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

[Jumbo]

4 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I wish I hadn't.

 

Was starting to get that football season buzz, and then boom - like clockwork, more stuff to make me hate the top brass.

 

the season starts today

 

let go of your hate, grasshopper, and focus on the light

 

light beer, light seltzer, then move up to the straight shots

 

[CobraCommander]

Just now, Jumbo said:

 

the season starts today

 

let go of your hate, grasshopper, and focus on the light

 

light beer, light seltzer, then move up to the straight shots

 

Bruh,

 

Beer before liquor, never been sicker.

Liquor before beer, you're in the clear.

 

[DJD2]

After that interview this is all I can think of now....

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

In my view, it doesn't though mean anything whether she's better, the same or worse than Dan because I don't buy that she's anything but a cosmetic false change given to fans to say hey if you don't like me, here's my wife.  The whole thing clearly is a ruse.   

I dunno. Part of me says that's true.  The other part, the married part, (and maybe it's because of the woman I'm married to), says that my wife would be loathe to be part of such a ruse.

 

It's impossible to know how their marriage and relationship works.  It is entirely possible she went to him and said, behind closed doors, "You ****ed this up, you want me to help, then I'm going to do it my way."  

 

Just because you're married doesn't mean you always (or, maybe ever) really agree on things.  My wife and I take very different approaches to a lot of things, and there's virtually no way I could see her just playing a role in a ruse.

 

That said, Tanya might be fully bought in on the ruse.  Because it's helpful for their personal wellbeing. I have no idea.

 

I really also don't care that much.  The ONLY thing I care about is that Ron and Jason are given the opportunity to run their parts of the business to their fullest potential, without aggressive interference, and low-road, back-stabbing politics.  

 

I am not naïve enough to believe that an owner (or family of owners) of a $4 BILLION dollar business are just going to sit back and not stay informed and take part in certain aspects of the business.  That's crazy talk.  But as long as the Snyders run the business by hiring good people,  empowering them to do their jobs, staying informed, and ultimately making senior executive staffing decisions, and staying the hell out of the minutia, that's all I want from them.  And I mean not only good coaches and business people, but good human beings. We've had too many sleezbags around here.  We need quality people.  And I think we've got two in Ron and Jason, at least from what I can tell.   

 

I do think, and maybe this runs contrary to the perception, that the Snyders are not terrible people.  I don't think they have ill-will towards others, with the caveat that I think they can get very petty and vindictive if they think they were wronged.  I think the charity work that Tanya has done speaks to that, and even Dan has done and contributed a lot to it.  Does that matter?  Eh, maybe, maybe not.  

 

What is true without a question of a doubt is that they've been AWFUL NFL Franchise owners for 21 years.  From making bad football decisions, making bad hires, trusting the wrong people, meddling in on-field personnel, undercutting coaches, being vindictive, alienating fans, you name it.  If there was a bingo card of "things a bad owner does" they've covered ALL the squares.  Probably twice.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, Jumbo said:

 

the season starts today

 

let go of your hate, grasshopper, and focus on the light

 

light beer, light seltzer, then move up to the straight shots

 

If only it were that easy, Jumbo.

 

That interview is a real blood-boiler.  For all the talk of Tanya being a stand-up gal, you wouldn't know it at all.  It's all the mean media's fault that the poor Snyder family had to read meanie things about them in the press, that just made it so hard, that they could have just sailed off on their yacht, but no - they are fighters.  Phew.

5 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I do think, and maybe this runs contrary to the perception, that the Snyders are not terrible people. 

Did you listen to the interview?

 

It was about how hard all this has been on them, not how hard her husband and his flunkies have been on so many people.  She's just as pathetic as her husband.  Couldn't possibly live in more of a bubble if they tried.  Wouldn't even pretend to care about anyone else other than themselves.  To which, I have to imagine somebody in PR had to have tried to stop this message.  

 

As for does it really matter?  I guess that depends on where you are with your fandom.  But let's not pretend she's making it any easier to root for these folks. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[Peregrine]

Does anyone really think that naming Tanya as the one in charge changed anything?  Like she was at odds with her husband, and not in bed with him(both figuratively and literally)?  If Dan views it as hes under attack and its been hard on him(who cares about the real victims), then of course Tanya also views that.  Everything they have done for the past couple of years has been for PR purposes and popular opinion, not because they actually want to do any of it. 

