I'd put this in the NFL thread, but it's so chock full of heady Snyder goodness, it deserves its own thread:
QuoteRedskins ban signs at FedEx Field
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.washingtonpost.com%2Fdcsportsbog%2Fskinssigns1.jpg&hash=b26f16888e45689880ae077a6d9c11547cab368d)
Do you see this sign? I fished this sign out of a garbage can outside FedEx Field. It was in the garbage can because there's a new policy that says no signs of any sort are permitted inside the stadium. Even signs sending best wishes to husbands in Afghanistan.
When and why was this change made? I asked Monday morning, and as of Monday evening, a Redskins spokesman said he still wasn't sure. I just know that there was a policy listed on the team's Web site as recently as Oct. 4 that merely banned inappropriate and offensive signs, or something to that effect, and that as of now, that wording is gone.
UPDATE: I found the old wording. You can find it in the Redskins section of most area Yellow pages. Here it is:
Banners
Banners are permitted at FedEx Field; however, Guests may not display banners that advertise or mention products or services. Banners may not cover existing FedEx Field equipment or signage. Signs may not be made with metal or wood. Management reserves the right to remove any sign, including those deemed to be obscene, inappropriate or which obstructs the view of other Guests. For the safety of all Guests, banner poles are not permitted. (emphasis added)
Now, no signs or banners are permitted whatsoever. A spokesman told me that this policy is meant to protect spectators from getting injured by signs, and also to make sure everyone can see the action. Because obstructed views at that stadium could not possibly be tolerated.
One security guard told me the policy went into effect at the beginning of the season. Another told me they were just told about it a few weeks ago. Either way, I can't imagine there was a rash of tragic sign injuries since last season, when I never heard of such a policy.
Now I've feigned a lot of outrage in recent days, outrage over the offensive line, and the GM, and the draft, and whatever else. I mean, that stuff is annoying, but I can live with it. It's still sports. It's still a game. It's still part of the general arc of entertainment provided by large men running around in tights. This, though, ruined it all for me. Now it's no longer a game. Now it's just sad, and unpleasant, and ugly. Read on.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2009/10/signs_banned_at_fedex_field.html
You have GOT to look at some of the signs he found in the trash outside the stadium. Fucking classics.
Oh, and check out the other blog, with all the different anti-Snyder and anti-Vinny t-shirts:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2009/10/behavior_change_skins_tees_at.html
Hilarious.
Awesome. I look forward to all the creative ways the Redskins fans can undermine that moronic policy.
How is this policy moronic? I bet the idea is to prevent racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive signs, and it's their private property so they can make any rules they want. Offensiveness is hard to measure (since something someone deems perfectly acceptable could be offensive to someone else), and a legitimate purpose of going to a stadium is to watch a game, and not to make a political, personal or commercial statement. If some stupid broad needs to send a message to her hubby in the 'stan, she can use an e-mail.
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2009, 02:43:56 AM
How is this policy moronic? I bet the idea is to prevent racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive signs, and it's their private property so they can make any rules they want. Offensiveness is hard to measure (since something someone deems perfectly acceptable could be offensive to someone else), and a legitimate purpose of going to a stadium is to watch a game, and not to make a political, personal or commercial statement. If some stupid broad needs to send a message to her hubby in the 'stan, she can use an e-mail.
Another party pooper. <_<
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2009, 02:43:56 AM
racist
That at the home field of a team called Redskins (that name survives on tradition, not political correctness, though either way I have no problem with it) would be irony.
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2009, 02:43:56 AM
How is this policy moronic? I bet the idea is to prevent racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive signs, and it's their private property so they can make any rules they want. Offensiveness is hard to measure (since something someone deems perfectly acceptable could be offensive to someone else), and a legitimate purpose of going to a stadium is to watch a game, and not to make a political, personal or commercial statement. If some stupid broad needs to send a message to her hubby in the 'stan, she can use an e-mail.
Did you even read the article, or are you just an idiot?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 28, 2009, 02:58:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2009, 02:43:56 AM
How is this policy moronic? I bet the idea is to prevent racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive signs, and it's their private property so they can make any rules they want. Offensiveness is hard to measure (since something someone deems perfectly acceptable could be offensive to someone else), and a legitimate purpose of going to a stadium is to watch a game, and not to make a political, personal or commercial statement. If some stupid broad needs to send a message to her hubby in the 'stan, she can use an e-mail.
Did you even read the article, or are you just an idiot?
Hi HMbob, apparently SK has induced amnesia or you'd know it was Marcin so the answer is already clear. :P
Quote from: katmai on October 28, 2009, 03:08:59 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 28, 2009, 02:58:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2009, 02:43:56 AM
How is this policy moronic? I bet the idea is to prevent racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive signs, and it's their private property so they can make any rules they want. Offensiveness is hard to measure (since something someone deems perfectly acceptable could be offensive to someone else), and a legitimate purpose of going to a stadium is to watch a game, and not to make a political, personal or commercial statement. If some stupid broad needs to send a message to her hubby in the 'stan, she can use an e-mail.
Did you even read the article, or are you just an idiot?
Hi HMbob, apparently SK has induced amnesia or you'd know it was Marcin so the answer is already clear. :P
Who are you? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2009, 02:43:56 AM
How is this policy moronic? I bet the idea is to prevent racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive signs, and it's their private property so they can make any rules they want. Offensiveness is hard to measure (since something someone deems perfectly acceptable could be offensive to someone else), and a legitimate purpose of going to a stadium is to watch a game, and not to make a political, personal or commercial statement. If some stupid broad needs to send a message to her hubby in the 'stan, she can use an e-mail.
This thread wasn't for you, even though you chose the opportunity to yet again use the word "homophobic".
Next time read articles, faggot. :middlefinger:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2009, 05:28:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2009, 02:43:56 AM
How is this policy moronic? I bet the idea is to prevent racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive signs, and it's their private property so they can make any rules they want. Offensiveness is hard to measure (since something someone deems perfectly acceptable could be offensive to someone else), and a legitimate purpose of going to a stadium is to watch a game, and not to make a political, personal or commercial statement. If some stupid broad needs to send a message to her hubby in the 'stan, she can use an e-mail.
This thread wasn't for you, even though you chose the opportunity to yet again use the word "homophobic".
Next time read articles, faggot. :middlefinger:
Sorry I thought the word "Foreskins" and thought it's about male circumcision.
I don't really care about the signs having offensive messages, but I imagine it would be rather annoying if the person in front of you decided to hold up some huge ass sign all game.
I'm not going to a game if I can't bring my "Pi 3:14" sign.
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2009, 02:43:56 AM
How is this policy moronic? I bet the idea is to prevent racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive signs, and it's their private property so they can make any rules they want. Offensiveness is hard to measure (since something someone deems perfectly acceptable could be offensive to someone else), and a legitimate purpose of going to a stadium is to watch a game, and not to make a political, personal or commercial statement. If some stupid broad needs to send a message to her hubby in the 'stan, she can use an e-mail.
People have been bringing in signs into football games for decades and it seems to be being used to keep people from critisizing the team management not keeping bigoted statements out.
