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

[SmallDaddy]

If Friedman was such a horrible person, what does that say about the organization that kept him around for 20+ years

[NewCliche21]

Just now, SmallDaddy said:

If Friedman was such a horrible person, what does that say about the organization that kept him around for 20+ years

 

I think this is what people are starting to figure out.

[Conn]

5 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

A fair amount of them, yes, you’re not wrong. However there are some that i can  personally attest to that arent. 
 

id say 95% are. 

 

 

No offense my man but you were a fan of Larry Michael and how nice he was and we now know he was a disgusting, unprofessional lech. And you probably would have vouched for numerous others if you had met them despite what later came out about them. I’m sure if you knew him (and maybe you did) you’d have sworn Santos was a good dude as well. Your minor window into the FO a decade ago as the teenage kid of the team’s General Counsel is really not going to be an experience that reveals people’s true personality. You swore for years before the lights came on for you that Snyder was always nice around you. Only relatively recently have you come around that he’s a scumbag who treats people horribly. You aren’t a reliable witness from that time period (none of us would be in your situation btw, this isn’t an attack on you) despite your access. 

[Cooleyfan1993]

54 minutes ago, Conn said:

No offense my man but you were a fan of Larry Michael and how nice he was and we now know he was a disgusting, unprofessional lech. And you probably would have vouched for numerous others if you had met them despite what later came out about them. I’m sure if you knew him (and maybe you did) you’d have sworn Santos was a good dude as well. Your minor window into the FO a decade ago as the teenage kid of the team’s General Counsel is really not going to be an experience that reveals people’s true personality. You swore for years before the lights came on for you that Snyder was always nice around you. Only relatively recently have you come around that he’s a scumbag who treats people horribly. You aren’t a reliable witness from that time period (none of us would be in your situation btw, this isn’t an attack on you) despite your access. 

To be fair, i dont think i claimed Larry Michael didn’t do awful things. Just that my personal experience in a one on one setting was good. I did not claim to know the kind of person he was in the office. And very clearly he’s one of the 95% of people that are, of course, scumbags (outside of personal one on one settings I’ve had with the man) 

[Conn]

6 hours ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

 

That's how autocracies work...the good people who are willing to tell truth to power leave once they realize the narcissistic boss doesn't want to hear anything contradictory to his own ignorant beliefs. So the only people left are the sycophants who mimic the boss' style, which is how this team wound up with a toxic workplace. Just like with Putin in the New USSR...

 

It's almost like this team puts out hiring notices saying "A***oles Wanted, Apply Within."

 

And as someone mentioned, just because Friedman may be a scumbag himself doesn't mean his allegations aren't true. This is almost exactly what happens when a mafia family gets rolled up...they all start ratting each other out.

This is exactly why I said at the time I was fine with Schaeffer leaving. I was very vocal about it. No matter how well he did the job he was assigned, anybody who could survive and thrive in that viper pit for that long cannot be part of a new and improved culture. Period. 

[86 Snyder]

Cooleyfan, 20 years from now, when the true stank of this franchise finally hits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2022 by 86 Snyder

[profusion]

11 hours ago, lavar1156 said:

 

 

In other words, the big racism scandal can't be far off. 😄

Edited April 21, 2022 by profusion

[88Comrade2000]

3 hours ago, skinsfan4128 said:

I'm going by what you have posted.  You're posts have suggested (whether intentionally or not) that your father stated other than what has been reported.  Your words, not mine. 

 

Perhaps you may want to re-read what you said. Personally,  I believe all the hateful **** that has been reported about that little ****. I have years of evidence to back that up.

 

He's a hateful, vile human being. Your dad( no disrespect) can claim otherwise.  But I can promise you this, Redskins nation knows better.

 

HTTR. 

His dad probably should dust off the resume. If this leads to the team being sold in 2-3 years; the new guy will be cleaning house. Every Snyder holdover will eventually be let go.

[Cooleyfan1993]

2 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

His dad probably should dust off the resume. If this leads to the team being sold in 2-3 years; the new guy will be cleaning house. Every Snyder holdover will eventually be let go.

He’s retired, actually….left the team in 2011 for his old law firm, then retired at the end of 2018. 

[88Comrade2000]

1 minute ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

He’s retired, actually….left the team in 2011 for his old law firm, then retired at the end of 2018. 

Oh, then you know nothing of what it’s like there for the past decade. 
 

Maybe when your pop was there; it wasn’t as bad or the shenanigans just was visible then.

 

 

Some of this crap has been going on since day 1.

[Andre The Giant]

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

14 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

He’s retired, actually….left the team in 2011 for his old law firm, then retired at the end of 2018. 

 

So to be clear the posts we have all seen from you, which came across as defending this man, was based on your own personal experience with him where he was nice to you?  Surely you can see why you are getting so much push back, being nice to an employee's son does not mean you are not still a terrible human being.