 

Its always been that way, it didnt suddenly change.  The illusion that any actual change has happened will last right up until the point the team starts to struggle or goes so well they think its time to step in again.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

11 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

Does anyone really think that naming Tanya as the one in charge changed anything?

I didn't and doubt anyone else really did either.  We all found it laughable when they started injecting her into press releases a while back.

 

But I did expect her to at least pretend and say the right things, but she can't even do that.

[Burgold]

I think whoever would have been chosen ultimately would have had to nod to Daniel Snyder in some respect at least if they wanted to keep their jobs when he came back. Even if you name Ron or the Mayhew the temporary Dan, they still have to follow the company philosophy/messaging to a degree. The only way to get away from that would have been if the League imposed a conservator to oversee the operation who wasn't affiliated with the team.

 

I don't think any owner would have gone for that for fear of the axe falling on their own neck.

[Skinsinparadise]

Just listened to Tanya's interview.  To me not taking a hit for the scandal is on brand.  i wasn't shocked by it.  Even if I wasn't cued up for it.  Purely stylistically yeah I do think she sounds better than Dan.   Low bar though indeed -- but I do still agree with Sheehan on that point.

 

The point that made me squirm that I haven't seen talked about is when she talks about how she has sklls and Dan does and they are different type of skills and then she talks about how Dan is the X's and O's guy and he's really good at that.  That was nauseating for me to hear.  

 

 

https://www.audacy.com/theteam980/sports/washington-football-team/tanya-snyder-interview-lacked-apology-to-women-wft-wronged

“And when she says ‘we’re now 100 percent owners,’ that is straight from the Dan Snyder ‘it’s everyone else’s fault, not ours'” playbook, Sheehan said.

 

Snyder and his family have been the majority owners of the franchise for the last 21 years and have had complete control over what happens inside Ashburn Sheehan added the presence of minority partners had no bearing on the workplace culture that was the subject of the Wilkinson investigation.

 

“This organization has been run by Dan Snyder for 21 years,” Sheehan said. “Everything that this organization was accused of by the league, via the Beth Wilkinson investigation, is on the majority ownership. ‘We’re 100 percent owners now.’ I hope she, like her husband, doesn’t think we’re that stupid to believe that the problem was all [former minority owners] Dwight Schar, Fred Smith, and Bob Rothman. Or Bruce Allen or anybody else that came before. Mike Shanahan or Jim Zorn. Not falling for that and you shouldn’t either.

 

“At some point,” Sheehan continues, Tanya or Dan Snyder need to say, “It is our fault, we have run it poorly. We’ve made mistake after mistake. We’ve treated people poorly in this organization, both in it and outside of it. We’ve been arrogant beyond description. We have made it very difficult for women in this organization. We were wrong, we apologize, we’re going to make it better.”

 

Sheehan concludes by noting “there’s always been this constant recurring theme it’s not ever them, it’s always somebody else.”

“But at some point, you can’t blame former minority shareholders, you can’t blame the media,” Sheehan said of the Snyders, “you've gotta look in the mirror and say ‘it’s us.’”

Edited September 9, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I dunno. Part of me says that's true.  The other part, the married part, (and maybe it's because of the woman I'm married to), says that my wife would be loathe to be part of such a ruse.

 

It's impossible to know how their marriage and relationship works.  It is entirely possible she went to him and said, behind closed doors, "You ****ed this up, you want me to help, then I'm going to do it my way."  

 

Just because you're married doesn't mean you always (or, maybe ever) really agree on things.  My wife and I take very different approaches to a lot of things, and there's virtually no way I could see her just playing a role in a ruse.

 

 

It's not that I can't buy the theory that a wife can all of a sudden assume a major role.  It's that Dan's is not some newbee figure for us to figure out.  Him supposedly backing off for someone else is part of his ammo.  And then later we find out it either wasn't true or it didn't last.  Most famously, when someone who worked in the FO at the time said that Dan fired Marty back then in part because he wasn't having fun.

 

Hearing Tanya talk about how Dan's thing is X's and O's (and not her thing) and he talks to Ron about it and how much Dan loves the players -- doesn't sound to me that Dan is taking some major backseat to Tanya.

