• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

What the owner of the Washington DC NFL team should do.

I think he should disband the team immediately, and then say, "If you want the Redskins to come back someday, then maybe I'll consider it but I'm not playing this stupid outrage game". I think attitudes and outcry around the D.C. area with the name would change rapidly.

Only problem would be that he would still have to pay the players salaries to sit at home.
 
Whiteskins is probably not an option because of Elizabeth Warren. I can't really see her signing off on that.

The Washington Tontos sounds kinda cool, but when women and transgendered men start suing for roster spots, are they gonna be down with it? I can totally see the women that still identify as women being a bit outraged.
 
Will ticket scalpers still be roaming the parking lots?
 
Hoot said:
there is always a away out of a contract (and even if there is a cost, they may be willing to pay). I deal with them day in and day out - there is always a way out. but, whatever, you believe what you want because they don't need a material breech term triggered, just the press.
Click to expand...

they can probably demand their name be taken off but I can’t see them getting back the money. Nothing changed for the Redskins. The name and the controversy was there when FedEx signed the deal.

if they want to keep the name Redskins, Snyder should reach out to the largest Indian nations and offer them some sort of cut of merchandise sales, a scholarship program. Something. If they truly find the name offensive then they won’t take money and at then point then you change the name. If they do take the deal, then you have your certification that native Americans are generally OK with the name and now it is a charitable endeavor to help them as well.
 
tapeANaspirin2it said:
they can probably demand their name be taken off but I can’t see them getting back the money. Nothing changed for the Redskins. The name and the controversy was there when FedEx signed the deal.

if they want to keep the name Redskins, Snyder should reach out to the largest Indian nations and offer them some sort of cut of merchandise sales, a scholarship program. Something. If they truly find the name offensive then they won’t take money and at then point then you change the name. If they do take the deal, then you have your certification that native Americans are generally OK with the name and now it is a charitable endeavor to help them as well.
Click to expand...

They can, of course, pay whatever early term fee is provided for in the contract. However, early terminations don't normally include the remaining revenue due during the term. For example, lets say its a 10 year deal at 1M per year. In year 3 Fedex Early terms the deal for whatever reason. Fedex does not pay 7M which is the remaining term, but maybe just 1M in early term fees which would cover the cost of signage removal and web page updates and the like to remove FedEx name. So, yes, they can pay whatever early term fees and get out depending on the contract negotiated, but that doesn't mean there isn't a loss of revenue for the Redskins.

They can also advise they won't be renewing. And, i am quite sure the contract goes both ways - These companies do not sign away all rights - there are some termination clauses in the contract that will be enough to argue. But, and here is the big but, they can make a large enough stink and create enough pressure that Dan will just let them out of the contract with a minimum penalty. As with the contracts I deal with, if a client doesn't want to be with us, then we won't force them. that just creates a very bad relationship. I just need to recoup any costs incurred. But, the point remains, when the big money companies start pressuring like this, things tend to change.

As to Pepsi...they can absolutely add pressure whether it is local serving rights as mentioned above. However, you keep going to the contract...contracts don't cover everything under the sun. There may not be direct contracted revenue at stake, but if sufficient large companies start to 'boycot' or create sufficient pressure, it will impact the team. Now, let me ask this, if Pepsi didn't think they have some leverage, why would they have reached to Snyder and throw their 2 cents in?
 
I think there is room to keep team colors, logo at least the theme and change the name to like Warriors or Red Hawks.
 
Personally I am not offended by the term Redskins, after all it's just a word, 8 letters. I am curious just who is offended though, is it the Blackfeet tribe in Montana, or stupid white people that seem offended by everything?

The Blackfeet tribe has a population of less than 20,000, let them decide if they are offended or proud of the name. I'm OK either way, but everyone else just needs to **** off.
 
Hoot said:
They can, of course, pay whatever early term fee is provided for in the contract. However, early terminations don't normally include the remaining revenue due during the term. For example, lets say its a 10 year deal at 1M per year. In year 3 Fedex Early terms the deal for whatever reason. Fedex does not pay 7M which is the remaining term, but maybe just 1M in early term fees which would cover the cost of signage removal and web page updates and the like to remove FedEx name. So, yes, they can pay whatever early term fees and get out depending on the contract negotiated, but that doesn't mean there isn't a loss of revenue for the Redskins.

They can also advise they won't be renewing. And, i am quite sure the contract goes both ways - These companies do not sign away all rights - there are some termination clauses in the contract that will be enough to argue. But, and here is the big but, they can make a large enough stink and create enough pressure that Dan will just let them out of the contract with a minimum penalty. As with the contracts I deal with, if a client doesn't want to be with us, then we won't force them. that just creates a very bad relationship. I just need to recoup any costs incurred. But, the point remains, when the big money companies start pressuring like this, things tend to change.

