Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

JSSkinz

By JSSkinz
in The Stadium

 Share
TK
Message added by TK,

Pay Attention Knuckleheads

 

 

Has your team support wained due to ownership or can you see past it?  

229 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you attend a game and support the team while Dan Snyder is the owner of the team, regardless of success?

    • Yes
      47
    • No
      106
    • I would start attending games if Dan was no longer the owner of the team.
      77

Recommended Posts

Tsailand

Tsailand

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

No one is getting paid 1.6 million because their boss told them they were cute. Something much worse happened.

No one is getting 1.6 million "just" for getting groped or harassed. That's rape money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silvernon

Silvernon

Posted
Posted

This is a billionaire club paying people to compete against others for profit. I have no illusions. 

 

Dan looks to have been suspended unofficially. 

 

We've heard Tanya is now the co-owner/co-CEO taking over day operations and management for the rest of the summer. We also previously heard about the stadium tours in Europe and NA. 

 

Slapped on the wrist. $10 million and suspended behind closed doors. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tsailand

Tsailand

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Nobody here really expected the league to force Snyder to sell. But this goes beyond that. It was a sham of an investigation in the first place and left barely a trace of evidence that it even happened. 

 

Absolutely. 

 

This punishment is an insult to the fans' intelligence.  A fake suspension for "a few months" while his enabler, I mean wife, acts as his proxy to run the team.

 

A serious punishment would have been a one year suspension, including a ban from all team facilities, while a league-appointed CEO runs the team.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dyst

dyst

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

Would be appropriate if a divorce was coming and Tanya gets the team. I know it's a fantasy, but damn does it pay to have money to get off things so easily. 

Fantasy for sure. Sadly, she is in on the switcheroo over our eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted

Let me start with this: absent a complete and total smoking gun, I never thought the NFL was going to force Snyder to sell.  And from everything reported, there wasn't a smoking gun which was uncovered.  

 

Personally, I think that if there was a smoking gun, the NFL would have been happy to be rid of Dan.  But they weren't going to take action unless there was absolutely clear evidence of direct criminal behavior on Dan's part. The reason is because I bet at least the vast majority of the other owners have had some type of inappropriate behavior of their own, and they wouldn't want to set precedence that unless there was something criminal involved, they could lose their teams.  

 

So, let's for a second assume there was nothing criminal going on.  The NFL levied what I believe is the largest fine to a team it ever has, and basically the team has to go through a proctology exam every quarter.  They didn't quite say it this way, but the team is basically on probation.  They have to implement the 10 recommendations given to them, they have to provide proof that they are doing it, and they are going to have HR consultants running around investigating them constantly.

 

In addition, Dan has been removed from representing the football team at league meetings.  He's basically been suspended as having anything to do with the running of the team and the league.  

 

And they have to pay a $10 million dollar fine. Which isn't a lot, but it also isn't entirely trivial. 

 

I completely understand that some of this feels inadequate.  However, I'd ask, what should the NFL have done?  A larger fine?  Ok, there probably isn't a large enough reasonable fine that they can levy which is going to effect the financial position of a billionaire.  Also, they don't want to bankrupt him or the team, as he's a 1/32 part owner of the NFL.  

 

Make the report public?  To what end? So we could read graphic details of the transgressions? That would serve to just further the embarrassment of the league, so I can understand why they wouldn't want it public.  I mean, we know it was bad already, what purpose would that actually serve, again, assuming the baseline the NFL wasn't going to force Snyder to sell.  

 

I was worried they would take the opportunity to take draft picks or cap space from the team. I was really worried that **** up in New York was going to pull some dirty stuff and tilt the competitive balance of the team.  They didn't do that.  And I'm glad they didn't, as a fan of the team. 

 

So, what else COULD they have practically done?

 

Dan put the NFL in an absolutely horrendous position.  It has to basically hold it's nose and support him, because the other owners don't want to set the precedence non-criminal behavior could cost them their team.  