My objection to signs would be more on the basis that I'd hate to be sitting behind some dick with a sign. No matter its content.
Quote from: Tyr on October 28, 2009, 10:37:17 AM
My objection to signs would be more on the basis that I'd hate to be sitting behind some dick with a sign. No matter its content.
That would actually be a legitimate complaint about a sign. But that is not what this is about.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2009, 10:57:06 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 28, 2009, 10:37:17 AM
My objection to signs would be more on the basis that I'd hate to be sitting behind some dick with a sign. No matter its content.
That would actually be a legitimate complaint about a sign. But that is not what this is about.
It's about this, right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96jFtzVa80A
I wouldn't be all that thrilled about sitting behind some dude with a giant foam hand either. Or Viking horns.
lulz
:lmfao:
Best facepalm ever. I think that is what Jason Campbell's helmet should have on it.
QuoteA Sign of the Times
Dan Snyder continues to battle outside forces - this time the fans - instead of doing what's necessary to help struggling Redskins
Dan Daly
Washington Post
If you're looking for something to be glad about this morning, Redskins rooters - impossible as that might sound - just be glad Dan Snyder isn't the director of homeland security. After hearing about what happened at FedEx Field on Monday night, about fans having their signs confiscated as they shuffled through the gates, I'd hate to see how Dan would enforce the Patriot Act.
It doesn't matter what silly spin the organization wants to put on this. It still comes across as censorship, the stifling of dissent, when some of the signs taken away voice displeasure with the owner and the man who does his bidding, Vinny Cerrato. It's one thing if the sign uses foul language or blocks the view of an entire section; it's another when it merely exercises the fan's First Amendment rights.
This is the price you pay, Dan, when you buy a franchise with a large and passionate following. Your customers are going to have a strong emotional attachment to the team - to the point of wearing pig snouts and painting their faces burgundy and gold. And when things go horribly wrong, as they have this season, these same customers will vent - on message boards, on radio call-in shows and, yes, even on signs they brandish at ballgames. As a businessman, would you want it any other way?
This is a spigot you never want to turn off. This is the key to the league's - and the Redskins' - phenomenal success, this bond that has been built up over the decades between clubs and their fans. Mess with that, suspend the fans' Bill of Rights because they might say something mean about you on a sign and you risk losing them... forever.
But then, this isn't the first time Snyder has displayed a curious interpretation of the First Amendment. In his early days as an owner, he cut back on the number of press box seats allotted to this newspaper because he felt it was being too critical of him. Back then, a lot of fans were excited by Dan because he was young and brash and threw money around like he was playing Monopoly. Over time, though, Redskins Nation came to see what we at The Washington Times saw right away - that youth, brashness and profligacy don't get you to the Super Bowl.
Freedom of the press is such a frightening concept to Snyder that he felt the need to buy a string of radio stations. This, he figured, would enable him to get the club's "message" out unfiltered. Then there's RedskinsTV and Redskins.com - all part of his propaganda machine. The thing is, much of the streaming video on the Web site is just footage of the media - the dreaded media - interviewing players and staff. (Still, it gives me a warm feeling to know I help provide Dan with programming.)
More recently, Snyder has been warring with The Washington Post, perhaps his biggest booster in the beginning. He took hundreds of season tickets away from the paper a while back, claiming it wasn't fair that a single entity hogged so many seats when so many fans were stuck on the waiting list. Later, in a lovely bit of irony, the Post broke a story about the team funneling tickets to ticket agencies - and it was discovered that one agency got more tickets than the Post ever did.
Snyder, of course, was said to be "livid" when he found out about it. What isn't clear, because he almost never speaks publicly anymore, is whether he was "livid" that his ticket office would operate that way or "livid" that somebody found out about it.
With Snyder, there always has to be a Them, it seems - as in "Us vs." It's what drives him, keeps his juices percolating. When he was high school, Them might been the cool kids who cruised by him in the hallway without so much as a nod. After he dropped out of college, Them might have been the venture capitalists who didn't share his vision, wouldn't front him money for his business brainstorms. Once he got Snyder Communications going, Them was his competition in the kill-or-get-taken-over marketing field. And since he bought the Redskins, Them has been the Cowboys, the Giants, the Eagles and the media (the unofficial fifth member of his Personal NFC East).
But now Dan appears preoccupied with a different Them: the fans. He's taken legal action against some who, in these tough financial times, couldn't afford to pay for the premium seats they had contracted for. And this season he invented some ridiculous pretense (spectator safety?) for banning signs from FedEx Field, an all-too-transparent attempt to quash customer complaints.
And yet, Cerrato tells us his boss is taking the Redskins' 2-5 start hard and is "disappointed for the fans." Snyder can't tell us this himself because he's off to France this week, presumably searching for his next coaching consultant among the croupiers and roulette-wheel spinners. This is what's known in the NFL as "getting out of Dodge."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redskinsgab.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F04%2Fsnyder.jpg&hash=dee6ce84b830b842e3135cb095b1e42bed01b7f8)
"Oh my, it's time to sue another fan!"Gotta love the Danny; the only NFL owner that wears his franchise's apparel, other than that other model of stellar stewardship, Al "Hmm, which Raiders tracksuit should I wear today: the Black, White, or Silver" Davis.
Quotein these tough financial times, couldn't afford to pay for the premium seats they had contracted for.
A friend of my uncle's is a real old time Redskins season ticket holder...and he finally had to give them up after 40 years when Snyder raised the price to $10,000.00 dollars. I mean holy crap 10 grand for 8 home games? 8 Jason Campbell QB'ed home games?
Quote from: Valmy on October 29, 2009, 06:00:17 PM
Quotein these tough financial times, couldn't afford to pay for the premium seats they had contracted for.
A friend of my uncle's is a real old time Redskins season ticket holder...and he finally had to give them up after 40 years when Snyder raised the price to $10,000.00 dollars. I mean holy crap 10 grand for 8 home games? 8 Jason Campbell QB'ed home games?
10 grand? WTF?
QuoteThe bridge that was connecting Mike Holmgren to the Washington Redskins head coaching job, should it come open, might have been blown up on Monday. And Holmgren was the one holding the gasoline can in one hand and a burned match in the other.
Holmgren was asked by Chicago ESPN 1000 radio hosts, Tom Waddle and Marc Silverman, what he thought about the Redskins removing the play-calling duties from head coach Jim Zorn, who was Holmgren's quarterbacks coach in Seattle.
"I thought it was very unfair to put him in the position. The position they put Jim in, it shouldn't happen," Holmgren said. "You can be upset with me as a play-caller or how the team's going, (then) fire me. But don't do that. Don't pull the rug out from under me, tie my hands, make me look foolish ... take away what I came there for to do in the first place. Don't do that."
It has been rumored that the Redskins were on Holmgren's short list of teams he would like to coach should he come out of retirement in 2010, an idea he has been publicly pushing for months. He has said on at least one occasion that he would love to coach on the East Coast after long stints in the Midwest with Green Bay and the West Coast in Seattle.
Time will tell if he has eliminated himself from the Redskins job after his strong comments on Monday, or if Holmgren was eliminating himself after witnessing the team's treatment of a good friend.