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

So I've been listening to so many podcasts, and so many legal analysts give their opinion on podcasts, they are all running together.  But one of them, and I think it was Daniel Wallach on the Ben Standig podcast, specifically called out and read the following passage from the Commander's letter to the FTC:

 

Quote

This conduct by Friedman is, unfortunately, not surprising as it represents nothing more than the latest step in a carefully orchestrated campaign against the Team that first became apparent with the use of a “burner phone” in the Summer of 2020 by a then-client of the KMB law firm to act as a conduit in passing on false and disparaging information about the Team and its principal owner, Dan Snyder, and continues to this day through now-KMB client Friedman’s fabrications. Simply put, for all of the foregoing reasons, Friedman cannot be believed on any subject – much less all of those directly contradicted herein, and in the attached sworn declarations by those with actual knowledge.

 

The Commander's lawyers are actually accusing Lisa Banks and her firm of basically orchestrating this whole mess as a "carefully orchestrated campaign."  

 

The analyst (again, I think it was Daniel Wallach, but apologies if I am mis-attributing it) thought this was WILD.  He said he had never seen anything like it at all.  

 

He also said that the tone of the letter, the structure of the letter, and the information in the letter were more than he's ever seen.  And he said that any lawyer would have to be 100% sure that every single thing in the letter was 100% factual, without any chance of it not being factual, otherwise they are opening themselves up to a defamation lawsuit which the plaintiff would almost assuredly win. 

 

He also said that these types of allegations made by the Commanders, if proven false, could ABSOLUTELY rise to the level of "conduct detrimental to the league"  and would absolutely be a mechanism to force Dan to divest his ownership.  Again, if these allegations are proved false.

 

I was really hopeful the financial scandal was going to be Dan's undoing, not because I thought it was going to force a vote in the NFL to oust him, but because I thought maybe he'd get tired off all of this, and maybe some trusted owner-friends would go to him and try and convince him to sell.

 

I'm not so sure anymore. Now, I'm not buying hook/line/sinker the Commander's response. For example, at least one of the people who signed an affidavit is Mitch Goreman, who's a known Snyder stooge.  Some of these guys lie, and lie willingly, especially if they know they can't be found out. But the evidence they provided, based on everybody I've listened to, seems pretty airtight.  

 

We'll see.   I still think the best chance of us getting rid of Dan is the other NFL owners determining there is no way they are getting a new stadium with Dan as owner because he's toxic.  And convincing him to sell basically for that reason.  

15 hours ago, Conn said:

This is exactly why I said at the time I was fine with Schaeffer leaving. I was very vocal about it. No matter how well he did the job he was assigned, anybody who could survive and thrive in that viper pit for that long cannot be part of a new and improved culture. Period. 

Chris Russell would like to body slam you for even suggesting Eric Schaeffer wasn't a saint, and that he wasn't treated with the dignity and respect he deserved. 

 

His over-the-top reporting and criticism of Ron getting rid of Schaffer was laughable. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

DO NOT READ THIS POST IF ALL YOU ARE INTERESTED IN IS FANTASIZING ABOUT DAN SNYDER LOSING THE TEAM.  IT WILL JUST ANNOY YOU.  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.  

 

Spoiler

I kindof think Lisa Banks is being owned by the Commander's legal team.  Which, fwiw, I find truly unfortunate.  I'm not entirely sure why, she has a good reputation, but she seems to be making one blunder after another, and that's really unfortunate for all of us who want her (and the cause to get rid of Snyder) to be successful. 

 

Blunder 1: She outed her client, Jason Friedman, and then claimed the Commander's defamed him.  When they never mentioned him by name.  

 

The Commander's response: "The Commanders did not not reference Mr. Friedman — or anyone else — by name in their statement. However, if Mr. Friedman believes he has been defamed, he should bring a defamation suit. The Commanders will gladly accept service and vigorously defend any such claim."

 

Basically saying, "your guy is lying, you know it, we know it, you're never going to bring a defamation law suit, you know it, we know it.  Your move."

 

Blunder 2:  She is doubling down on the defamation accusation, and then added Congress to it. 

 

Her most recent statement: "Again, Mr. Friedman stands by his testimony to Congress, which was based on the actions he himself took on behalf of the team, and which was supported by contemporaneous documentation. In response, he has been attacked personally and professionally by the team and now by a member of Congress." 

 

This was in response to James' Corner's rebuttal letter:  "[Jason Freidman] ... should be given a chance to amend his statements or face an investigation by the Department of Justice for false statements, the ranking Republican on the House Committee (Rep. James Comer, R-Kentucky) on Oversight and Reform wrote in a letter Thursday morning to the group's chairwoman... It is a crime to knowingly and willfully make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to Congress, including congressional staff,"" This is from the Keim article.  

