it is likely going to court; this could be a 2-3 year thing.

 

How does the team function well, with that cloud.  I think you have to drastically lower expectations. If there's any success, it will be in spite of it.

 

If this eventually leads to an ownership change, I would expect a complete cleaning house.  If the owner were able to take over the start of the January offseason; he will probably fire everyone and bring in his own people right away. He would want to start with his own people right away, regardless of what the people on the team currently has done.

 

If the owner were to take over later in the year; then the current team would probably get a prove it year but knowing at some point the owner will replace them.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

@Rdskns2000 great post. I won't be able to support this team until Danny is gone. Period. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

23 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

It's not possible, they are criminal in nature and I'm sure that's going to be pursued.

 

Um, that miiiiight not be entirely true.

 

Whether or not the video compilations are criminal in nature may depend upon whatever contracts were signed by the cheerleaders. If it stipulates that behind the scenes-type videos are part of their agreement and that they give permission for any and all footage shot behind the scenes to be used in whatever way the franchise wants, that muddies the waters. This isn't a case of videotaping the women through a peephole while they change in a dressing room. In a situation like I described above they are aware they are being videotaped, they are aware that there could be footage that briefly shows some level of nudity, they would be aware that all footage belongs to the team to be used as they see fit, and that the video being published for commercial distribution would not include any nudity.

 

You don't have to spell out specifically in the contract that "We may take some of the video footage of your naughty bits and compile them into a separate video for internal use. Initial here if you agree to this." But at the same time, you can't make legal contract language purposefully ambiguous to try and cover your ass, either.

 

None of that makes what Larry instructed the video editors to do right or ok, but there's a very real chance it also doesn't make it criminal...just scummy and vile. Enough to get you fired--or in Snyder's case, force you out as owner--but maybe not enough to have you face criminal charges. Will depend on the language of any contract the cheerleaders signed, and if there is any issue of right to privacy (which could also be tricky). Threats of lawsuits aren't necessarily tied to how valid a case is, they can also be tied to pressuring for an out-of-court settlement just to avoid the publicity and end things as quickly as possible. I don't get the impression that's what's happening here. However, when the target of a possible suit is the majority owner of an enterprise worth $3.5 billion dollars, you can't discount the money angle.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Califan007

[Riggo#44]

Ladies and Gentleman, this is our owner:

 

Quote

Through court filings, though, it doesn’t appear to be the only instance of Snyder sending PIs to question a figure with ties to the owner’s controversies. In his own legal response, Marc Randazza, a Las Vegas attorney with ties to the adult entertainment industry, wrote that two investigators visited his office on behalf of Snyder, who is asking a Central California court to subpoena Randazza as part of a defamation case over articles published on an Indian website saying the owner had ties to a sex ring.