"That bothered me a lot," Holmgren said. "Jim Zorn is one of the nice people. I'm a nice guy, but I'm not that nice. Jim Zorn is really a nice man. What they did, I did not like it at all."
Yeah this is exactly what I have been telling people: Snyder treating his coaches like this is going to make it tough for him to hire somebody who has a choice on who to work for.
QuoteWashington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder made some rare in-season comments about his team Tuesday, telling fans at a charity function in Clinton: "We feel frustration and are disappointed for our fans. Obviously, our performance to date is not what we expected, and we hope to turn that around."
Afterward, Snyder, whose team is 2-5, elaborated to reporters - although only in general terms. In a question that referenced two recent controversies surrounding the team - the suing of fans who couldn't pay for their premium tickets, and a total ban on fans carrying signs and banners into the stadium - Snyder addressed neither issue.
"I feel bad for the fans," he said. "I feel sorry for the fans, and we're very, very appreciative of our loyal fan base," he said. "We just feel terrible. We're disappointed. We're embarrassed. ... It really hurts."
QuoteSources: 'Skins to fire Zorn on Monday
Washington plans to dismiss coach one day after final game of season, league official says
ASHBURN, Va. - The Washington Redskins plan to fire coach Jim Zorn on Monday, an official within the NFL told The Associated Press.
The Redskins planned to make the move on the day after the end of a disappointing regular season. Washington struggled early despite a weak schedule and was 4-11 going into Sunday's finale against the San Diego Chargers.
The official spoke to the AP on Sunday on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement has been made.
Zorn's dismissal has been expected for months. The front office stripped him of his play-calling duties in late October, and owner Dan Snyder has interviewed assistant coach Jerry Gray for the job, according to the Fritz Pollard Alliance, which monitors minority hiring in the NFL.
Gray's interview was an effort to comply with the Rooney Rule, which requires that teams consider a minority candidate for the head coaching position. With the Rooney Rule satisfied, the Redskins are free to act quickly to hire a replacement for Zorn. Former Denver Broncos coach Mike Shanahan is considered the favorite.
Zorn's replacement will be Washington's seventh coach since Snyder bought the team in 1999. Playing a substantial part in the decision will be Bruce Allen, who was hired as the general manager last month.
Zorn started 6-2 as a rookie head coach last season, but the team struggled over the second half and finished 8-8. This year's team has been hurt by numerous injuries, a lack of depth and tons of off-the-field distractions, but also by an inability of Zorn's West Coast offense to consistently find the end zone.
The Redskins failed to score more than 17 points in their first eight games, prompting the front office to bring longtime NFL assistant coach Sherm Lewis out of retirement as an offensive consultant and play-caller.
Zorn wasn't even on Snyder's list of candidates when Joe Gibbs retired at the end of the 2007 season. Zorn become a last-minute option when other contenders either showed no interest, dropped out or were deemed unsatisfactory. Snyder initially hired Zorn to be the offensive coordinator, then promoted him to head coach two weeks later after an extensive interview.
Zorn, who had never previously been a coordinator in the NFL, at times seemed overwhelmed by the head coaching job, but his strong start and quirky stories made him an early sensation last season. The front office soured on him in 2009, and executive vice president of football operations Vinny Cerrato announced in October that Zorn would finish the season after a week of internal discussions on the matter. Cerrato has since resigned and was essentially replaced by Allen.
I laugh at whatever schmuck takes the job with Snyder as Owner
Quote from: katmai on January 03, 2010, 08:27:38 PM
I laugh at whatever schmuck takes the job with Snyder as Owner
All signs point to Shanahan who, according to Chris Mortensen, has been working the phones from home in Colorado the last couple weeks to assemble a coaching staff.
Man, won't Snyder be disappointed when Shanahan shows up, and John Elway isn't there :lol:
Foreskins fans, you deserve all of this. And you're going to get it for the next 25 years.
I'm surprised Snyder didn't fire him during the game, given the way he's been doing his utmost to humiliate Jim Zorn for the last half of the season.
Quite frankly, I think it's Shanahan that deserves what's about to happen to him. Anyone with an ego that big needs to be taken down a peg or two, and the total failure vortex that is Snyder will defeat anything Shanahan tries.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2009, 06:17:13 AM
QuoteWashington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder made some rare in-season comments about his team Tuesday, telling fans at a charity function in Clinton: "We feel frustration and are disappointed for our fans. Obviously, our performance to date is not what we expected, and we hope to turn that around."
Afterward, Snyder, whose team is 2-5, elaborated to reporters - although only in general terms. In a question that referenced two recent controversies surrounding the team - the suing of fans who couldn't pay for their premium tickets, and a total ban on fans carrying signs and banners into the stadium - Snyder addressed neither issue.
"I feel bad for the fans," he said. "I feel sorry for the fans, and we're very, very appreciative of our loyal fan base," he said. "We just feel terrible. We're disappointed. We're embarrassed. ... It really hurts."
I don't understand--why are they suing fans that can't pay for their tickets? Why not just deny them the tickets?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2010, 08:56:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2009, 06:17:13 AM
QuoteWashington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder made some rare in-season comments about his team Tuesday, telling fans at a charity function in Clinton: "We feel frustration and are disappointed for our fans. Obviously, our performance to date is not what we expected, and we hope to turn that around."
Afterward, Snyder, whose team is 2-5, elaborated to reporters - although only in general terms. In a question that referenced two recent controversies surrounding the team - the suing of fans who couldn't pay for their premium tickets, and a total ban on fans carrying signs and banners into the stadium - Snyder addressed neither issue.
"I feel bad for the fans," he said. "I feel sorry for the fans, and we're very, very appreciative of our loyal fan base," he said. "We just feel terrible. We're disappointed. We're embarrassed. ... It really hurts."
I don't understand--why are they suing fans that can't pay for their tickets? Why not just deny them the tickets?
That's the thing - they were trying to force them to pay for the tickets regardless.
Quote from: Barrister on January 03, 2010, 08:58:36 PM
That's the thing - they were trying to force them to pay for the tickets regardless.
Sort of like a restaurant trying to charge me for a meal when I cancel reservations?
Quote from: alfred russel on January 03, 2010, 09:00:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 03, 2010, 08:58:36 PM
That's the thing - they were trying to force them to pay for the tickets regardless.
Sort of like a restaurant trying to charge me for a meal when I cancel reservations?
I think it was season ticket packages, and if so there is usually a contract involved. Not that that excuses Synder from being an ass to his team's fans.
Quote from: sbr on January 03, 2010, 09:04:21 PM
I think it was season ticket packages, and if so there is usually a contract involved.
All teams' season ticket packages involve a contract, but the Foreskins are the only ones that sue their fans for breach. All the other teams simply release the tickets for resale.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2010, 09:06:38 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 03, 2010, 09:04:21 PM
I think it was season ticket packages, and if so there is usually a contract involved.
All teams' season ticket packages involve a contract, but the Foreskins are the only ones that sue their fans for breach. All the other teams simply release the tickets for resale.
Well, the Redskins aren't the most profitable team in the league for nothing.
It's Snyder and owners like him who are going to help destroy the league in the 2011 lockout.
