Redskins Make National Headlines

[Woz]

1 hour ago, TXsteeler said:

I think Dan Snyder will end up being forced out for this. The saints cheerleaders Just offered to settle for $1 and a meeting with Goodell.

If the NFL isn't run by idiots they take that deal, scapegoat the very hateable Snyder, and launch new rules that force teams to pay cheerleaders ~$55,000 a year with benefits and promise to fix the culture of sexualization and such, forcing any current cheerleaders thinking about coming out with their own stories to shut up.

This will cost the average team with cheerleaders maybe $3M a year to escape what could be huge scandal,and buy much needed good PR at the same time.

The cheerleader scandal as it stands today, while horrible, is not enough to boot Snyder. It's bad but it's not "beyond the pale of human decency" bad. There need to be videos/audio/pictures, something to make it more than text in a paper vs text in a PR statement.

Until that time, unfortunately, the Redskins can likely ride it out without removing the cancer that is Snyder.

[Danger]

Just now, Woz said:

It's that "painfully" part that makes it so rare, and why it is apparent when an organization is serious or not.

It's not so much painful (at least to me) that the people responsible were held accordingly accountable for their actions as a result of the report, but rather that the incident happened at all at my university, even if it occurred before I attended.

[Danger]

Just now, Woz said:

The cheerleader scandal as it stands today, while horrible, is not enough to boot Snyder. It's bad but it's not "beyond the pale of human decency" bad. There need to be videos/audio/pictures, something to make it more than text in a paper vs text in a PR statement.

Until that time, unfortunately, the Redskins can likely ride it out without removing the cancer that is Snyder.

If it were the NBA I think it'd be enough. Look at the Clippers former owner Stirling or something. But the NFL has already set a precedent that the owners can do or say whatever they like with the Texans' owner's comments.

[Woz]

Just now, Danger said:

It's not so much painful (at least to me) that the people responsible were held accordingly accountable for their actions as a result of the report, but rather that the incident happened at all at my university, even if it occurred before I attended.

True, but it's required to do a full reckoning of the damage and working towards making sure it never happens again.

I had to remove a long and lengthy (and not allowed) post regarding my thoughts on this (and other scandals that are akin to it). All it would do is create way too many rule violations, both from me and from others following along.

I think we need to agree that on this point and then let this part of the conversation stop. Unfortunately.

[TXsteeler]

15 minutes ago, Danger said:

That's a good deal honestly.

And the NFL could easily come up with it themselves, but they probably won't and will probably end up paying a lot more to deal with all of the bad PR coming not only from this Redskins thing and all the future cheerleader stories to come out but also the domestic violence and other women related issues the NFL is facing.

But honestly what can be expected when so many of the owners are just guys who were born to rich people and then inherited their teams with nothing innately special about their business acumen.

[TXsteeler]

10 minutes ago, Woz said:

The cheerleader scandal as it stands today, while horrible, is not enough to boot Snyder. It's bad but it's not "beyond the pale of human decency" bad. There need to be videos/audio/pictures, something to make it more than text in a paper vs text in a PR statement.

Until that time, unfortunately, the Redskins can likely ride it out without removing the cancer that is Snyder.

This has worse optics than Jerry Richardson's situation imo and he was forced out, and he played football and founded the Panthers.

It's also a great time for the NFL to get a new owner to come in and rename the team.

They could wash away a lot of bad PR and bring in a lot of good PR if they handle it properly.

[RSkinGM]

Might come down to She said She said .. It is still "innocent until" isn't it.. ?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ex-washington-cheerleaders-dispute-allegations-of-costa-rica-trip/ar-AAwKjdP?li=BBnb7Kz

[TXsteeler]

1 minute ago, RSkinGM said:

Might come down to She said She said .. It is still "innocent until" isn't it.. ?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ex-washington-cheerleaders-dispute-allegations-of-costa-rica-trip/ar-AAwKjdP?li=BBnb7Kz

Quote

"They weren't putting a gun to our heads, but it was mandatory for us to go," one of the cheerleaders told the Times. "We weren't asked, we were told."

But Gill said they were instead free to do as they pleased.

"We always have the option to say no," she said. "We are never forced or told to do something we don't want to do."

Bishop said she didn’t see anything wrong with the cheerleaders’ roles at the team’s corportate events.

"In terms of being an escort, that was never a perception that I had,” she said. “I think that being friendly, and receptive and welcoming to sponsors is completely different than being an escort."

The anonymous cheerleaders said they were also forced to take off their tops or wear nothing but body paint for the cameras. The report added that while the adults-only resort was secluded, the team had invited male sponsors and FedExField suite holders for “up-close access to the photo shoots.”

Bishop, however, recalled a much different scene.

"The topless being forced, just simply not true,” she said. “All optional, voluntary. Some girls were excited to do those things."

