Welcome to the Dan Ban - Easy to Fill Out Online Petition to NFL Sponsors.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, sebestian said:

I have only received the generic response email acknowledging that they have received the email and it will de directed to the appropriate dept.  I am thing that department gets files under the letter G or T in the digital world. 

 

But I will always keep trying can we possibly be ignored forever. 

 

 I suspect because they have our names and email addresses as part of the protest emails, some of them are looking to confirm we are customers first before responding (likely why @The Almighty Buzz actually got a response for USAA, and honestly I don't expect them to respond to me now).

[sebestian]

8 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 I suspect because they have our names and email addresses as part of the protest emails, some of them are looking to confirm we are customers first before responding (likely why @The Almighty Buzz actually got a response for USAA, and honestly I don't expect them to respond to me now).

I hear you.  Sad but true.

[Koolblue13]

13 hours ago, Dissident2 said:

 

The only thing I agree with in that pathetic "hot take" was that I also agree he should start "fresh" somewhere "further south." Like, you know ... WAYYYY further south. 

AGREED! To Puerto Rico! Name them the Tainos and go back to the NA imagery. I'll get season tickets.

18 hours ago, owa said:

Just ridiculous in my opinion. Of course, I expect to be banned for having an opposing opinion. Such as life these days under a "china light" regime.

But seriously for a moment, it really disturbs me that people are so bent out of shape on ownership as to create a "petition". Is that what you're here for or what I've fanbase has become? I will admit that I wouldn't have changed the name so caving feels like another loss to me. This is just another reason, I feel he should move the team further south. Why keep catering to those opposed to him and apparently live and die based on every decision. Start fresh somewhere else...hopefully near mid-state Virginia... or further south (my preference). I live out of the area so maybe I don't understand the contempt for an owner willing to try just about everything to bring a winning team to "Washington". Oh, I get it, you'd rather have a book by RG3...

You're not going to get banned because you think sexual assault should be allowed and not shamed. Good for you being pro rape culture. What a champion of freedom you are. Go get um tiger.

[sebestian]

Dan Snyder Scandal Update: Washington Commanders Whistleblower Speaks Out About Infamous Cheerleader Video - Sports Illustrated Washington Football News, Analysis and More

 

How in the world can anyone stand up for this man, and how on earth can Rodger Godell cover it up.  What a world.  The owner of our beloved team is a old perverted sexual predator.  I cannot believe I just typed that.  Maybe we should send this article to all the f sponsors.

 

Disgusted.

[NewCliche21]

3 hours ago, sebestian said:

Dan Snyder Scandal Update: Washington Commanders Whistleblower Speaks Out About Infamous Cheerleader Video - Sports Illustrated Washington Football News, Analysis and More

 

How in the world can anyone stand up for this man, and how on earth can Rodger Godell cover it up.  What a world.  The owner of our beloved team is a old perverted sexual predator.  I cannot believe I just typed that.  Maybe we should send this article to all the f sponsors.

 

Disgusted.

 

Oh ****, I didn't realize that WaPo had the actual video??

[Voice_of_Reason]

6 hours ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Oh ****, I didn't realize that WaPo had the actual video??

Yeah, but they’ve never been able to tie it directly back to Dan requesting it or viewing it.

 

I’ve always said if they can get that confirmation, it’s game over.  It’s also illegal invasion of privacy.  
 

I still don’t think they have it.  We now have multiple people who say other people said Dan ordered it.  But nobody has said “Dan told me to do it.”

 

My guess is Dan told Larry Michael, Larry instructed others, and Larry won’t spill the beans.  

[Wildbunny]

On 3/7/2022 at 3:13 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

 We now have multiple people who say other people said Dan ordered it.  But nobody has said “Dan told me to do it.”

I think I'm gonna need an explanation here. To me that's quite the same thing.

But there might be nuances I'm not really getting in this case.

Isn't saying that "Dan ordered it" the same thing as "Dan told me to do it"?

 

On 3/7/2022 at 3:13 AM, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

My guess is Dan told Larry Michael, Larry instructed others, and Larry won’t spill the beans.

Would be fun to put Larry on the grill then. I've never seen him like a guy that would hold a secret for long if his personnal condition was in jeopardy...

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

I think I'm gonna need an explanation here. To me that's quite the same thing.

But there might be nuances I'm not really getting in this case.

Isn't saying that "Dan ordered it" the same thing as "Dan told me to do it"?

We don't have anybody who has said "Dan told me to do it."

 

We have people who said other people told them "Dan told me to do it."  I believe (could be wrong) but in the legal world this is hearsay.  Which is not admissible evidence.  