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I am not naïve enough to believe that an owner (or family of owners) of a $4 BILLION dollar business are just going to sit back and not stay informed and take part in certain aspects of the business.  That's crazy talk.  But as long as the Snyders run the business by hiring good people,  empowering them to do their jobs, staying informed, and ultimately making senior executive staffing decisions, and staying the hell out of the minutia, that's all I want from them.  And I mean not only good coaches and business people, but good human beings. We've had too many sleezbags around here.  We need quality people.  And I think we've got two in Ron and Jason, at least from what I can tell.   

 

 

Sure but its not the first rodeo of this type of narrative.  This is another among many sequels where this time its going to be different.  Will see.    Yeah I get this configuratioin feels better.  But read the clippings of when Shanny-Bruce were hired -- plenty about adults now run the show.  Ditto Marty. 

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

I do think, and maybe this runs contrary to the perception, that the Snyders are not terrible people.  I don't think they have ill-will towards others, with the caveat that I think they can get very petty and vindictive if they think they were wronged.  I think the charity work that Tanya has done speaks to that, and even Dan has done and contributed a lot to it.  Does that matter?  Eh, maybe, maybe not.  

 

I think Sheehan sums up Dan well.  Arrogant and football stupid and not likeable.    I don't know if Dan is a terrible person but plenty of evidence that he's a terrible owner, with terrible people skills and terrible football skills.   Plenty of stories about how he's a jerk in person to many. 

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

What is true without a question of a doubt is that they've been AWFUL NFL Franchise owners for 21 years.  From making bad football decisions, making bad hires, trusting the wrong people, meddling in on-field personnel, undercutting coaches, being vindictive, alienating fans, you name it.  If there was a bingo card of "things a bad owner does" they've covered ALL the squares.  Probably twice.

 

The thing that I can't escape about it is he never seems to learn from it.  We've been there and done that with hey we have new shiny objects as coaches and in the FO.  That's cool but that's not enough to sway me.  I do think Dan gets that a big hires buys him some good will with fans.   But I don't think the dude understands that he's not a football savant, his meddiling hurts the franchise, the bad culture in the team is a direct mirror of his personality among other things.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

@Skinsinparadise Sheehan’s thoughts are spot on about all that.

 

I wasn’t even expecting her to go so far as to own it all or back the bus over Dan.  Just to simply acknowledge their part in the scandals and express remorse and compassion for those impacted by it.  But more importantly, don’t point fingers elsewhere and make it about how this has been tough on them.  

[Conn]

5 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@Skinsinparadise Sheehan’s thoughts are spot on about all that.

 

I wasn’t even expecting her to go so far as to own it all or back the bus over Dan.  Just to simply acknowledge their part in the scandals and express remorse and compassion for those impacted by it.  But more importantly, don’t point fingers elsewhere and make it about how this has been tough on them.  

Or at least pretend to be angry about it on the victims’ behalf, if you’re going to start by pretending Dan didn’t have any idea it was going on in his organization. The fact it doesn’t even occur to them to take this angle, even as a PR stunt, shows how selfishly they’re wired. 
 

Also I wish people (not anyone in particular here) would stop talking about how Tanya is at least nice to people. It’s true in comparison to Dan, but it literally means nothing. Who gives a ****. Some of the worst, most evil people on this planet are “nice”. Some of the most insidiously toxic people I’ve ever known in my real life were super “nice”. 

[Skinsinparadise]

27 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

@Skinsinparadise Sheehan’s thoughts are spot on about all that.

 

I wasn’t even expecting her to go so far as to own it all or back the bus over Dan.  Just to simply acknowledge their part in the scandals and express remorse and compassion for those impacted by it.  But more importantly, don’t point fingers elsewhere and make it about how this has been tough on them.  

 

Sure I get it.  I just have so little regard for Dan's communication skills that yeah I do agree with Sheehan that's she's a better communicator.  But as for content, she is as wildly out of touch as Dan is, clearly. 

18 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

Also I wish people (not anyone in particular here) would stop talking about how Tanya is at least nice to people. It’s true in comparison to Dan, but it literally means nothing. Who gives a ****. Some of the worst, most evil people on this planet are “nice”. Some of the most insidiously toxic people I’ve ever known in my real life were super “nice”. 

 

That would be me echoing Sheehan.    To each their own on that one.  But to me hearing that Dan is just as big of a jerk behind the scenes as people think -- I find relevant -- ditto that Tanya isn't a jerk to people behind the scenes to people she works with -- according to some people that Sheehan spoke to.