So it's exactly what I thought. No denial from the team about what happened and no denial from the cheerleaders refuting the claims about what happened. It's 100% girls who were comfortable with what happened and didn't care or feel taken advantage of.

Their experiences and perceptions do not change the experiences and perceptions of other girls, nor do they alter reality.

There are 100s of women trying out for the team each year, does anybody think girls saying no all the time are getting invited back to the squad next year? Spoiler alert, they don't.

Between this and Bruce Allen's statement the team has unofficially "officially admitted" that everything that took place in that article was true, and just like I said before, best case scenario this is extremely inappropriate to ask of your employees.

[Danger]

8 minutes ago, TXsteeler said:

There are 100s of women trying out for the team each year, does anybody think girls saying no all the time are getting invited back to the squad next year? Spoiler alert, they don't.

Which is exactly why it's akin to the Sexual Harassment epidemic that's been coming to light over the past year or so. 

[PARROTHEAD]

This must be worse than I think. When we have even people that support the rape coddling  Steelers speaking against this from only hearsay propaganda from the Hugo Chavez media stylings of the NYT.

[e16bball]

Don’t see this as anything that puts Snyder in any real jeopardy. 

The difference between the Sterling/Richardson situations and this is that those were incidents where the owner himself was directly involved in some sort of wrongdoing and impropriety. You could point at those men and say “YOU DID THIS, you personally took these actions, and they bear directly on your personal character and decision-making and fitness to be a franchise owner representing this league.”

This is different. Unless people think Snyder was personally setting the itinerary/schedule for these women and planning boat parties and making all the photo shoot artistic choices — and there’s no evidence at this point, and there almost certainly never will be, that this was the case — then it’s more of a failure to properly manage his employees and to supervise their actions closely enough.

Which won’t be enough to hang him. Probably not even close. This is more analogous to Tom Benson and Bountygate than it is to Sterling/Richardson, because of the attenuation of the link between the owner and the actual inappropriate actions that took place. Unless someone shows that Snyder himself promised topless photo shoot voyeur access or organized a mandatory twerking contest, he’ll walk away from this largely unscathed. Just like Benson did. No owner is going to want to establish a precedent that an owner can be forced to sell because of the actions of his employees/subordinates — they’ll all be painfully aware that the same could happen to them one day. 

[bigdog44]

58 minutes ago, e16bball said:

Don’t see this as anything that puts Snyder in any real jeopardy. 

The difference between the Sterling/Richardson situations and this is that those were incidents where the owner himself was directly involved in some sort of wrongdoing and impropriety. You could point at those men and say “YOU DID THIS, you personally took these actions, and they bear directly on your personal character and decision-making and fitness to be a franchise owner representing this league.”

This is different. Unless people think Snyder was personally setting the itinerary/schedule for these women and planning boat parties and making all the photo shoot artistic choices — and there’s no evidence at this point, and there almost certainly never will be, that this was the case — then it’s more of a failure to properly manage his employees and to supervise their actions closely enough.

Which won’t be enough to hang him. Probably not even close. This is more analogous to Tom Benson and Bountygate than it is to Sterling/Richardson, because of the attenuation of the link between the owner and the actual inappropriate actions that took place. Unless someone shows that Snyder himself promised topless photo shoot voyeur access or organized a mandatory twerking contest, he’ll walk away from this largely unscathed. Just like Benson did. No owner is going to want to establish a precedent that an owner can be forced to sell because of the actions of his employees/subordinates — they’ll all be painfully aware that the same could happen to them one day. 

Well said

[Eric]

I think this is an overblown story. Cheerleaders on Today show said best years of their lives were with the skins and they were never forced to do anything. Sounds like a journalist trying to cause some trouble. Never be to quick to jump on the first thing you hear. Jumping on a bandwagon is to easy.

I know many fans don't like Snyder but this is a little over the top. Even referring this case to the Sterling one is ludacris. They aren't even in the same ballpark 

[turtle28]

1 minute ago, Eric said:

I think this is an overblown story. Cheerleaders on Today show said best years of their lives were with the skins and they were never forced to do anything. Sounds like a journalist trying to cause some trouble. Never be to quick to jump on the first thing you hear. Jumping on a bandwagon is to easy.

I know many fans don't like Snyder but this is a little over the top. Even referring this case to the Sterling one is ludacris. They aren't even in the same ballpark 

Well it seems they put the cheerleaders out to talk that didn’t have this happen to them. The ones from 5 years ago haven’t talked publicly that I know of.

So, those are two separate issues. Perhaps the front office found out about what happened after the fact and put an end to it so that it didn’t happen again. Perhaps not, but it would seem if other cheerleaders are saying they didn’t have that experience that it may have been something that happened in the past but it was stopped.

[Eric]

I just dont like how stories come to light from years ago. Especially at people's work. Small problems have a pretty good batting record to become big ones when they are no longer employed by the company.

Maybe there's merit to their story but I would have found it easier to believe if brought up a lot sooner than now.