 

First, Corner suggested Freidman be given a chance to amend his statements presumably because of the evidence provided in the Commander's letter to the FTC.  The words "knowingly and willfully" are very important here.  I think they're trying to give Friedman a kindof way out, if he wants to take it.  Amend the statement to clarify what is fact (what he did) and what is conjecture (what he thought happened) would be the way to go.

 

The bit about him being attacked by a member of congress is ... a grey area at best.    Did Corner really attack him?  Yeah, kindof, but also not really.  And he said the committee should decide whether he should be allowed to amend his testimony. If he was REALLY attacking him, he could have just said "LIAR LIAR when we take over the house we're going to refer you to the Justice Department" (unsaid, which won't do anything with it, but that's not our problem.)

 

Lisa Banks continues:  "Unfortunately, Mr. Friedman remains contractually unable to defend himself publicly, but stands ready and able to answer any questions that the government, including Representative Comer, might have about his experiences or actions on behalf of the Washington Commanders."

 

This is very interesting, because nobody was suggesting he make any statements publicly, just that he should amend his testimony to congress.  She keeps coming back to the NDA. I think she's trying to divert attention back from the fact her client might have committed perjury to the NDA.  And one of the pillars in the offense against Dan has been the NDAs.  So attacking them is good PR, if you will.  

 

As a side note, I think I know why the Commanders are reluctant to let Friedman out of the NDA.  Because he would go on every single radio show, podcast, and talk to any reporter with a recording device, and they believe he's going to lie rug.  But given the fact everybody WANTS to believe him in order to oust Dan, his version will be taken as gospel, even if it factually incorrect.  Kevin Sheehan, on his podcast with Thom Lovero, said to him, he WANTS to believe all of it, but the facts matter.  Thom said (which I thought was somewhat shocking for a journalist to say) that he didn't really care if it was true or not, as long as Dan was ousted.  So, if you ask me, THAT'S why the Commanders have no lifted the NDA.

 

Blunder 3: There is also the statement which says since Friedman can't speak publicly, they will communicate directly with the team about the defamation.

 

Well, there's only one way for a lawyer to communicate with the team about defamation. 

 

Blunder 4:  The corroborating witness to the Tiffany Johnson allegations was Jason Friedman.  By allowing all this stuff to come out about him, he becomes less of a credible witness. 

 

I'm positive one of the reasons the Commanders attacked Friedman so viciously in their letter had nothing to do with the financial allegations.  They are trying to discredit him as a witness writ large, and that includes his ability to serve as the corroborating witness for Dan's "hand on the thigh" and "led me to a limousine with his hand on my back" allegations.  

 

So why the blunders?  

I'm starting to believe one of two things is true: 

1) Jason Friedman liked to Lisa Banks.  And now she's trying to make chicken salad out of chicken ****. 

2) Lisa Banks IS actually orchestrating all of this, and a lot of the testimony is questionable in validity at best.  (But since everybody WANTS to believe it, it still works).

 

Really, the Commanders have pained Banks into a corner: either she brings a defamation law suit, or it REALLY looks like Friedman is lying. 

 

Also, I doubt very much Friedman will be asked to amend his statements.  I don't think the committee leadership WANTS him to amend his statements.  

 

We'll see what happens.  But I think Banks mis-played the hand for whatever reason, and gave Dan a "get out of jail free" card. 

 

Which frankly, really disappoints me.

 

[Wildbunny]

error got corrected

Edited April 22, 2022 by Wildbunny

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

The Commander's lawyers are actually accusing Lisa Banks and her firm of basically orchestrating this whole mess as a "carefully orchestrated campaign."  

 

I was really hopeful the financial scandal was going to be Dan's undoing, not because I thought it was going to force a vote in the NFL to oust him, but because I thought maybe he'd get tired off all of this, and maybe some trusted owner-friends would go to him and try and convince him to sell.

 

 

 

That's what all authoritarians/dictators do when people are out to get them: claim it's a conspiracy. Next comes the loyalty test, where his cronies have to prove they aren't leakers, etc. Snyder and Putin are using the same playbook, except Snyder doesn't have nukes.

 

Regarding the bolded point above...Snyder doesn't have any trusted owner-friends. They all hate him, but I'm sure some of them don't want him to sell because they like that the dysfunction prevents Washington from putting a competitive team on the field...especially the owners in NY, Philly, and Dallas. Just like the other AFC South owner LOVE Shahid Khan since his team stinks every year.

[FLSkinz83]

Banks and Katz are the same lawyers that were involved in the Brett Cavanaugh case?   

[Voice_of_Reason]

28 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

 

That's what all authoritarians/dictators do when people are out to get them: claim it's a conspiracy. Next comes the loyalty test, where his cronies have to prove they aren't leakers, etc. Snyder and Putin are using the same playbook, except Snyder doesn't have nukes.

