Irsay says merit to remove Snyder

[open window]

On 10/19/2022 at 4:02 AM, cdgacoltsfan said:

Irsay has a few skeletons in his closet past as well. Substance abuse was one of them.

So what are you saying? 

[Happy2BeHere]

On 10/19/2022 at 10:52 AM, Nickster said:

It's a skeleton.  It's just not in his closet. 

Yea because it’s Halloween time so he put it out in his front yard.  

[gspdx]

On 10/19/2022 at 9:46 AM, DougDew said:

Yep, its all a matter of choice.   And our opinion.  Like most fans, I'm certainly not going to be so personal-conduct judgmental as to actually not watch football because the NFL chose to either keep or kick out Snyder.

 

I won't make a decision about my interest in a team based upon what the NFL policy does or doesn't do...but I might lose interest if my owner shoots off his mouth in an elitist judgmental sort of way....on the heels of sort of doing the same thing with his QB last year.  That's a real turn off that I can see for myself...not some investigator telling me my owner "created an atmosphere within the organization"   whatever that is. 

 

How exactly do you cater a football product "more to women" if you don't assume that they all think alike  (introduce more pink into the clothes?)  The idea of not staying gender or racially neutral by trying to make your product more attractive to specific demographics inherently assumes that members of that demographic all think alike.   Interesting how people just publicly accept that inherent sexism in marketing or product development.  In private, they probably say WTH...and quietly question the mentality of companies like the NFL who appear to pander in a way that's based upon its own biases.

 

 

You can be turned off by Irsay - again, your choice.

 

As far as marketing the product to women - have you looked at the NFL gear that get's sold?  They specifically have women's clothing - cut to fit women.  There is nothing sexist about that.  Just feels like you are trying to find an axe to grind.

 

By the way, here is an ESPN article from 2012.  This isn't me saying this.  https://www.espn.com/espnw/news-commentary/story/_/id/7536295/nfl-finding-success-targeting-women-fans-merchandise-fashion  There are plenty more to check out that are more recent.  I just included this one to show this isn't a new movement in the NFL.

 

So do you think they haven't spent a bunch of money on market analysis on what women prefer?  Like most good businesses if they are trying to expand in a certain market they try to find out what appeals to that market.  If you look at the photo on the top of this article there is a female wearing a jersey where the numbers are kind of pinky!  Do all women like pink? No - but some do!  No person is forced to purchase gender specific NFL merchandise.  But having a wider variety of options available only makes sense from a marketing and product reach perspective.  And how do you know the NFL is pandering in a way that's based upon its own biases?  

 

Seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

I am done with this.

[gspdx]

On 10/19/2022 at 10:30 AM, indyagent17 said:

Wow, the court of public opinion doesn't care about facts, they just want to tar and feather anyone they don't like. If all of this is true then he should be arrested but if this is all hyperbole. We all deserve to be considered innocent until proven guilty.  

 

There is some truth to that. But the court of public opinion will not impact Snyder's ability to keep his team or not.  So it really isn't an issue for him.  The NFL, and possibly the legal system if there is a court battle, will determine that.

 

Also - people form opinions based on limited information all of the time.  We all do.  

 

But we all have opinions anyway and we all have a right to express those opinions, don't we?  I would assume Irsay has seen a good amount if info about what is going on and if he says there might be merit to remove Snyder then he has a right to say that.

[GoColts8818]

3 minutes ago, gspdx said:

 

There is some truth to that. But the court of public opinion will not impact Snyder's ability to keep his team or not.  So it really isn't an issue for him.  The NFL, and possibly the legal system if there is a court battle, will determine that.

 

Also - people form opinions based on limited information all of the time.  We all do.  

 

But we all have opinions anyway and we all have a right to express those opinions, don't we?  I would assume Irsay has seen a good amount if info about what is going on and if he says there might be merit to remove Snyder then he has a right to say that.

I agree with 99.9% of this and it’s really well written.  The only thing I’ll say is that the court of public opinion can sway what the other owners do if the impact is negative enough.  I am not saying it will be but if there is enough public pressure on the owners to oust him then it will be an issue for him.

[gspdx]

8 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

I agree with 99.9% of this and it’s really well written.  The only thing I’ll say is that the court of public opinion can sway what the other owners do if the impact is negative enough.  I am not saying it will be but if there is enough public pressure on the owners to oust him then it will be an issue for him.

True - it could happen. 

[DougDew]

6 hours ago, gspdx said:

 

You can be turned off by Irsay - again, your choice.

 

As far as marketing the product to women - have you looked at the NFL gear that get's sold?  They specifically have women's clothing - cut to fit women.  There is nothing sexist about that.  Just feels like you are trying to find an axe to grind.