 

Maybe its just a quirk of mine.  I work with give or take 60 clients or so a year.  Everything being equal, i am more fond of the ones who treat me nicely and can't stand those that treat me and their other employees poorly.  Does that alone sum up someone's character?  Nope.  But it means something to me from my experience. 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

I am presuming (granted purely a guess) that Tanya isn't as stupid as her husband and might learn from that interview.  But will see.   

 

 

 

Tanya Snyder spoke of her own pain. She left out the WFT’s victims.

 

 

“I just think it’s the pain from our family, from my children,” Snyder said. “And just a lot of the tough times that we’ve gone through. And just, as you know, the media. It is what it is. Everybody’s going to say whatever.”

 

We’re not saying “whatever.” We’re saying that your organization was found to foster reprehensible behavior and that behavior had a real and lasting impact on many of the people who worked there.

There are a lot of ways Snyder, in her first substantive interview since taking her new position, could have skipped over the specifics of the changes she’s supposedly implementing and not made news. The owners of sports franchises — or other companies, for that matter — often speak in platitudes and broad strokes when discussing the operation of their businesses. No big deal.

 

 

The jarring thing here, though, is how quickly Snyder cast herself as the victim. Sorry, did I say “jarring?” I meant “infuriating.”

 

Sure, it can’t be easy to be Tanya Snyder. Her husband has owned the team he rooted for as a child for more than two decades, and he is largely reviled by the fan base for which he wants to win a championship. The team has one playoff victory this century. People say awful things about him on a daily basis.

But put the complaints in a box, shut the lid and broaden the mind. The pain Tanya Snyder and her family experienced came about because of the environment her husband oversaw. This didn’t happen to their family. It happened to the women who worked for Dan Snyder and his underlings. At least some acknowledgment of that, some expression of regret, would show them a modicum of respect. There was none when they worked there. There is none now.

 

“At this point all this does is trigger me,” Megan Imbert, who worked for the team from 2008 to 2011, wrote on Twitter. “So sorry for what you’ve endured the past year Tanya . . . imagine living it.”

 

Imbert, Tanya Snyder might have remembered, told The Washington Post that, “The fear is instilled in employees from Day One.”

 

“What exactly has she endured?” tweeted Emily Applegate, who left the team in 2015. “I still receive hate messages, there’s a list of us in therapy, and we never received an apology let alone the respect of releasing the report by the @nfl. She got a CEO title for a publicity stunt.”

Applegate, Tanya Snyder might have recalled, told The Post that the team’s former CEO regularly belittled and berated her — between requests that she wear alluring outfits to entertain clients.

“It was the most miserable experience of my life,” Applegate said last year.

 

Tanya Snyder is in the position she is in — overseeing the day-to-day operations of the franchise, representing the team at league meetings, etc. — because women like Imbert and Applegate stepped forward. As a woman, as a human, Tanya Snyder had to have some reaction, right?

“I mean, horrified,” Snyder said. “Needless to say, horrifying. I tried to stop reading it all because it became too much and too ridiculous.”

Labeling the behavior as horrifying was a step in the right direction — one that’s immediately walked back by appearing to call the women’s stories ridiculous. The women who lived life in the Washington franchise’s cesspool don’t think there’s anything ridiculous about it.

 

And maybe Snyder might have overcome the instinct to stop reading and instead read every last word. Yes, of The Post’s reporting last year, which resulted in some firings and spurred an internal investigation that was later taken over by the NFL. But also of the NFL’s resulting investigation, concluded earlier this summer, which found the club’s culture was “very toxic” and resulted in a $10 million fine. Had she read as much as she could — the NFL didn’t request a detailed report — she could fully understand the environment her husband had allowed to exist and figure out ways to change it.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Tanya Snyder is in the position she is in — overseeing the day-to-day operations of the franchise, representing the team at league meetings, etc. — because women like Imbert and Applegate stepped forward. As a woman, as a human, Tanya Snyder had to have some reaction, right?

“I mean, horrified,” Snyder said. “Needless to say, horrifying. I tried to stop reading it all because it became too much and too ridiculous.”

