'WFT' for another season? WTF!!!

[Boone]

Redirect Notice

Even the US Patent Office recognizes how dumb ‘Washington Football Team’ is

 

[Win4us]

The team should have weighed all this stuff out before hauling off and cancelling out Redskins.

 

[MikefromOH]

The whole thing is dumb.

Red wolves is no better.

 

[Boone]

I completely expect something that is truly dumb. It's what happens when you overthink things.

 

[Neophyte]

DCFC for the win.

 

[Primus Porcus]

monumental sports network

www.nbcsports.com

So not really 'breaking' news regarding the colors but it's the first actual report of a timeline.

The new name and logo will be revealed in early 2022, Wright said, and will retain the traditional burgundy and gold colors that are entrenched in the team’s history.

and a minor stadium update

Additionally, Wright expects to move into a new stadium once Washington's FedExField lease expires in five years, Jhabvala reported. Wright said the vision for the new stadium is to be a year-round entertainment venue for concerts and events.

 

[Win4us]

If they’ve settled on a name why not just reveal it now? I hope it’s not something stupid, like changing the name in the 1st place level stupid.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

If they’ve settled on a name why not just reveal it now? I hope it’s not something stupid, like changing the name in the 1st place level stupid.

Call me skeptical, but it's guaranteed to be stupid. I'm just hoping it's not "embarrassed to be a fan" stupid.

 

[DieselPwr44]

From an official "Fan Ambassador" Keith...



and then....





As Ive said all along, they will find a way to totally eradicate anything Redskins from their past to where it will never again be acknowledged by the team or League.
Whitewashing history? You bet.....

 

[Primus Porcus]

I dont know if I agree with that, because those 3 Lombardis are still standing, in fact there were massive inflated replicas at an event not that long ago.

We have to remember that it's still a business. The name is no longer the name, so why would they be parading around in front of media and around the facility still representing it? When the Browns moved to Baltimore, were they still wearing Browns gear? Anybody who is officially representing the team (like a team chosen fan ambassador) is going to be expected to represent the current name / logo / brand. Why would we ever believe otherwise? Did we think they were gonna change the name of the team but not want to move forward with it in all aspects like merchandise? They're going to be painting over everything Redskins to make way for the new name. Whether we agree with the name change or not, I feel like getting mad at a business for wanting to support and promote it's new brand inside the building is setting yourself up for inevitable frustration. The team made the decision to move on from the name because of it's racial connection. We as Redskins fans don't agree with it, and I'm yet to meet a Native American that feels it's an issue, but we're here. When you change a name because of a polarizing and damaging reason like race, you have to start a new... it is what it is. It's a very slippery business slope to not take it on fully. Sponsors can still get pissed off if the microphone has a Pepsi logo and the guy getting interviewed is wearing something they threatened to pull their funding from 12 months ago, and that's amplified if it's a member of the team or front office.


I've said all along, the best thing the team can do is move on completely from everything regarding the name / logo, but support (and silently endorse) fans continuing to wear everything Redskins. When they interview a member of the team or a team appointed Fan Ambassador, then they have new schwag, but every time they're out in public and interviewing fans, take no 'precautions' regarding what's being worn.

 

[Primus Porcus]

It would appear 'Warriors' is not an option

(from another thread)

July 12 - Moving Forward

President's Brief: Moving Forward

We are proudly forging ahead in this journey with a promise to our community -- a promise to continue to be inclusive in our process and collaborative with our fans.

www.washingtonfootball.com

Apparently Warriors is off the table, if I was a betting man that would have been where i put my money.

 

[SkinsOrlando]

30th anniversary of the 91 championship team, I'd wager we'll see some old familiar faces this year even if they're not in "Redskins" attire. How they handle that will be interesting, then again maybe they won't even acknowledge that monstrous glorious team (that the media doesn't seem to respect) imo if the team goes that route and our determined to do nothing in celebration it'd piss some people off even more than they already are.

 

[Boone]

I agree with 99% of that ST. Fans have no choice (if they desire to continue to be fans) but to accept reality that the name ‘Redskins’ is gone forever.

I do think you are skirting the main objection voiced in the tweets though. There’s a difference between never using the name again and trying to undo it. Gibbs was HC and won Super Bowls for the Washington Redskins. That shouldn’t be characterized in any other way. An example I would give is changing the team name associated with our former players at the Pro Football HOF. That can’t happen and it would be a slap in the face to those players and fans if it did.

I don’t know what ‘Keith’ is referring to - and honestly I wouldn’t trust half of what he says regardless. I think Wright is smart enough to try and balance not erasing history with a clean break and new ‘brand’ going forward. I suspect most of this is just a little bit of fan hysteria.

 

[Boone]

I will say this. The teams gutless concern that ‘Warriors’ might evoke Native American associations is pathetic. I don’t care if they name the team ‘Warriors’ or not, but to be afraid of it because someone might claim it’s about NA culture is beyond chicken-shit. What are we saying - that native Americans are war-loving? No one thinks Native American when ‘’Warriors’ is used any more than they think ‘racial slur’ when Redskins was used. Gutless.

I guess I should be happy that the reason they ruled it out isn’t due to the fact that the military is full of violent sociopaths who lust to kill and commit war crimes, since the same people who find ‘Warriors’ offensive likely hold that view too.