 

By the way, here is an ESPN article from 2012.  This isn't me saying this.  https://www.espn.com/espnw/news-commentary/story/_/id/7536295/nfl-finding-success-targeting-women-fans-merchandise-fashion  There are plenty more to check out that are more recent.  I just included this one to show this isn't a new movement in the NFL.

 

So do you think they haven't spent a bunch of money on market analysis on what women prefer?  Like most good businesses if they are trying to expand in a certain market they try to find out what appeals to that market.  If you look at the photo on the top of this article there is a female wearing a jersey where the numbers are kind of pinky!  Do all women like pink? No - but some do!  No person is forced to purchase gender specific NFL merchandise.  But having a wider variety of options available only makes sense from a marketing and product reach perspective.  And how do you know the NFL is pandering in a way that's based upon its own biases?  

 

Seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

I am done with this.

You sound like truth has made you angry. 

 

There is more to marketing to women than clothes (that was just an example)...and there is more to marketing women's clothes than cut and fit.

 

You first have to assume you know what they like.....and there's the rub.

 

It was just an example.  I don't know what exploring this this has to do with the topic.

 

If the owners want want to dump Snyder because they don't like him and they think he is a big meanie, they might do that.  But the people will know that's why if Snyder didn't really break any laws.   In the court of public opinion, the NFL will lose respect if they throw out Snyder for less than legal cause.  

 

But people will still watch football despite respecting the NFL less for throwing out Snyder for less than cause...because they really don't care much about social issues when they decide to watch football.

[jvan1973]

6 minutes ago, DougDew said:

You sound like truth has made you angry. 

 

There is more to marketing to women than clothes (that was just an example)...and there is more to marketing women's clothes than cut and fit.

 

You first have to assume you know what they like.....and there's the rub.

 

It was just an example.  I don't know what exploring this this has to do with the topic.

 

If the owners want want to dump Snyder because they don't like him and they think he is a big meanie, they might do that.  But the people will know that's why if Snyder didn't really break any laws.   In the court of public opinion, the NFL will lose respect if they throw out Snyder for less than legal cause.  

 

But people will still watch football despite respecting the NFL less for throwing out Snyder for less than cause...because they really don't care much about social issues when they decide to watch football.

Sexual harassment isn't "being a big meanie".  Good lord

[2006Coltsbestever]

10 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Sexual harassment isn't "being a big meanie".  Good lord

He doesn't get it but it doesn't surprise me.

[EastStreet]

6 hours ago, gspdx said:

 

There is some truth to that. But the court of public opinion will not impact Snyder's ability to keep his team or not.  So it really isn't an issue for him.  The NFL, and possibly the legal system if there is a court battle, will determine that.

 

Also - people form opinions based on limited information all of the time.  We all do.  

 

But we all have opinions anyway and we all have a right to express those opinions, don't we?  I would assume Irsay has seen a good amount if info about what is going on and if he says there might be merit to remove Snyder then he has a right to say that.

 

I'm sure owners "hear" stuff, more than the public. But doubt the owners are passing around confidential info or have access to unfinished investigational info. But we know Irsay likes attention. And Goodell said himself that this does not help. 

 

And given the all scandals we've seen over the years, why are the owners typically silent... it's hypocrisy. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

I'm sure owners "hear" stuff, more than the public. But doubt the owners are passing around confidential info or have access to unfinished investigational info. But we know Irsay likes attention. And Goodell said himself that this does not help. 

 

And given the all scandals we've seen over the years, why are the owners typically silent... it's hypocrisy. 

I always think it should be innocent until proven guilty of anything but Snyder has a proven past of being an a - hole toward women, minority's that it is beyond bad. 

[EastStreet]

15 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I always think it should be innocent until proven guilty of anything but Snyder has a proven past of being an a - hole toward women, minority's that it is beyond bad. 

I has been convicted anything yet? Sounds you are doing exactly the opposite. 

I don't like the guy. I'll wait till it's done to pass judgement. Unless he's on vid?

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

I has been convicted anything yet? Sounds you are doing exactly the opposite. 

I don't like the guy. I'll wait till it's done to pass judgement. Unless he's on vid?

We will see how it plays out. I just know when you have 100's of people complaining about the guy that he has treated people poorly, that is telling. Not 5 or 10 people but more than 100. There is no video of Watson either but it is obvious what he has done with around 100 women. I just know it is a proven fact he has treated a lot of people poorly. He has even apologized to people in the past for his actions. Every radio show and even ESPN and Fox seem to have 0 problem with what Irsay said, that whole fan base wants Snyder gone by what I am reading and hearing.