Labeling the behavior as horrifying was a step in the right direction — one that’s immediately walked back by appearing to call the women’s stories ridiculous. The women who lived life in the Washington franchise’s cesspool don’t think there’s anything ridiculous about it.

 

 

 

This is very telling, and doesn't bode well for the fanbase's hopes for this franchise...at least as far as culture is concerned. Tanya made it all about HER and HER POOR FAMILY without acknowledging any of the victims...lawsuits are sure to be coming, especially since the NFL didn't do the right thing. I hope the WP keeps digging...the NFL will look quite incompetent if it's discovered that Tanya helped to smear and shame the victims.

 

History is FULL of examples of women enabling the actions of horrible men and attacking their female victims: Evita Peron, Margarete Himmler, Eva Braun, Hillary Clinton, Amal Ahmed al-Sadah (UBL's first wife), Jiang Qing, Nadezhda Alliluyeva (Mrs. Stalin), Madame Thieu in Vietnam...the list goes on.

[Skinsinparadise]

10 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

 

This is very telling, and doesn't bode well for the fanbase's hopes for this franchise...at least as far as culture is concerned. Tanya made it all about HER and HER POOR FAMILY without acknowledging any of the victims...lawsuits are sure to be coming, especially since the NFL didn't do the right thing. I hope the WP keeps digging...the NFL will look quite incompetent if it's discovered that Tanya helped to smear and shame the victims.

 

History is FULL of examples of women enabling the actions of horrible men and attacking their female victims: Evita Peron, Margarete Himmler, Eva Braun, Hillary Clinton, Amal Ahmed al-Sadah (UBL's first wife), Jiang Qing, Nadezhda Alliluyeva (Mrs. Stalin), Madame Thieu in Vietnam...the list goes on.

 

Agree, it doesn't bold well.  For me though I just don't buy she's that relevant and believe Dan's hiding behind her.  Only upside I see here is Jason Wright comes off bright.  Ditto Rivera.  Maybe they will have the gumption to tell Dan/Tanya that playing the victim comes off poorly.   I get the sense that Vinny and Bruce would tell Dan, hey dude you are absolutely right, the media is evil, you are right, they are wrong.

 

Personally I think Dan is too dense to ever get it.   I do think you can win a championship in spite of the owner, granted its way harder to do that -- but that's what I hang my hope on.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[profusion]

It's doubtful someone could be married to Dan for almost 30 years without either buying into the program from day one or getting acclimated to the sleazery eventually.

[Cooleyfan1993]

Ay yi yi.....someone needs to tell her to quit talking 😂 just keeps making it worse 

[spjunkies]

My goodness, this woman is off to a rough start. 

 

 

[bearrock]

Do the Snyders not have enough money to hire a competent PR firm or something?  I mean a new college graduate could probably do better. 

[Jumbo]

[The Rook]

I don't think the Snyders wish anyone ill-will.  However, I don't think they wish anyone good-will either.

 

Her comments reminded me of George Carlin's talk to the National Press Club and when he talked about how politicians lie, cheat and twist words.  The whole thing is classic, but at the 5:50 mark is the language used when they have been caught doing something wrong.  See if it sounds familiar to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mistakes were made.

I just want to put this behind me.

The Rook

[Skinsinparadise]

Sheehan loves to say that the PR instincts of Dan and some of his underlings are ridiculously bad. That first sentence in that release ruins everything else they say after that.  They get attacked for playing the victim even though the real victims are the women.  So they want to respond to that.  Yet right from the jump they play the victim again in the first sentence of the statement.

 

Just say:  I regret I didn't say it in the podcast.  Please know that it doesn't reflect how I I feel.  I feel terrible -- then talk about apologizing previously if you must. 

 

The scary thing is they can't even do BS PR well.  As Sheehan likes to say it is another way they expose their level of incompetence.  Forget Dan being a jerk.  His level of stupidity in how he goes about defending himself is epic  

Edited September 11, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[The Rook]

I found this to be an interesting article.  I think Dan and Tanya lack empathy.

 

From Scientific American, April 10, 2012

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/

 

How Wealth Reduces Compassion

 

"Who is more likely to lie, cheat, and steal—the poor person or the rich one? It’s temping to think that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to act fairly. After all, if you already have enough for yourself, it’s easier to think about what others may need. But research suggests the opposite is true: as people climb the social ladder, their compassionate feelings towards other people decline."

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook