The Snyder Strikes Back

[Henry]

Henry, I actually like snyder but I lold at a picture of him as a devil in my head.

Honestly the stiff he does strikes me more as a klid not really knowing what to do or how to do it, rather than being a bad person. but not everyone feels that way I guess.

I got ya. I'm not saying Snyder doesn't deserve much if not most (or all) of the criticism leveled his way. I'm just explaining, as a Jew , that his complaint that the picture comes across as anti-Semitic isn't coming out of left field. There is some historical validity to it.

Frankly I can't imagine the City Paper EVER doing something like, say, portray Oprah Winfrey as a big ape-woman. Could you imagine the ****-storm Winfrey would kick up? Do you think anyone would blame her? That the same thought not to avoid similarly offensive image of a prominent Jewish man never crossed their mind is a bit troubling to me.

 

[McD5]

The fact that he is complaining about that picture, when we have all seen it used on hundreds of other non-jews(Obama for starters), absolutely boggles the mind imho.

I'm not saying it is or is not offensive. My shock comes from the fact that he would take offense to that, and at the same time, try to defend the Redskins name as not offensive to another group of the population--albeit maybe a very small group.

He can't have it both ways.

His stupidity truly knows no bounds. Not only does the Redskins circus continue, but I believe he weakens his position on keeping the Redskins name now.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

I didnt know you were jewish Henry lol that would explain a lot though. Some of my friends get angry at me because I have become rather pro Israel since university.

and yeah I cant imagine the uproar about Oprah being monkified. I guess I just never really thought of jews being stereotyped as having horns, I did laugh at Borat when they stay at the Jewish bed and breakfast lol.

 

[fansince62]

can we get back to football?

 

[Lump Beefrock]

Hey Henry, one could take anything out of context and then have it historically validated. There are news, radio, and television personalities that have made MILLIONS doing just that. If the picture had Snyder's face aimlessly scribbled out, could Snyder sue for displaying him in blackface? Sure he could, once it's taken out of context.

Snyder's jump to litigation is the same tactic used by a certain church (associated with a sci-fi novelist). They do the same thing every time there is the slightest cross word said against them. I see it as a tantrum. If a new leaf has been turned, then Mr. Snyder would be able to turn the other cheek. He would be able to handle his critisism with a bit of dignity. But no, I fear we will see much of the same from him. I won't buy into "the transformation" until I see the results. The author could put this on the list too.

The success of this franchise, at present, is a joke. The former successes of this franchise, at present, is a marketing tool. Why would I keep buying the same brand of toaster once it's burned my house down?! I certainly wouldn't do it because it USED to work great. The only difference in my analogy is that, in this instance, I won't switch brands... I just won't own a toaster.

Its only a matter of time before I stop watching the NFL in general. One can question my "fandom" or loyalty to B&G, but I know who I am and I am cool with it.

EDIT: The last bit is to demonstrate my frustration with the ownership. There are a ton of things on that list that I remember happening. Suing fans, price gouging, and other questionable business practices will not be addressed in the lawsuit.

 

[Yusuf06]

I understand and to a point agree with Om and others that have pointed out that Snyder appears to be on sound legal footing with pursuing litigation. So I don't have a problem with whether he has a basis for doing it. Rather, I have a problem with what it says about his judgement. After all, just because one can pursue a course of action doesn't always mean one should do so. Knowing the difference is what separates the wise man from the fool...and the putz.

IMHO, the difference here is the source of the libel. If the Post, Times or any outlet with more than 12 readers had done this then OK, he needs to clear his name. That this came from a second-rate writer bearing a grudge writing for a giveaway paper says just let it go in this case...but the Danny just can't do it.

Looks like Snyder has deluded himself yet again. Sadly for us fans it seems he's always taking one step forward and two steps back in this department.

 

[Henry]

Hey Henry, one could take anything out of context and then have it historically validated. There are news, radio, and television personalities that have made MILLIONS doing just that. If the picture had Snyder's face aimlessly scribbled out, could Snyder sue for displaying him in blackface? Sure he could, once it's taken out of context.

Snyder's face is aimlessly scribbled out in one of those pictures.

My point is not that Snyder has much of a case, but that he's not just making something up out of thin air.

Snyder's jump to litigation is the same tactic used by a certain church (associated with a sci-fi novelist). They do the same thing every time there is the slightest cross word said against them. I see it as a tantrum. If a new leaf has been turned, then Mr. Snyder would be able to turn the other cheek. He would be able to handle his critisism with a bit of dignity. But no, I fear we will see much of the same from him. I won't buy into "the transformation" until I see the results. The author could put this on the list too.

The success of this franchise, at present, is a joke. The former successes of this franchise, at present, is a marketing tool. Why would I keep buying the same brand of toaster once it's burned my house down?! I certainly wouldn't do it because it USED to work great. The only difference in my analogy is that, in this instance, I won't switch brands... I just won't own a toaster.

Its only a matter of time before I stop watching the NFL in general. One can question my "fandom" or loyalty to B&G, but I know who I am and I am cool with it.

EDIT: The last bit is to demonstrate my frustration with the ownership. There are a ton of things on that list that I remember happening. Suing fans, price gouging, and other questionable business practices will not be addressed in the lawsuit.

Heh. I don't disagree with a word of this.

Hell, I've been one of the biggest pessimists on this board since it was created. I'm not defending Snyder so much as noting that putting horns on the picture of a Jew means something different than putting 'em on a picture of your teacher or some random politician. It's something to think about before you do it. That's all.

The only reason I'm not in full bash-Snyder mode right now is I happen to dislike McKenna a lot. Watching these two have at it is like watching the Giants and Eagles play. You kinda have to root for a tie.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

LMao, I dont dislike Dan as much as some, probably because as a hockey fan ive seen what haveing a cheap sob can do to your team, they trade the greatest player of all time for money a couple crappy players and no draft picks, and then after becoming accustomed to winning all the time , you see 2 decades of mediocrity. we have an owner who spends money like crazy so, oh wait. bah I hate football.

 

[Lump Beefrock]

I see, Henry. I thought you were saying he was justified through historical precedent. My point should have been stated clearly that those instances were not setting historical a precedent. Those past instances were blatantly and purposely anti-Semitic. This, undeniably, had zero Semitic connotations. Snyder knows it.

I'm not that familiar with McKenna, entirely. I just know that to claim antisemitism in an instant such as this is just weak and juvenile. Snyder is just making the Washington Redskins seem like a joke... yet again.

If he can't recognize and deal with the fact that his past actions are that of a jackass, how can he expect fans to believe he has turned a new leaf?

From City Paper:

The story didn't mention Snyder's religion at all. And the illustration is meant to resemble the type of scribbling that teenagers everywhere have been using to deface photos for years. The image of Snyder doesn't look like an "anti-Semitic caricature"—it looks like a devil.

But we at City Paper take accusations of anti-Semitism seriously—in part because many of us are Jewish, including staffers who edited the story and designed the cover. So let us know, Mr. Snyder, when you want to fight the real anti-Semites. Link

 

[Boone]

The fact that Snyder may have worked hard to earn the kind of vitriole thrown his way in the City Paper over the years, doesn't change the fact that Dave McKenna is an irresponsible hack who has zero problem fabricating reality and assassinating the character of anyone he likes, facts be damned.

As Om mentioned, I've gone at it with McKenna as well because he was spewing lies and nonsense about the guys covering the Redskins for ES - when I WAS a primary guy covering the Redskins for ES (and thus knew almost everything he spewed was a lie). Sad thing was, McKenna likely knew they were lies too - he just didnt care.

I think the other thing that may explain the departure from Snyder's prior level of restraint is that scumbag McKenna went after his wife in his latest epic. You tell me - any of you who have one, if you'd tolerate an outright attack on someone you love?

I don't think you would. And I don't fault Snyder for the impulse. I think he's justified in filing the suit. I still don't like him as an owner. But I don't really view this whole drama as having much to do with that.

 

[Lump Beefrock]

I hear ya Boone. My problem is less with McKenna's apparent BS and more with Snyder's BS. I don't seriously consider the fraud charges, because they don't have anything to do with the Redskins. I don't like how McKenna misrepresented Mrs. Snyder's purpose and setting in answering that question. It's some hack writer writing some hack article. That being said, I refuse to accept that Snyder's reaction is justified. I just refuse.

 

[Destino]

It will be interesting to see just how much of a case Dan Snyder has because what looked strong at filing is looking weaker by the minute.

1 - His wife's interview that was supposedly all about charity, wasn't. Watch it yourself. She spends as much time discussing Dan Snyder as she does charity.

2 - Has anyone been able to figure out just what the hell David Donovan and Tony Wyllie were thinking calling into Lavar and Dukes? Here is part of what they said:

"It's in the beginning of it, where the writer basically demeans her role as a national spokesman for the NFL for breast cancer awareness and characterizes her as a spokesperson for the transformation of Dan's public image," Donovan said. "She's a breast cancer survivor, and she's gone on television, she's gone on radio, she's done press conferences, and she talks about breast cancer awareness and that's all she talks about. And during one interview four or five months ago, somebody asked her [for] a comment about Dan and she gave a one-sentence answer, and the columnist turns that into a comment that she's basically a spokesman for the transformation of her husband's public image, which is really quite demeaning to a very public and personal role she's had in the media to raise breast-cancer awareness."

If you watched the video above you'll note Tanya Snyder didn't say a word about breast cancer awareness. She talked about child obesity and her involvement in that with the NFL along with her commercials and a bunch about Dan Snyder. Not sure what the hell they are talking about but if any of you know clue me in please do. You'd think the COO and PR man would be smarter than this.

3 - Forging stuff. The way McKenna phrased it is suspect. It reads like Snyder was himself a telemarketer (lol) and that he was forging signatures for long distance. This is obviously ridiculous and bad writing on the part of McKenna. What he appears to mean is that Snyder's company did this. A response from the skins appears on HogsHaven from David Donovan:

I spoke with Redskins COO David Donovan about this lawsuit and he informed me that the settlement was in 2001, yet Snyder had sold the company 14 months earlier. In fact, Snyder had put Snyder Communications up for sale in 1999 to focus on the Redskins, so to say that he had any take in this is a pretty big leap. Perhaps it would have been better for Dave McKenna to say "It was Snyder Communications that got caught forging?"

I found it odd that he didn't say "no wrong doing occurred while Snyder owned the company" as clearly his statement sought to distance Snyder from this accusation. After all it doesn't matter when the thing was settled as much as at what point did the wrong doing occur.

This appeared on twitter from Hog Haven today:

# Just got off the phone w/ the FL lawyer that filed the 2001 settlement w/ Snyder Communications. This thing will not end. Will post shortly. about 3 hours ago via web

# Oh, and it's bad news for Snyder. about 3 hours ago via web

We'll find out tomorrow what that means as he is waiting for a response from the Redskins to what he's learned.

At this point it just seems like Snyder's side in this is weakening by the hour.

 

[romberjo]

1) It's not actually unlawful to be anti-semitic (something I don't think anyone has pointed out). That said, I agree with Henry that the City Paper should have recognized that one should not portray a Jewish person with horns, given the long history of such anti-semitic depictions.

2) The assertion that "Snyder forged documents..." does strike me as a potentially actionable factual assertion made w/ the malice required for liability against a public figure. When I read it, I thought the assertion was that he did it personally.

3) Also seemingly potentially problematic are factual assertions about Snyder's actions w/ the trees on his properties, and being fired from the Six Flags board (though I don't have enough information to have an informed opinion about the truth content).

4) The assertions against Snyder's wife are tasteless, and seem to be at the core of what's actually upsetting Snyder, but don't seem to be actionable (e.g., they seem at most offensive opinion).

5) I tend to agree it wasn't wise for him, as a PR move, to do this without going further out of his way to make a specific demand for a retraction from the City Paper. His expressly promising to give any proceeds to charities helping the homeless helps, though.

6) I, too, remember McKenna's irresponsible accusations against Om and other then-mods, and his seeming unwillingness to be constrained by an honest assessment of the facts.

 

[Henry]

5) I tend to agree it wasn't wise for him, as a PR move, to do this without going further out of his way to make a specific demand for a retraction from the City Paper. His expressly promising to give any proceeds to charities helping the homeless helps, though.

I present to you, Exhibit D.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fb...cumentId=tirVQewp3Ws1eN6FGDX3Pg==&system=prod

According to the summons, Snyder (or one of his minions) also called the paper.

 

[Neophyte]

can we get back to football?

At Redskin Park? Are you serious?

 

[Goaldeje]

Wow. A cursory glance through twitter and the blogs show Snyder is getting CA-RUSHED right now. Snyder is not well loved I guess. This whole story just serves to reinforce people's opinions of him.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Sarge]

That said, I agree with Henry that the City Paper should have recognized that one should not portray a Jewish person with horns, given the long history of such anti-semitic depictions.

I guess this means I can't have this picture as an avatar?

 

[Sarge]

Wow. A cursory glance through twitter and the blogs show Snyder is getting CA-RUSHED right now. Snyder is not well loved I guess. This whole story just serves to reinforce people's opinions of him.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

As long as the danny is the owner, we're doomed. Too much bad karma coming this way. I wish he'd just cut bait, take the millions he's made in beer and jerseys and go.................

I don't care where, as long as it's away from the Skins

 

[Ax]

Wow. A cursory glance through twitter and the blogs show Snyder is getting CA-RUSHED right now. Snyder is not well loved I guess. This whole story just serves to reinforce people's opinions of him.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Bloggers and twits huh?

 

[McD5]

There really isn't much separating Dan from Bernie Madoff.

--Both screwed a lot of people, out of a lot of money. Bernie did it to relatively wealthier people. Dan, or his employees, if you believe he didn't know what was going on, did it to thousands of regular people, via phone-slamming.

--Both were huge frauds.

There isn't a person on earth that would root for a Bernie Madoff owned team. Yet, for some reason, people continue to go to games, and give Dan their money. It's crazy when you think about it.

And the only reason it's acceptable? Because he owns the Skins. Well, not really. This team has nothing in common with the Redskins of past glory. There isn't a player or coach on the current team that had anything to do with our last Superbowl. This team is the Snyders, not the Redskins.

How much longer will it take before people stop buying tickets, stop going to games, stop giving this fraud their money, and run him out of town?