Quote from: Neil on January 03, 2010, 09:13:10 PM
It's Snyder and owners like him who are going to help destroy the league in the 2011 lockout.
Hopefully, the Old Guard owners will give him the wrong address to the ownership meetings.
Modell's in retirement, Mara is dead. I fear for the league in 2011.
Quote2009 was the Washington Redskins' worst season in decades
By Michael Richman
Sunday, January 3, 2010; B01
The Redskins' game Sunday against the San Diego Chargers not only marks the end of the 2009 season for the burgundy and gold, but the culmination of a long, arduous year for misery-stricken Redskins fans, including me. There's no need to sugarcoat it: This has been the team's worst season in nearly half a century.
Oh, sure, the Redskins have endured seasons with lower winning percentages, but whether this squad finishes 4-12 or 5-11 is pretty much irrelevant. I've followed the team closely for four decades now and have researched its full history, and I've never seen such fan disenchantment. When you combine the ineptitude on the field with the turbulence and acrimony off it, it is clear that Washington's premier sports franchise has become dysfunctional. Our beloved Redskins have fallen far and fast.
Looking back at the season's results tells part of the story. The Redskins opened 2-4, losing to two featherweights -- including a Lions team that snapped a 19-game losing streak against us -- and barely beating two other doormats. They blew four fourth-quarter leads and found ways to lose games they were in position to win, most notably the bizarre 33-30 loss to the Saints on Dec. 6. And they were outclassed by and went 0-6 against their division rivals -- the Giants, the Eagles and the Cowboys -- making this the first time since 1994 they were winless in the NFC East.
Their only convincing victory was against the Raiders, a team that may be in greater disarray than the Redskins. They failed to show up mentally at times and tried one of the most ridiculous plays I've ever seen in pro football: a botched fake field goal attempt that turned amateur hour against the Giants on Dec. 21. If you want respect, that's not the way to earn it.
Of course, a non-playoff season is nothing new around here; Washington fans are used to watching other teams compete for the championship. The last time the Redskins went to the Super Bowl was nearly two decades ago, during the glorious Joe Gibbs era of the 1980s and early 1990s, when they won three championships and were the class of the league. Since Gibbs's departure after the 1992 season, the Redskins have gone 118-157-1 (.429), posting two wins in three playoff appearances and registering some demoralizing seasons: 4-12 in 1993, 3-13 in 1994, 5-11 in 2003 and 2006.
Even so, Redskins enthusiasts have a right to feel tormented about this season; you must go back half a century to find such a low point in the team's history. The Redskins won only five games from 1959 to 1961 and lost 23 straight between the 1960 and 1961 seasons. Their 1-12-1 record in 1961 stands as the franchise's all-time worst for winning percentage (.107). Now that was rock bottom.
Here are some memorable stats from 1961: The Redskins were the only team in the league to score fewer than 200 points, with 174, suffering three shutouts and posting single digits five times. Kicker John Aveni was the team's leading scorer, with 42 points, and made only five of 28 field goals (Where's Shaun Suisham -- cut this season after converting 18 of 21 field goals -- when you need him?) By dire comparison, the expansion Vikings won three games and scored 285 points, 111 more than the Redskins, and the Cowboys won four games in their second year of existence. Only a closing-day win over Dallas averted a winless season for Washington.
That pitiful showing came during the Redskins' ignominious quarter-century between 1946 and 1970: four winning seasons, zero playoff appearances and a 119-185-15 record (.397). The architect of the calamity was the iron-fisted George Preston Marshall, the Washington business wiz who founded the team in 1932, placed it in Boston and then moved it to the capital in 1937.
Marshall was a meddlesome owner who employed a revolving door of coaches and refused to integrate his lily-white squad when racial barriers fell in the NFL after World War II. His Redskins were long the league's southernmost team, and Marshall felt that signing black players would alienate his fan base.
With the Kennedy administration threatening that he integrate or lose his lease to play at D.C. Stadium (now RFK Stadium), which opened in 1961, and with Washington Post columnist Shirley Povich mocking his racist policy, Marshall acquiesced and signed several black players after the 1961 season, including future Hall of Famer Bobby Mitchell. But by then his intransigence had crippled the franchise. Longtime Redskins radio analyst and Hall of Fame linebacker Sam Huff told me that while playing for the Giants from 1956 to 1963, he'd mark games against the Redskins as sure wins. (Just for the record, the Giants beat Washington 53-0 in 1961, a margin 20 points greater than the humiliating 45-12 loss to the Giants two weeks ago.)
Though 1961 was worse statistically than 2009, this season has been more of an eyesore. While nobody believed that the 1961 squad would amount to much of anything, the 2009 team was seen to possess at least wild-card playoff potential. An aging offensive line that lacked depth was expected to be a problem, but a defense ranked No. 4 last season on an 8-8 squad and upgraded by the addition of mammoth defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth looked like it could carry the Redskins into the postseason.
Instead, we've witnessed an abysmal season exacerbated by an off-field soap opera that has further distracted the team. Fans staging a "Burgundy Revolution" have relentlessly criticized owner Dan Snyder and his top executive, Vinny Cerrato, who eventually resigned; Redskins alumni with Super Bowl rings have voiced disgust with their team like never before; lame-duck coach Jim Zorn was undermined with the hiring of a bingo-caller who was promoted to a play-caller; an assistant coach reportedly interviewed for Zorn's job not long ago; Redskins management temporarily banned signs critical of the team at home games; and members of one of the NFL's most loyal fan bases have boycotted games at FedEx Field, which hasn't been emptier in years.
What will it take for the Redskins to return to prominence? How do they rise to the level of excellence shown in recent years by such teams as the Steelers, the Patriots and the Colts? For that matter, how do they at least become a legitimate playoff contender each year, like the Eagles, the Giants and the Ravens?
First and foremost, Snyder must transform his philosophy of running the team. That means divorcing himself from personnel decisions and delegating that responsibility to people much more experienced in the game. Heck, why doesn't he model himself after his predecessor, Jack Kent Cooke? Cooke demanded success but didn't meddle with the decisions made by Gibbs and general manager Bobby Beathard during the Redskins' glory years. That strategy worked magnificently -- why not give it another shot?
Snyder took a solid first step with his recent removal of Cerrato, who had a hand in a series of pathetic personnel moves and often seemed out of touch with the Redskins' most pressing needs. Snyder's decision to hire Bruce Allen, the team's first general manager by title since Charley Casserly in 1999, was also a promising move. Allen, son of Hall of Fame Redskins coach George Allen, is a former NFL executive of the year and has worked for Oakland and Tampa Bay, which won a total of five division championships during his tenure. Can Snyder, whose hands-on approach has mirrored that of Marshall, relinquish full control? Has he had an epiphany? We'll know soon.
I commend Snyder for transforming the Redskins into one of the richest sports franchises in the world, and there's no doubt that he yearns to also win big on the field. He'll reach the pinnacle if he embraces patience and long-term planning, both critical for success in the NFL.
The impetuous owner must stop trying to win the offseason Super Bowl by signing the biggest marquee free agent. This season's key find, Haynesworth, has missed three games, including two against division opponents, because of a sprained ankle and has appeared out of shape. He also publicly questioned the team's leadership and his role on the field, and was disciplined because he apparently showed up late for a meeting. Is that what you want from a $100 million player? When you're guaranteed $41 million, what's the incentive to put up when the going gets tough? Our superstars should mostly be homegrown players plucked from the draft, the key to building a winning team in the NFL.
It's inevitable that Snyder will fire Zorn -- who started off 6-2 in 2008 but has since shown signs that he's not ready to be an NFL head coach -- and hire a new coach/team president. Two-time Super Bowl winner Mike Shanahan appears to be the front-runner, but I wouldn't mind seeing Redskins legend and longtime NFL assistant Russ Grimm, a charter member of the "Hogs" offensive line, get a shot.
It doesn't matter who the new coach is, however, if the owner doesn't give him freedom and time to stabilize the team, together with Allen. If that's the case, the misery will endure. The aim of these front-office moves should be to change the culture of the franchise, restore its dignity and return it to elite status.
Is the future now, to play on the famous phrase uttered by George Allen when he began coaching the Redskins in 1971? Some perspective is needed here, however sobering. The Eagles, one of the most successful teams in the past decade, haven't won an NFL title since 1960. The Cowboys -- those guys with the mystique and the revered star on their helmets -- haven't won a playoff game since 1996. And 15 teams have never won a Super Bowl, period.
So, considering how long it takes to build a real contender, judging from the way the Redskins collapsed this season, and knowing the monumental personnel changes they must make to regain their footing, it may take some time before Redskins Nation can again root for a team that is expected to win.
The future may not be now, but hopefully not too far from now, we'll once again cheer with confidence: Hail to the Redskins!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2010, 08:31:50 PM
Foreskins fans, you deserve all of this. And you're going to get it for the next 25 years.
Did Joe Gibbs piss in your cheerios or something?
QuoteOur beloved Redskins have fallen far and fast.
Hate to break it to this dude but the Redskins have been pretty mediocre for 18 years. They didn't have far to fall.
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2010, 10:25:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 03, 2010, 08:31:50 PM
Foreskins fans, you deserve all of this. And you're going to get it for the next 25 years.
Did Joe Gibbs piss in your cheerios or something?
No, the NFL did. By forcing Foreskins coverage into the Baltimore market for 12 years, suffering the worst ratings for any team beamed to a non-NFL TV market.
And Jack Kent Cooke didn't help. I hope he's roasting in the pits of Hell for what he did to cockblock my city.
So fuck him, and fuck your team. Enjoy your 25 years of Snyder.
Wait, Washington still has an NFL team? :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on January 04, 2010, 11:54:27 AM
Wait, Washington still has an NFL team? :huh:
What happened to the Seahawks? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on January 04, 2010, 12:26:41 PM
What happened to the Seahawks? :huh:
I'm talking about Washington, not Warshington. -_-
LULZ BUMP TO THE FAILSKINS
QuoteHaynesworth is also currently facing charges in Virginia for allegedly punching a man during a road-rage assault. His trial is scheduled for May. At one point last summer, he was also involved in lawsuits from a bank, an exotic dancer, a man injured in an automobile accident and complaints from his ex-wife that he wasn't paying for her health insurance or their children's bills.
QuoteRedskins and owner Daniel Snyder generate strong feelings in Washington area, poll shows
By Dan Steinberg and Scott Clement, Updated: Sunday, September 18, 12:01 AM
Once again, on the things that matter most, Washington is a city divided.
Twenty seasons after the Redskins won their last Super Bowl, just more than half of area sports fans say they view the team favorably. But more than a third have negative feelings about the hometown football team, according to a new Washington Post poll, and fans hold even stronger negative views about its owner, Daniel Snyder.
The Redskins, the most established sports franchise in Washington, generate more negative views than the city's less-storied baseball, basketball, hockey and soccer teams. Fewer than half of the area's football fans — many of whom, to be sure, moved to Washington from other regions of the country — pick the Redskins as their favorite National Football League team.
Still, 55 percent of fans view the Redskins at least somewhat favorably, with longtime residents particularly supportive. "It's more than just a football team. It's part of the whole community,' said Jim Hoebel, 45, a lifelong fan from Northern Virginia. "That's why I still feel very strongly about it, and why I choose to still be a fan."
The survey was conducted during the NFL preseason and before the Redskins opened their second regular season under Coach Mike Shanahan with an impressive 28-14 win over the New York Giants. In forums such as sports-talk radio and Internet message boards, many fans are expressing an optimism about the team's direction not felt in recent years, and oddsmakers favor the Redskins to win their second straight game when they host the Arizona Cardinals on Sunday afternoon.
Among all area sports fans, 34 percent express unfavorable views about the Redskins, compared with 26 percent for the Wizards, 12 percent for the Nationals and low single digits for the Capitals and D.C. United. Among avid sports fans, 14 percent have a "strongly" unfavorable view toward the Redskins. Among the other teams, only the Wizards, at 10 percent, have a strongly unfavorable score in double-digits.
More than two-thirds of fans who grew up in D.C., Maryland or Virginia hold favorable views of the Redskins; it's barely four in 10 among those who grew up elsewhere. Newcomers, younger fans and upscale residents are far more enthused about the Capitals and Nationals.
Several newcomers interviewed for this story say they would like to see the Redskins succeed as a way to increase civic pride, but that the team must first improve its results.
"It's the one team here where I feel like cheering for them is really a native D.C. thing," said Zach Cockrum, a 25-year old from Indianapolis who described the Redskins as his second-favorite NFL team. "That's definitely part of it, fitting in and cheering for the team in my adopted city."
D.C. fans direct considerable ire toward the man who owns the team. A majority of all D.C. area sports fans hold unfavorable views of Snyder, with more than one in three having "strongly" negative impressions, according to the poll. The owners of the other major teams, Ted Leonsis and Ted Lerner, are far less-known than Snyder but generate dramatically fewer negative reviews. Just 3 percent express strongly negative views toward Lerner; less than 1 percent express this view toward Leonsis.
Fans cite a variety of complaints about the Redskins owner, from his recent lawsuit filed against the Washington City Paper to a perception of impatience and meddling. Snyder dropped the suit against the paper on Sept. 10.
"He needs to change his persona and his actions to have a better standing in this town," Hoebel said.
The Redskins declined to comment for this story. When asked earlier in the week about the direction of the franchise, though, Snyder expressed optimism.
"I think the fans, like me, feel that we're in good hands with Bruce Allen, Mike Shanahan," Snyder said. "They see the leadership of the players and I think they're excited about the future, as we all are. I'm just looking forward to this Sunday. I take them one at a time." Allen is the Redskins' general manager.
Washington sports fans — those who cheer for the Redskins and those who root for other NFL teams — interviewed for this story identified the same reasons for having unfavorable opinions toward the club: two decades without playoff success, annual feelings of unmet expectations and a sense that the front office lacked a consistent plan.
"It just seems like there's no long-range planning, that there's sort of a knee-jerk reaction to managing a team," said Jeff Riggs, a 32-year old native of Hartford, Conn., who has lived in the Washington area for five years. "People want them to be a good team, people want them to be a success and they've wanted it for a long time, but they're frustrated."