As to Pepsi...they can absolutely add pressure whether it is local serving rights as mentioned above. However, you keep going to the contract...contracts don't cover everything under the sun. There may not be direct contracted revenue at stake, but if sufficient large companies start to 'boycot' or create sufficient pressure, it will impact the team. Now, let me ask this, if Pepsi didn't think they have some leverage, why would they have reached to Snyder and throw their 2 cents in?
Click to expand...

of course pressure can be applied but FedEx can’t just stop paying. There would have to be some payment as you said. And FedEx may not even truly want out of the deal. In this climate, they have to say that publicly. Virtue Signaling is now the top form of advertising. It’s been that way for a few years. Damn near every commercial is a product telling us how they started off as a small family company and they give so much to charity, etc.

There has been this pressure vs the redskins for years. It comes back up every few years. The only thing that has changed is that now you have people in charge caving in to perceived public pressure.
 
tapeANaspirin2it said:
they can probably demand their name be taken off but I can’t see them getting back the money. Nothing changed for the Redskins. The name and the controversy was there when FedEx signed the deal.

if they want to keep the name Redskins, Snyder should reach out to the largest Indian nations and offer them some sort of cut of merchandise sales, a scholarship program. Something. If they truly find the name offensive then they won’t take money and at then point then you change the name. If they do take the deal, then you have your certification that native Americans are generally OK with the name and now it is a charitable endeavor to help them as well.
Click to expand...



EXCELLENT idea and it takes the BLM type agitators out of the equation. Win Win




Salute the nation
 
I like Red Tails. I think they can keep the colors and just change the logo, right?

They have been talking about changing the name for years. I think the Indians are next.
 
I heard they might go after the Chiefs as well. This has nothing to do with finding names offensive. It’s a power grab. In the SJW world, you are not judged on helping people. You are judged on people and things you’ve destroyed.
 
Change it or not. I don't care. I DO care that the choice is the choice of ownership only, and not the pressures of a bunch of whiny PC Pukes. Call the team the Washington ******* or Illegal Aliens for all I care. Just let an owner or ownership team make their own decisions, and everyone lives peacefully with the owner's decision, because it is his (or their) choice alone.
 
I don't know why you can't be pro BLM and fine with the Redskins name at the same time. It just takes listening to the people for what their problems are. In this instance, the Native Americans I know have little problem with the name. I'd be fine with just having all Native American tribes vote on it to see if they have a problem with the name, but to this point there just hasn't seemed to have been a majority outcry from Native Americans. I do understand that connotations for words change over time, so as we move forward more and more people may have a problem with it.

I'm fine if they keep it, but I understand when sponsors start taking their money out, you will make a change, because the perception is bad for business. Honestly, the Redskins could use a rebrand. They've been hot garbage for decades now, to the point they are losing lifelong fans. A rebrand can help galvanize the Football fan base of DC that showed up in droves to the XFL Defenders games.

Someone asked above, PepsiCo only makes money off of sales. Nothing else is tied into the contract, other than marketing and promotion rights and territories. Had a good friend in Pepsi that was in on the contracts for the Eagles, Ravens, and Jets/Giants.
 
Last edited:
One of the oldest high schools in our city was originally called Redmen. But the same as like Orangemen. Somewhere along the way the mascot became a chief and the area was highly populated by First Nation's people. About 4 years ago they became the Redhawks. Colors etc all stayed the same. It's not like team names don't change when teams move. The mascot part, the imagery all of that to me is fine. But it is kinda hard to say that the name isn't offensive. Maybe not to everyone. But to a lot of people.
 
tapeANaspirin2it said:
I heard they might go after the Chiefs as well. This has nothing to do with finding names offensive. It’s a power grab. In the SJW world, you are not judged on helping people. You are judged on people and things you’ve destroyed.
Click to expand...

How does the Washington Synder's sound? I hear three of the Washington's minority owners want to sell.
 
To me it's about the intent and connotation. Chiefs for example convey power and strength. Indians and like the Edmonton Eskimos are old terms not found overly acceptable by the people themselves. Redskins is really over the top.
 
After almost some consideration to the entire thread..okay, no real consideration at all...i just want to make a list of the NFL team names that offend me (and y'all know how I feel about lists, right? so this is kinda epic).

4. Bengals
3. Browns
2. Ravens
1. Patriots

I'll show myself out.
 
Washington Warriors

Washington Renegades

Change the logo


Could go with Washington Red Tape. Logo would be a roll of red electrical tape or red duct tape
 
Last edited:
just go with generals or Warriors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top