 

The exact quote from the article is:

Quote

When Kercheval asked the team editor sitting at the workstation what he was working on, the unnamed employee told him, "These are outtakes from the cheerleader video shoot we just did, and we were told by the owner to make this for him."

 

Kercheval didn't actually HEAR Dan ask for it.  He heard the "unnamed employee" say the owner told them to make it.

 

And Dan might not have actually told the "unnamed employee" to make it, he might have told Larry and then Larry told the "unnamed employee."  And the "unnamed employee" just said "the owner told us to make it for him" because Larry could have said, "Dan wants this, make it for him."

 

Until we get something directly from somebody who received the order DIRECTLY from Dan, there's just nothing there, and there is plausible deniability.  

 

We're at least 2, probable 3 layers removed from evidence Dan actually ordered the video.  

 

(I also kindof think Dan might NOT have actually ordered it, and it was Larry all the time, and he just wanted the "unnamed employee" not to think HE was the complete sleezebag, so he pinned it on Dan.  Because that's EXACTLY something I think Larry would do.)

 

1 hour ago, Wildbunny said:

Would be fun to put Larry on the grill then. I've never seen him like a guy that would hold a secret for long if his personnal condition was in jeopardy...

IF (and this is a big IF) he is actually the conduit, then he has been well paid not to say anything, and will not break his silence unless compelled to do so by some criminal proceeding.

 

I'm sure he can't say anything due to an NDA for a civil charge.  Criminal is different.  NDAs don't apply to criminal charges.

 

What we need is to find out who the Unnamed Employee is and get him (assuming it's a him) to go on record saying who actually told him to do it.  If he says "Dan told me to do it directly" (which I REALLY seriously doubt, Dan would have somebody else do the dirty work for him, he doesn't mix with the unwashed masses unless he has to) then you have SOMETHING which you can hold up against Dan directly.  And it MIGHT be good enough for a criminal invasion of privacy charge.  

 

Keep in mind, however, this "unnamed employee" was actually breaking the law by putting this together, so I'm sure HE's worried he's going to get charged also.  Remember in A Few Good Men, the 2 Marine Corps guys got dishonorably discharged even though they were just following orders.  

 

So before that guy would come forward on the record, I'm sure he would want some protection from legal proceedings himself.  And he's also probably under an NDA.

 

All of this to say, I don't think any of this is leading anywhere.  They've gotten really good at making this impossible track down.  

[Riggo#44]

On 3/5/2022 at 2:28 PM, owa said:

Just ridiculous in my opinion. Of course, I expect to be banned for having an opposing opinion. Such as life these days under a "china light" regime.

But seriously for a moment, it really disturbs me that people are so bent out of shape on ownership as to create a "petition". Is that what you're here for or what I've fanbase has become? I will admit that I wouldn't have changed the name so caving feels like another loss to me. This is just another reason, I feel he should move the team further south. Why keep catering to those opposed to him and apparently live and die based on every decision. Start fresh somewhere else...hopefully near mid-state Virginia... or further south (my preference). I live out of the area so maybe I don't understand the contempt for an owner willing to try just about everything to bring a winning team to "Washington". Oh, I get it, you'd rather have a book by RG3...

Hi Tanya.

[Dissident2]

Interesting! Anheuser Busch cuts ties with the team!

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/03/18/anheuser-busch-washington-commanders/

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Dissident2

[Dissident2]

On 3/10/2022 at 12:09 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

We're at least 2, probable 3 layers removed from evidence Dan actually ordered the video.  

 

(I also kindof think Dan might NOT have actually ordered it, and it was Larry all the time, and he just wanted the "unnamed employee" not to think HE was the complete sleezebag, so he pinned it on Dan.  Because that's EXACTLY something I think Larry would do.)

 

Nah, I think we're only one. And that's for Larry (or someone else) to admit it came from Dan, as I also believe Dan would've told Larry who in turn would've told the underlings. 

 

There's absolutely no way, imo, Larry would've ordered people right at the Park to make a highly produced video of this stuff MULTIPLE YEARS in a row and then LIE to them by saying "Dan ordered it" when Dan didn't order it, lol. I mean, sorry, but that is a laughable theory considering all we know (set to Dan's favorite music, burned to multiple DVDs, different people each year making these, etc., etc.). Larry definitely gave the order, I'm sure, but how is he going to risk EVERYTHING he had at that point (voice of the team, huge salary, high-up position) multiple years in a row just for some soft porn videos of cheerleaders? I've heard others say this, and it makes zero sense. Besides, if he wanted that footage so bad, he probably could've just grabbed it himself or had one of the young editors put it on a drive for him. He wouldn't ask them to spend hours in their offices making some highly produced piece set to the music of Dan's favorite bands. 

 

I agree, we need someone to finally and personally connect Dan to this, but the circumstantial evidence here is HUGE. Ordering this video to be made in exactly the way it was apparently made is DEFINITELY something DAN WOULD DO. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Dissident2

[owa]

Ha, you WP guys crack me up but as always I do get upset and then post. Then regret it. :p

[CommanderInTheRye]

I hereby solemnly pledge to buy Anheuser Busch the next time I purchase beer.

 

I make the same offer to any company that publically disassociates itself from the Washington Commanders because of Dan Snyder's continued presence as owner.

 

"And so it begins..."

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by CommanderInTheRye

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

The timing seems random and weird. I mean, how come they didn’t do this a month ago when the heat was really on Danny?  Seems like things have died down a bit but admittedly I haven’t been paying too close attention. 
 

It’s just odd that this popped up a month or so later on a random Friday evening. Maybe they caught wind of something and wanted to disassociate before it came out? I dunno. 

[sebestian]

Lets keep up the good work.  I still send out emails every morning, they cannot ignore us forever.  Thank you Anheiser Busch.  That is a big time company, and to severe ties with a football team is not small decision.  I am glad that they did it.  If we collectively keep up the heat we will see more and more sponsors severe ties.

[CobraCommander]

8 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

The timing seems random and weird. I mean, how come they didn’t do this a month ago when the heat was really on Danny?  Seems like things have died down a bit but admittedly I haven’t been paying too close attention. 
 

It’s just odd that this popped up a month or so later on a random Friday evening. Maybe they caught wind of something and wanted to disassociate before it came out? I dunno. 

Or maybe they wanted to do it because they don't sell enough beer on Sundays. 

[Barry.Randolphe]

2 hours ago, CobraCommander said:

Or maybe they wanted to do it because they don't sell enough beer on Sundays. 

 

it hurts their brand when people associate their piss water with stale piss water  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/09/26/the-redskins-are-selling-world-cup-beer-and-budweiser-says-its-passed-its-freshness-date/

[Renegade7]

@The Almighty Buzz jus as I figured, USAA looked to see if i was membee before responding:

 

Quote

Thank you for reaching out and sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback. 

 

To their credit, they are the only sponsor that gave me more then an automated response for sending an email in the first place.  But I see no mention of how they care or will look into it, what I would've appreciated and asked for was action.

19 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

The timing seems random and weird. I mean, how come they didn’t do this a month ago when the heat was really on Danny?  Seems like things have died down a bit but admittedly I haven’t been paying too close attention. 
 

It’s just odd that this popped up a month or so later on a random Friday evening. Maybe they caught wind of something and wanted to disassociate before it came out? I dunno. 

 

Is it random when we are commenting in a thread about a site with email templates targeted towards them and other sponsors?

 

Let's not be cynical here, they did what we asked them to do.  I may not know the full reason they did this or may even like the full reason in context to how Corporate America operates, but we got the same results we wanted regardless.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Renegade7

[Conn]

23 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@The Almighty Buzz jus as I figured, USAA looked to see if i was membee before responding:

 

 

To their credit, they are the only sponsor that gave me more then an automated response for sending an email in the first place.  But I see no mention of how they care or will look into it, what I would've appreciated and asked for was action.

 

Is it random when we are commenting in a thread about a site with email templates targeted towards them and other sponsors?

 

Let's not be cynical here, they did what we asked them to do.  I may not know the full reason they did this or may even like the full reason in context to how Corporate America operates, but we got the same results we wanted regardless.

But without some sort of statement about fan displeasure or even their corporate displeasure, does it matter? It just happened quietly, which either makes it cowardly or completely unrelated to all this stuff. Nobody’s talking about this. Unless we find out within the next few days that it was to get out ahead of a new wave of scandal (feels unlikely) what effect does it even have? Could be totally unrelated to this fan campaign for all anyone knows.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Conn

[Renegade7]

16 minutes ago, Conn said:

But without some sort of statement about fan displeasure or even their corporate displeasure, does it matter? It just happened quietly, which either makes it cowardly or completely unrelated to all this stuff. Nobody’s talking about this. Unless we find out within the next few days that it was to get out ahead of a new wave of scandal (feels unlikely) what effect does it even have? Could be totally unrelated to this fan campaign for all anyone knows.