 

[Primus Porcus]

I agree with 99% of that ST. Fans have no choice (if they desire to continue to be fans) but to accept reality that the name ‘Redskins’ is gone forever.

I do think you are skirting the main objection voiced in the tweets though. There’s a difference between never using the name again and trying to undo it. Gibbs was HC and won Super Bowls for the Washington Redskins. That shouldn’t be characterized in any other way. An example I would give is changing the team name associated with our former players at the Pro Football HOF. That can’t happen and it would be a slap in the face to those players and fans if it did.

I don’t know what ‘Keith’ is referring to - and honestly I wouldn’t trust half of what he says regardless. I think Wright is smart enough to try and balance not erasing history with a clean break and new ‘brand’ going forward. I suspect most of this is just a little bit of fan hysteria.

I guess my point was simply that the team is going to be moving on from the logo, therefor it's going to be removed from anything directly affiliated with the team. Keeping it up next to Joe Gibbs' name 'could' open the door to more sponsorship issues (which is what got us here in the first place). It's an unfortunate situation. I'm not saying it's the 'right' thing, just that it's inevitable. If it pisses you off as a fan, it goes down as 'scrubbing history.' If you're spinning it, it goes down as 'moving forward with a rebrand.'

I guess I've just become resigned to the fact that in 3 - 5 years we will see very little remnants of the Native American head logo, or team name when we're talking about 'official' team business.

 

[Boone]

Again - context matters. I have no idea what ‘putting it beside Joe Gibbs name’ means? I think until we see how the team navigates the transition, there’s no real way to argue whether they are being over or under reactive. I’m certainly not looking to fan ‘ambassadors’ for legit info

 

[Primus Porcus]

Again - context matters. I have no idea what ‘putting it beside Joe Gibbs name’ means? I think until we see how the team navigates the transition, there’s no real way to argue whether they are being over or under reactive. I’m certainly not looking to fan ‘ambassadors’ for legit info

When I say it, I'm referencing this:

Its very likely the Redskins logo is removed from this sign.


and I agree completely regarding where I get my info.

 

[Boone]

I agree with you Derek in terms of current signage, logos, etc... on the grounds of the business. I could see an argument both ways when it comes to your example - since a 'Ring of Fame' is honoring history and has nothing to do with the current team/name/logos. The easy fix is just to remove the logo completely from the placards - we all know what franchise these players played for But again - this leadership seems compelled to make easy decisions hard ones.

I think there's a difference between what the org chooses to do on it's own property vs. how the league itself handles things. I would hope that the NFL would not go so far as to strip all reference to a team name and history millions have cheered for from it's HOF, media offerings, etc... That's a bridge too far imho.

But I will reserve the right to throw my fit when those kinds of things actually happen. I don't personally think it will go that far - because 99% of society realizes the name change is about political correctness and cancel culture, not about any significant portion of the world's populace actually finding 'Redskins' offensive

 

[Boone]

On the name change, I wish they would just go with 'Wolves' at this point. There are a ton of cool things you could do logo-wise, they are a fierce aggressive animal, it's alliterative, and no one could possibly be offended by it.

The whole 'it has to be connected to the DC area' thing is going to lead us to something really goofy I fear.

In my opinion, keeping the original colors minimally checks the 'ties to the past' box - we will still be 'the Burgundy and Gold'. And let's be honest here. Once you take 'Warriors' off the table, what is there that is representative of the DC/MD/VA area that has any appeal whatsoever?

We gonna be the Blue Crabs?

 

[Primus Porcus]

I agree with you Derek in terms of current signage, logos, etc... on the grounds of the business. I could see an argument both ways when it comes to your example - since a 'Ring of Fame' is honoring history and has nothing to do with the current team/name/logos. The easy fix is just to remove the logo completely from the placards - we all know what franchise these players played for But again - this leadership seems compelled to make easy decisions hard ones.

I think there's a difference between what the org chooses to do on it's own property vs. how the league itself handles things. I would hope that the NFL would not go so far as to strip all reference to a team name and history millions have cheered for from it's HOF, media offerings, etc... That's a bridge too far imho.

But I will reserve the right to throw my fit when those kinds of things actually happen. I don't personally think it will go that far - because 99% of society realizes the name change is about political correctness and cancel culture, not about any significant portion of the world's populace actually finding 'Redskins' offensive

I'm about 90% sure that this was the type of thing referenced by this fan ambassador, among others, that believe the history is being removed from the franchise. My point with the whole thing was that the name change was done by a business because of negative pressure. Just because we think it was a poor choice to change, or disagree with the premise of the change, doesn't mitigate the fact that the change happened at the hands of potential sponsorship and financial loss. That forces the business to remove itself from any 'offensive' aspect of the previous brand.

It's also bad business to launch a new brand and not fully support and display it. Asking fan ambassadors to not wear Redskins gear (on an official visit to the facility) when the name is no longer Redskins is no different than me wearing and Olympus shirt when i'm working the counter at a NAPA. Yes we're the same company but the branding is different. I also don't wear a NAPA shirt when i'm working in my Olympus stores. I literally keep an extra of each shirt in my company car at all times.