 

So I sit here, somewhat unsatisfied with the results, but wondering what practical result would have left me satisfied, given that I knew he wouldn't be forced to sell.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsinparadise

Skinsinparadise

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

So weighting the presence of people like Rivera/Wright/etc. so heavily makes no sense—he only MADE those hires in the first place because he had to, after all this came out, or else! And like any other employee they can be fired and replaced at any time, and there are many foreseeable and possible futures in which that would be the right move, totally separate from any effect they have on the new “culture”. That can’t be dependent on employees that answer to Snyder, who have their futures tied to on-field football team performance. 

This sentiment needs to be everywhere, and I hope it will be:

 

 

To play off of this point, Keim said something along these lines in a recent podcast which is talking to some former employees they told him that some of the same changes they are making now Dan previously scoffed it.  He didn't say what specifically but the point definitely was some of these culture change type of moves have been presented to Dan before.  The difference is now he was under the gun.  He also said those same ex-employees don't buy Dan will change.  Ironically as i was typing this I found this recent tweet from Keim. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
London Kev

London Kev

Posted
Posted

I'm not buying into this no report bull****. How can a year long investigation not conclude with a report? Are they trying to say that when Beth Wilkinson gave her oral report, she just recalled it, or had a few notes written on a ****ing napkin or something?

 

She must have made a written report, it's standard practice. This is just some smoke screen bull**** to prevent the report from being published. I'd like to know who actually made the decision to not have a written report (or to say that they don't have one), and why they made this decision.

 

The people who've been affected by this **** show deserve to have the world see exactly what they've had to endure, and exactly who was involved and to what extent. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
88Comrade2000

88Comrade2000

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Redskins Reparations said:


Hopefully, Mrs Banks continues her pursuit of justice and this situation continues to escalate resulting in Danny losing ownership.  For the record, I am booing the ever-living-**** out of Daniel Snyder when we win the SuperBowl!


Don’t be so sure TTB…..

Uh, if her clients aren't after money and pursuing lawsuits; then that's pretty much it unless something new surfaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redskins Reparations

Redskins Reparations

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Uh, if her clients aren't after money and pursuing lawsuits; then that's pretty much it unless something new surfaces.


This story is posted on most mainstream media sites so hopefully there is some form of additional public backlash that places pressure on the NFL to to take additional actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
88Comrade2000

88Comrade2000

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Redskins Reparations said:


This story is posted on most mainstream media sites so hopefully there is some form of additional public backlash that places pressure on the NFL to to take additional actions.

Good luck with that.  Maybe, some backlash from some women or women's organizations but nothing that would force anything additional actions.   Once football season starts, the story will be forgotten.  Considering gambling is going to increase the value or all nfl teams; the nfl will just brush this aside.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Rook

The Rook

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Good luck with that.  Maybe, some backlash from some women or women's organizations but nothing that would force anything additional actions.   Once football season starts, the story will be forgotten.  Considering gambling is going to increase the value or all nfl teams; the nfl will just brush this aside.

 

Backlash from women's organizations have created change in the past few years, including Hollywood, FOX, and the NFL.  If this catches on, Jolly Roger may have to readdress. 

 

Nothing keeping us from calling, tweeting, etc. local and national news organizations.  Dan's suspension should have been a year and the "donation" much higher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:229:The Rook

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Rook

The Rook

Posted
Posted

Here is a "well, of course they did" thought:🤔

 

The NFL waiting until July Fourth weekend for announcement.  They really want this to go away.  Surprised they didn't wait until tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:229:The Rook

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silvernon

Silvernon

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yeah I know its a minor deal in the scheme of things right now.  But it might be meaningful.

 

 

 

That's where I feel it's going. 

 

I'm a rugby guy, so I'm not unhappy about it. Strategic in tying themselves to Washington and 'bland' doesn't offend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...