Eh, in our society though, it's tough to pull off in a legal context.  You have to be REALLY REALLY careful.  Attacking a law firm is EXTREMELY rare and REALLY dangerous.  Snyder also has very good lawyers, who signed the letter.  THEY would be liable if they accused KMB of conspiracy and it turned out not to be true.

 

So it's a fascinating legal move.  Literally to call out the KMB and say they are orchestrating all of this, it's WILD. 

 

Here's the thing, it MIGHT actually be true.  It might not be.  But we don't know.  We all WANT to assume it's not true, because we all assume the worst from Snyder.

 

But in this case, at least for me, looking at it strictly from a legal perspective, I just find it really unlikely a law firm would NAME another law firm publicly without being ABSOLUTELY sure there was no way they could be sued for liable or defamation themselves.  Which makes me think, there MIGHT be something to this.  

 

28 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

Regarding the bolded point above...Snyder doesn't have any trusted owner-friends. They all hate him, but I'm sure some of them don't want him to sell because they like that the dysfunction prevents Washington from putting a competitive team on the field...especially the owners in NY, Philly, and Dallas. Just like the other AFC South owner LOVE Shahid Khan since his team stinks every year.

I'm not sure the bold is true or not.  Maybe. Maybe not.  I don't honestly care so much either.  Most of them are just as slimy as Snyder, they just run their teams better.  And make fewer unforced errors. It's tough to tell what billionaires like and don't like.  

 

But whatever.  Even if he doesn't have any true friends, they are by definition his business partners.  And I'm sure some of them would be able to get together and talk to him.  

 

Here's what I do know: What the other owners want more than absolutely anything else is more money from this franchise.

 

How do they get more money?  A new stadium.  Better teams on the field. More eyeballs in market on them.  Bigger merchandising sales.    

 

If they think they can't get that with Snyder, I'm sure some of them will try to convince him to sell.  Somehow.  I don't know if they will be successful. 

[SoCalSkins]

Maybe Riger will want some revenge against Dan now:

 

 

[86 Snyder]

Wait, why the **** is Papa John on a sports show with that piece of garbage Whitlock?  People watch this trash?  Are you serious??

[JSSkinz]

Why would Lisa Banks bring on a client who was verbally abusive and having sex with a subordinate while at the same time representing women who claim they were treated unfairly and sexually harassed as subordinates.

 

I'm no lawyer but it seems idiotic.

[86 Snyder]

8 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Why would Lisa Banks bring on a client who was verbally abusive and having sex with a subordinate while at the same time representing women who claim they were treated unfairly and sexually harassed as subordinates.

 

I'm no lawyer but it seems idiotic.

Remember when Jose Canseco told us everyone was on roids?  He was mocked for a long time but he was proven to be completely accurate.

 

This is like that.

 

 

[Dissident2]

26 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Why would Lisa Banks bring on a client who was verbally abusive and having sex with a subordinate while at the same time representing women who claim they were treated unfairly and sexually harassed as subordinates.

 

I'm no lawyer but it seems idiotic.

 

Number one, as far as I know, Friedman isn't accused of sexual harassment, and although he seemed to have a relationship with a "subordinate," by all accounts at this point it was consensual. 

 

The "verbally abusive" stuff is par for the course out there, but I don't know of any claims that have been brought against him from a sexual harassment standpoint. He also seems to be the guy who contacted Larry Michael on behalf of Rachel Engelson when she was being harassed by Larry, and he told him to leave her alone. 

 

But the main thing here is that Friedman's testimony is about financial improprieties it seems more than anything else, although he does seem to have something to add to the accusations against Snyder from Tiffany Johnson. 

 

But when all is said and done, none of that stuff matters in the least as far as whether or not his allegations are correct. Not every witness to a crime is a perfect angel. And some have done some very shady things themselves and then decided to open up and be truthful, sometimes for selfish reasons, sometimes for good reasons. Mob minions turn on mob bosses every once in awhile. His past has nothing to do with the veracity of his allegations. And besides, I'm gonna need a lot more than a crafted letter from Snyder's lawyers before passing total judgment on this guy. So far, the women who knew him have come out in support of him. And according to Banks, his NDA keeps him from talking about anything publicly related to these accusations, so he's at the mercy of these douchebags. 

[FLSkinz83]

48 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Why would Lisa Banks bring on a client who was verbally abusive and having sex with a subordinate while at the same time representing women who claim they were treated unfairly and sexually harassed as subordinates.

 

I'm no lawyer but it seems idiotic.

 

Makes you wonder

[JSSkinz]

51 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

Remember when Jose Canseco told us everyone was on roids?  He was mocked for a long time but he was proven to be completely accurate.

 

This is like that.

 

 

Its Sammy the Bull turning on Gotti, both seem like scumbags.