"It's just kind of been miserable," said Shelby Oakley, a Western Pennsylvania native who is married to a die-hard Redskins fan and has lived in Northern Virginia for a decade. "I just feel like they have just been losing for so long, and I feel like they never give anything a chance to work before pulling the plug or trying to buy someone else."
Other fans say that nothing could sever their relationship with the franchise.
"I don't even know that I could come up with a scenario that bad, other than them moving or changing their name," said Will Oakley, Shelby's husband, who has spent tens of thousands of dollars on hundreds of items for his Redskins collection. "If they're wearing burgundy and gold, buddy, I'm all in."
The poll was conducted by telephone and online July 29 to Aug. 29, among a sample of 1,010 Washington area adults whose addresses were selected at random from a U.S. Postal Service database. The results from the full survey have a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points and five points for the 806 sports fans surveyed.
Being sucky for 20 years will do that.
QuoteDaniel Snyder pays price for making enemies, then flouting them
By Sally Jenkins, Published: March 13
Underneath the numbers, there is the sense of something personal in what the NFL did to Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder. Strip away the legalese and salary cap terms, and what we are left with is the fact that 28 other owners were so furious with Snyder that they decided to kneecap him. Call it a lifetime achievement award for how he does business.
In the most crucial offseason of the past decade for the Redskins, once again they find themselves hobbled by their owner's bad judgment. Instead of having more than $30 million with which to buy players when free agency opened Tuesday afternoon, the Redskins had just $17 million, the rest stripped away by the league as a penalty because the owners believe Snyder maneuvered improperly during the recent NFL labor strife to gain an unfair advantage.
Anything sound familiar to anybody?
The word is that Snyder is beside himself, but he has only his uncontrollable self-interest to blame. What happened was this: Back in 2010, when the NFL entered hardball negotiations with the players union for a new labor contract, the owners warned each other not to use the situation to get a leg up. They were in an uncapped year, with no limit on player salaries, and entering a tense and emotionally fraught labor situation, and they asked each other not to abuse the circumstances.
In essence they said, "Don't try to set yourselves up to be in a better spot when this is over." Think of it like a yellow caution flag in a car race: The drivers agree to hold their places and not to accelerate until the track is clear.
But that's exactly what Snyder did. To a lesser extent, so did Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. Jones just sped up a little. Snyder apparently floored it. The Redskins shifted money, moved it, dumped it, and did everything they could to emerge from the labor pause with the books cleared of bad numbers, so when it was over they could get the biggest jump possible on other franchises in buying up new players.
The NFL has ordered the Redskins to take a $36 million hit over two seasons, while the Cowboys have been told to give back $10 million.
Think about that for a moment: Jones is generally the most excessive operator in the NFL yet Snyder apparently outstripped him by more than three times. That is a serious fiscal rebuke from Commissioner Roger Goodell and the management council. The fact that they did it on the eve of free agency tells you how harshly they meant to punish.
What's more, one person told Mark Maske of The Post that some of the owners considered $36 million letting the Redskins off easy.
"A lot of people were very angry about it," the person said. "The ramifications could have been far worse for them." Apparently some even recommended that the Redskins should lose draft picks.
Snyder is said to be lawyering up and alleging "collusion," but experts say a legal challenge will be tough. For one thing, colluding in this instance means improperly acting collectively to suppress salaries. But salaries weren't suppressed. They were just moved around, manipulated by the Redskins for the purpose of evasion and gaining a future competitive advantage when the cap was reinstated. For another, the group that the NFL owners supposedly colluded against, the union, has signed off on the punishment.
There is a disturbing background and context to this penalty. It feels like the culmination of years of operating in a certain way. Obviously, Snyder has not built up a reservoir of goodwill among his fellow owners, despite the profitability of his team. Also, why does he always end up in these situations? Why is there always some misunderstanding involving the spirit of an agreement?
Surely there was a way for Snyder to clear some reasonable cap space without so incensing others. This bungle is as costly any of his overpriced free agent misjudgments; it comes just as they gave up multiple picks in exchange for the right to draft a franchise quarterback, probably Robert Griffin III, and once again hampers their ability to build, though Tuesday's opening of free agency yielded some promising returns. Snyder is like a huge costly lien against the team that prevents it from getting ahead. Call it the Snyder tax.
Snyder can argue that he did nothing technically wrong all he wants. But he didn't do anything smart either. There was nothing astute about this exercise. Whether Snyder likes it or not, he needs other owners to bless his practices. The NFL is a private association, and if owners act as adversaries on the field, they also act as partners to some extent. The mature owners know when to act as which. As a group they have historically subscribed to the philosophy that a certain competitive balance is the healthiest thing for all.
Instead Snyder used the uncapped year to help himself and hurt others, clumsily dumping money in hopes of erasing past mistakes and taking a shortcut to the future. He sent a message that he was preparing to bid high for a whole bunch of shiny new free agents, making the other owners who want those players bitterly unhappy.
You have to cooperate with other people at times. None of us succeeds alone, and even our competitors have to play a certain role in our success, if only by not jamming a stick in our wheels. When you try to get a leg up while everybody around you is standing still, they resent it. And they will get you for it.
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2009, 06:08:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 28, 2009, 05:28:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2009, 02:43:56 AM
How is this policy moronic? I bet the idea is to prevent racist, homophobic or otherwise offensive signs, and it's their private property so they can make any rules they want. Offensiveness is hard to measure (since something someone deems perfectly acceptable could be offensive to someone else), and a legitimate purpose of going to a stadium is to watch a game, and not to make a political, personal or commercial statement. If some stupid broad needs to send a message to her hubby in the 'stan, she can use an e-mail.
This thread wasn't for you, even though you chose the opportunity to yet again use the word "homophobic".
Next time read articles, faggot. :middlefinger:
Sorry I thought the word "Foreskins" and thought it's about male circumcision.
No banners allowed at circumcisions...
Thread returns.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvampirejullieus.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F05%2Fmummra.jpg&hash=34511f1149348982b01a905d3f9203e4297913d6)
The NFL's Vladimir Putin. Lulz.
QuoteHow Dan Snyder Bought Off The D.C. Media
Dave McKenna
Deadspin.com
In 2000, then-editor Wes Pruden of the Washington Times blasted Dan Snyder's efforts to control the flow of information about the Redskins as "chickenshit" tactics.
Last week, the same newspaper agreed to give that same owner unprecedented control over that same flow of information about the same team. And all parties celebrated the deal.
"The Washington Times and the Washington Redskins announced a unique partnership that will make the newspaper a content and marketing partner of the team," said the joint press release.
Basically, the Times will now distribute a weekly magazine produced by the Redskins and publish "commentaries" about football matters provided by the team in the newspaper. In return, columnists and reporters from the Times will appear in the team's video ventures, such as a halftime show narrowcasted via FedExField scoreboards during home games.
There was a time, kiddos, when such a pact would've been viewed as wholly unbecoming of a newspaper. In 1999, the Los Angeles Times published a 168-page special edition of its Sunday magazine, devoted to the new Staples Center; advertising profits were split between the magazine and the arena. This arrangement was deemed so poisonously unethical that the Times newsroom responded with an 11-chapter analysis of the deal called "Crossing the Line," an act of self-abuse in both senses of the word.
And yet the marriage between Dan Snyder and the Times has drawn mostly whimpers from the journalism watchdogs. Maybe that's the most newsworthy thing about the whole shebang. Snyder's cooked up so many similar media-crippling conflicts of interest by now that yet another one barely rates as newsworthy.
In any case, things weren't always so cozy between the 'Skins owner and the Times. After taking over the team in 1999, Snyder told Times management that the paper's coverage showed a bias against him and toward John Kent Cooke, former owner Jack Kent Cooke's son and Snyder's chief rival in the auction to buy the franchise from dad's estate. Then, for the 2000 season, Snyder cut the Times's ration of press-box seats from six to two; any other Times staffer who wanted to work the game was relegated to the basement of the stadium. Snyder said the credentials cutback was necessary because of a redesign to the press box—he had just installed a luxury suite inside the old media room. But the Washington Post, the crosstown paper that was viewed as a pro-Snyder operation under then-sports section editor George Solomon, did not have its credentials rationed. "I think it's chickenshit, what Snyder's doing," Pruden told me at the time.
"He wants everybody to be a cheerleader," he added, "but we don't look at our role like that. We cover his team like we cover the White House, like we cover the British government or anybody. The problem is, Snyder got rich before he grew up. He still needs to grow up." (Speaking of chickenshit: Pruden's replacement as Times editor, John Solomon, no relation to George, did not respond to multiple requests for interviews for this story; he eventually had a public relations firm decline on his behalf. He did talk to the Washington Post last week, telling the Erik Wemple Blog that under the content-sharing arrangement, "You'll know what the Washington Times did, and you'll know what comes from the Redskins.")
Dave Elfin, a star of the Times sports section when Snyder took over the Redskins, also was willing to air his views about the owner at the time. "Dan Snyder is the real Billionaire Bully," Elfin said. "He really wants to win, but he's gone about it without any class and trampled a lot of people."
Elfin is long gone from the Times. Pruden is now called editor emeritus and still writes columns for the paper, having stuck around long enough to see the Times and the Post swap spaces in Snyder's doghouse and penthouse.
Given his track record of failure since taking over the Redskins, it's hard to give Snyder credit for having any sort of plan. But his takeover of a dead-tree daily's sports section is the natural extension of a larger strategy of media creep that commenced shortly after he took over the team in 1999. And, in fairness, an overview of Snyder's efforts in this regard shows him to be as pioneering in media matters as he is devious. Lots of the worst things about modern sports marketing—team-produced programming and team-owned news operations—were Snyder innovations.
He came into ownership with an if-you-can't-beat-'em-buy-'em approach to media relations. His first big move was to bring to heel the local NBC affiliate with far and away the top-rated newscast in the city at the time. He named WRC "The Official Station of the Washington Redskins." And he made WRC sports director George Michael the play-by-play man for 'Skins preseason games on local television.
Those game telecasts were produced by the Redskins Broadcast Network, the team-owned TV and radio operation. Michael at the time was the reigning king of D.C. sportscasting. Putting him on the payroll was a gift that kept on giving. From the day he was hired until his 2009 death, Michael was the market's most fervent Snyder bootlicker on the air and the chief protector of the owner's image off it: In a 2002 profile of Snyder in the Washington Post Magazine, Peter Perl wrote that during the reporting of the story, Michael had warned him, "I'll tear you apart if you trash him."
When the team was losing the public relations battle with star player LaVar Arrington over a 2005 contract negotiation, Michael took the lead in trashing the beloved player as lazy and unintelligent until the fans turned against Arrington. He had members of WRC's news crew pose as working journalists while staffing the 30-minute infomercials produced by Redskins Broadcasting, which had names like "Redskins Nation" and "Redskins Late Night" and were aired during time Snyder bought on the station and on others in the market. (Click here for a Snyder-produced promotional video for team-owned productions featuring future ESPN anchor Lindsay Czarniak and future NFL Network face Dan Hellie.) Michael never disclosed his or his station's contractual ties to the team on the air and, more sleazily, tried to hide them by directing viewers who wanted to provide feedback to an email address with an "nbc.com" address, though the network had no hand in the shows' production.
The lines between journalism and marketing were so blurred at WRC that Michael's underlings, including Czarniak, would wear licensed Redskins clothing on-air while reporting on the team. Seldom was heard a discouraging word about the Redskins from anybody at WRC. When Michael died in 2009, Snyder eulogized him as his favorite journalist, praising the deceased for only reporting things the team had OK'd. "George knew a lot of things here that we were doing," Snyder said in a radio interview, "but he was somebody the franchise trusted."
Along with hiring Michael in 1999, Snyder scooped up Michael Wilbon, then a top columnist at the talent-laden Washington Post sports section, to be a color commentator on the Redskins Broadcast Network. Wilbon continued writing about the 'Skins while also working for them over the next several summers, and George Solomon, the sports editor at the time, let his star staffer get away with the blatant and very public conflict of interest. Wilbon told me at the time he was unaware the team owned the broadcasts and that his microphones had Redskins logos. His relationship with the team was never disclosed.
(As for my own disclosures: Snyder sued me for libel in 2011 over this story. George Solomon fired me from a weekly freelance gig for the Washington Post's sports section in 2000. I've written occasional pop music reviews for the paper's Style section for 20 years.)
There were subtler moves as well. Early into his ownership, Snyder quickly acquired or otherwise shut down all independent Redskins fanzines and newsletters, the biggest of which was Redskins Journal of Manassas, Va. Historically, the D.C. market was loaded with Redskins-themed TV programming produced by local stations; coaches' shows and "Redskins Sidelines," a half-hour show hosted by dearly departed WUSA sportscaster Glenn Brenner on the CBS affiliate, are prime examples. But Snyder killed off all indie 'Skins-related programming and began producing the weekly coach's show in-house (hosted by George Michael). He cited his trademark rights in preventing any local TV stations from using the word "Redskins" in a program's name without paying him. (Similarly, in 2011, Snyder forced the Washington Post to change the name of its Skins blog from Redskins Insider to its current handle, The Insider.)
His manipulation of the media really took off in the 2000 preseason. This was the year he brought in Bruce Smith and Deion Sanders to head a class of big-name, long-in-the-tooth free agents. And with the Redskins as everyone's preseason pick for the Super Bowl, almost everyone became a "media partner" with the team rather than risk losing access. (This was also the year Snyder became the first owner to charge fans for admission and parking to attend practices at training camp.)
One local station didn't play ball with Snyder: WJLA, an ABC affiliate. And for that there was punishment. During training camp, while Michael and the Redskins other "partners" reported live from inside Redskins Park, WJLA's crew was exiled out of headquarters. "We spent the [2000] season shooting in the Redskins Park parking lot," said Rene Knott, former sportscaster for WJLA. (Knott had been hosting a weekly coach's show produced by WJLA before Snyder took it in-house and installed Michael as host.)
Also in late 2000, Snyder hired Andy Pollin, program director at WTEM, then the only sports-radio station in the market, to host "Redskins Game Day," one of the team-produced weekly infomercials. (In 2008, he bought WTEM altogether.)
Snyder moved on to new media takeovers. In August 2005, he acquired extremeskins.com, which at the time was the most popular 'Skins fan forum on the web. He was billed as the first pro sports owner to buy an established fan message board.
Shortly after buying up the fan board, Snyder held a chat with moderators now under his wing and bashed those covering him and the team. He cited "inaccuracies in the media" as his greatest challenge as owner. He was asked more than once during the extremeskins.com chat why there were no replays and no scores from around the league on game days at FedExField. The fantasy football boom was well underway at that point, and fans' thirst for knowledge far exceeded the technological capabilities of their phones. Snyder responded to the chatters that his team couldn't give fans the same sort of audio and video options that every other stadium in the league was providing by then because "the system we inherited was analog." (The bogusness of that analog-only excuse was exposed whenever a U2 or Paul McCartney would bring their own massive hi-def screens into Snyder's allegedly analog-only stadium for concerts.) The next season, Snyder began renting hand-held satellite televisions from a company called Kangaroo Media at FedExField for the amazing rate of $39.95 a game. Snyder didn't shell out any of his own money for digital screens in his stadium until 2010, as smartphone advances made Kangaroo TV obsolete.
Snyder's acquisition of extremeskins.com was part of an attempt to create his own web-based news organization that would bypass the established media and deliver straight to the fans whatever message the team wanted to get out. The venture was called Redskins Unfiltered, which Snyder told The New York Times would "offer fans an a la carte menu of information." He brought in Westwood One radio veteran Larry Michael to run the team's new video news operation. Unfiltered made real news only once, when Michael (no relation to George Michael) posted clips of the Redskins in pads as they banged against each other during offseason workouts. The NFLPA filed a grievance with the league accusing the Redskins of violating the collective bargaining agreement by putting players through contact drills during the supposedly voluntary practices. That grievance was upheld, and the 'Skins had to forfeit practice time. "You know how we caught them?" NFLPA chief Gene Upshaw said at the time. "We saw it on their Web site."
In June 2008, the Redskins hired Matt Terl, a Marylander who previously ran his own 'Skins blog (InternetIsForZorn.com) to be the team's "Official Blogger." Terl was billed as the first fan blogger ever brought in-house by a pro sports franchise. (Snyder had tried to hire the great Dan Steinberg, then a rising new media star at his old-media nemesis, the Washington Post, to fill the position.) Every pro organization has one now.
A year later, he got an established dead-tree football guy, USA Today's Larry Weisman, to defect from the world of real journalism to write press releases disguised as news stories for the team's Unfiltered charade. An actual press release out of Ashburn said that Weisman had brought "credibility" to the news operation. It seemed like Snyder's bravest hire to date: Weisman had brutalized Snyder through the years in print. He called the 'Skins' home stadium "FedUpField" and once wrote of Snyder's wild free-agent spending sprees: "Ever heard that expression about people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing? Remember that Dan Snyder isn't so much playing with house money as with your money."
Alas, nobody in the outside world took Weisman's words seriously once he started accepting Snyder's money, and the hire ended up doing nothing to help Snyder's reputation or his relationship with the press. A former co-worker of Weisman's tells me that Snyder never felt he was getting a good bang for his buck out of Weisman. Weisman got canned in early 2011. His time as a propagandist apparently has trumped his years as a newspaper man. He's been unable to re-enter the world of journalism.
It was one thing to bring in a lone sportswriter; it's quite another to contract the loyalties of an entire old-media sports section. Snyder's flirtation with the Times goes back a few years. Since its founding in 1982, the paper has been a loss leader for founder Sun Myung Moon and his Unification Church (also known as the Moonies). Intra-Moon family squabbles nearly led to the Times folding in 2010, when the paper was put up for sale. Amid the feud and selloff talks, Snyder showed up at the Times table at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in April 2010, and he brought along Bruce Allen, Mike Shanahan, and Donovan McNabb. The paper had only recently killed off its entire sports section for fiscal reasons, which made Snyder's buddying up to the Times odd—unless he was considering buying the thing, which he denied at the time. But the feud ended; the Moonies re-assumed control of the paper and reinstalled the sports section.
Meanwhile, the relationship between the team and the Post has deteriorated ever since Solomon left as sports editor in 2003. Other sections of the paper took Snyder to task for things like selling obstructed view seats at FedExField and chopping down trees on federally protected lands so he could have a better view of the Potomac River. Just as Snyder had long ago punished the Times for actual newspapering by cutting its press box credentials, in 2005 he canceled a reported 267 of the Post's block of 279 season tickets. Snyder and the Post have yet to make up.
And now he and the Times are breaking bread.
If there were any doubts left, let this be proof: Snyder may not understand the media, but he understands how to get the media to do his bidding. He buys outright what he can buy; he co-opts what he can't buy; he attacks what he can't co-opt. In this methodical way, he has, over the past two decades, massively expanded the bubble surrounding him and his organization. He has his own official TV stations (the local Comcast station is a media partner) and his own radio network and his own in-house news organization and now he has, in the Washington Times, a party organ in the guise of a newspaper sports section.
His team's chronic losing and his own serial buffoonery have over time outkicked the soft coverage his conflicted minions from George Michael on down have given him through the years, to the point where his reputation locally is now nearly as bad as his national rep. But when he needs to get a message out, he doesn't need to go far.
Such are the fruits of Snyder's media creep. With very rare exceptions, he does interviews only with employees. He tends to get in trouble when he wanders off the, ah, reservation :lol: and talks to folks whose checks he doesn't sign. In a brief interview with USA Today last year at a charity event, Snyder said he'd never change the team's nickname: "NEVER—you can use caps," he said. That gave the opposition a tag line he'll never live down, and it made people who'd never heard of Dan Snyder before detest him. And in September 2011, he told The New York Times Magazine that he hadn't read the story over which he was then suing me. He dropped the suit the day before that Q&A hit the streets.
Snyder hasn't yet sat down for an interview with the Washington Times since brokering the partnership. But a hint of the sort of journalism that's in store for us came Monday, when Snyder joined host Chris Cooley on WTEM's afternoon drive-time show. Cooley, a former 'Skins tight end, not only works for Snyder's radio station but also moonlights for Snyder's faux-grassroots save-the-name advocacy group, Redskins Facts. This was Snyder's first interview of training camp. Surely, after still another offseason full of drama, some sort of reckoning was in order.
Cooley's first question for the boss: "What's your favorite beer?"
"Bud Light," Snyder answered, getting exactly what he'd paid for.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 04, 2014, 12:09:18 AM
The NFL's Vladimir Putin. Lulz.
Eh, the Times has been a money sink for decades. I really don't think this move to being a mouthpiece will prove to be any more profitable than the Times was as a newspaper, but it was pretty clear that it wasn't going to be able to continue as a newspaper for long.
I think Snyder doesn't realize, though, how thoroughly he is despised in this area, and if the owners of the Times think that they can sell his bombastic bullshit for cash, I think they are in for a rude shock. Fans around here are desperate for news ABOUT the Redskins, but not for news FROM the Redskins.