 

The goal of this site in the OP was to impact Snyder's own pocket. 

 

Let's be honest, this might not be "the" reason they made this decision, but either part of it or even what pushed it over the finish line at best.

 

The end result is still what i want, money OUT if Snyder's pocket.  Do we really need their reasons as much as their actions?  I'm not saying their reason doesn't matter in context of this protest, but I don't believe it should required to call it another success.

 

I won't claim the protest taking credit for this decision without the sponsor outright saying it, but the money is out of Snyders pocket now, that matters to me more.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Renegade7

[Conn]

18 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

The goal of this site in the OP was to impact Snyder's own pocket. 

 

Let's be honest, this might not be "the" reason they made this decision, but either part of it or even what pushed it over the finish line at best.

 

The end result is still what i want, money OUT if Snyder's pocket.  Do we really need their reasons as much as their actions?  I'm not saying their reason doesn't matter in context of this protest, but I don't believe it should required to call it another success.

 

I won't claim the protest taking credit for this decision without the sponsor outright saying it, but the money is out of Snyders pocket now, that matters to me more.

Snyder has more money than any human could ever need and will never feel the repercussions of this financially while he still owns this team. What you’re describing is purely petty in scale. If the goal of this campaign is not to eventually result in the removal of Snyder as owner of the team because the optics of losing so many advertisers is untenable for the NFL, then it’s pointless. That’s the only goal that matters because that’s the only thing that would materially change anything. I thought that was the point of all this? To cause enough of a ruckus with sponsors that they feel they have to drop the team, and to have that happen enough times that the other 31 owners eventually notice and have to make a business decision with Snyder. No?

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, Conn said:

Snyder has more money than any human could ever need and will never feel the repercussions of this financially while he still owns this team. What you’re describing is purely petty in scale. If the goal of this campaign is not to eventually result in the removal of Snyder as owner of the team because the optics of losing so many advertisers is untenable for the NFL, then it’s pointless. That’s the only goal that matters because that’s the only thing that would materially change anything. I thought that was the point of all this? To cause enough of a ruckus with sponsors that they feel they have to drop the team, and to have that happen enough times that the other 31 owners eventually notice and have to make a business decision with Snyder. No?

 

This is from the template emails that got sent out:

 

Quote

I strongly urge you to immediately and publicly denounce Mr. Snyder’s actions. FedEx must commit to ending the financial relationship with the Washington Commanders, and should reconsider this position only when Mr. Snyder is no longer associated with the team in any way.

 

We have to keep in mind him losing all his sponsors alone won't get rid of Snyder, but sponsors threatening him played a major part in what lead to the name change.  It clearly does have an impact.

 

Getting rid of Snyder will take more then this, so even if the ultimate goal is to get rid of Snyder, removing his sponsers should not be looked at as pointless.

 

Don't mock the battle because it doesn't win the war by itself, it all adds up.  Last I checked, Snyder doesn't share his sponsers money with thr other owners, so even if he lost all his sponsers I'm not sure how that impacts the pockets of the other owners. 

 

They seem to be complaining more about that lack of money they could be making because the lack of attendance at our home games (that money is shared amongst the teams).  Having said that, they got away in 2020 with barely any and in many cases no fans at all because of thr TV deals they have.  If this is a multi-front war, I'm still not sure how to attack the TV deal money to get to Snyder.

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

@The Almighty Buzz jus as I figured, USAA looked to see if i was membee before responding:

 

 

To their credit, they are the only sponsor that gave me more then an automated response for sending an email in the first place.  But I see no mention of how they care or will look into it, what I would've appreciated and asked for was action.

 

Is it random when we are commenting in a thread about a site with email templates targeted towards them and other sponsors?

 

Let's not be cynical here, they did what we asked them to do.  I may not know the full reason they did this or may even like the full reason in context to how Corporate America operates, but we got the same results we wanted regardless.

I tried to read this and comprehend this and the responses but I am so ****ing trashed right now I don’t even know.  I’ll have to read this again and the morning and respond.  But notice my grammar and punctuation game is ****ing on point.  It’s my jam.  And two spaces after the period.  **** you millennials.  

[CommanderInTheRye]

An unambiguous report on Fox-5 today makes it as clear as it can get (absent an official statement from Anheuser Busch) that the termination of their partnership with the Commanders was due to Snyder's reported sexual harassment of employees.

 

They also mention the effect of "Boycott Dan" and other fan protest movements, like ours, in driving home the message to all corporate sponsors to bring an end to Snyder's reign of error.

 

The ball is rolling down hill faster and faster...