[DougDew]

10 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Sexual harassment isn't "being a big meanie".  Good lord

Good Lord, there is a thing called an investigation....before you can label somebody a sexual harasser.

 

Unless you're a creepy panderer like Jim Irsay.

 

[DougDew]

10 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

He doesn't get it but it doesn't surprise me.

I get the definition of the word "investigation"  by a qualified party.  Its scary that you would so easily convict based upon hearsay.

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Good Lord, there is a thing called an investigation....before you can label somebody a sexual harasser.

 

Unless you're a creepy panderer like Jim Irsay.

 

He already settled out of court to sexual harassment. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/06/21/dan-snyder-sexual-assault-allegation/

[DougDew]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

He already settled out of court to sexual harassment. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/06/21/dan-snyder-sexual-assault-allegation/

LOL.  Then why is the NFL conducting an investigation?

 

Make a decision when its time to make a decision, whenever that is.  Doing so beforehand is obvious pandering.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

He already settled out of court to sexual harassment. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/06/21/dan-snyder-sexual-assault-allegation/

Don't let facts get in the way, you can post facts in here in a debate and some still want to argue about things 

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

LOL.  Then why is the NFL conducting an investigation?

 

Make a decision when its time to make a decision, whenever that is.  Doing so beforehand is obvious pandering.

Is not pandering when he already settled a sexual harassment case.   He didn't tell the NFL about the investigation at the time.   That is part of what's going on now,  amongst many other things.   

[DougDew]

Just now, jvan1973 said:

Is not pandering when he already settled a sexual harassment case.   He didn't tell the NFL about the investigation at the time.   That is part of what's going on now,  amongst many other things.   

Irsay' got slapped down by Goodell for stating an opinion of the evidence before the investigation is concluded.  Irsay is pandering and trying to influence the outcome.

[cjwhiskers]

17 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

I agree with 99.9% of this and it’s really well written.  The only thing I’ll say is that the court of public opinion can sway what the other owners do if the impact is negative enough.  I am not saying it will be but if there is enough public pressure on the owners to oust him then it will be an issue for him.

I agree with this. Court of public opinion has never been stronger than in this day and age. There are many recent world examples of this within companies across different industries. 
 

I’d bet the majority of owners already want this guy out because of bad business with the stadium and him apparently embezzling money. These allegations give them the moral reason to push him out. I don’t know how they don’t take advantage of this situation as it would benefit them both optically and potentially financially. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Irsay' got slapped down by Goodell for stating an opinion of the evidence before the investigation is concluded.  Irsay is pandering and trying to influence the outcome.

- man you are digging a hole that is getting deeper with each post. It is a proven fact that he sexually harassed a woman and have treated women poorly. 

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Irsay' got slapped down by Goodell for stating an opinion of the evidence before the investigation is concluded.  Irsay is pandering and trying to influence the outcome.

He answered a question.   I'm not sure how that is trying to influence the outcome.    The outcome is on the shoulders of 31 owners that I'm sure feel their is "merit" to remove Snyder if the allegations are true

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Don't let facts get in the way, you can post facts in here in a debate and some still want to argue about things 

No, it is not a fact that he is a sexual harasser.  He did not admit to being a sexual harasser in 2009.  He claimed the facts were fabricated.  To assume otherwise is pandering to the easily reactive mob.   A form a trolling and triggering.

 

I assume the FACT that it is not been determined that he is nothing more than a big meanie about many thing and NOT a sexual harasser at this point, is why the NFL is conducting an investigation.

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

- man you are digging a hole that is getting deeper with each post. It is a proven fact that he sexually harassed a woman and have treated women poorly. 

No, a settlement occurs when THERE IS NO PROOF.   That's why the NFL is investigating.    And now Jim states an opinion about what he heard in the investigation.  Cheap pandering.

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

No, a settlement occurs when THERE IS NO PROOF.   That's why the NFL is investigating.    And now Jim states an opinion about what he heard in the investigation.  Cheap pandering.

So Watson is innocent in your mind?

[DougDew]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

So Watson is innocent in your mind?

Do I have to have an opinion about it to enjoy NFL football?

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Do I have to have an opinion about it to enjoy NFL football?

[jvan1973]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

No, a settlement occurs when THERE IS NO PROOF.   That's why the NFL is investigating.    And now Jim states an opinion about what he heard in the investigation.  Cheap pandering.

That's not what a settlement means.     Why did he pay her 1.6 million dollars if their was no evidence?

[RollerColt]

36 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Unless you're a creepy panderer like Jim Irsay.

This statement is also labeling... 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

That's not what a settlement means.     Why did he pay her 1.6 million dollars if their was no evidence?

I said PROOF.  You now say evidence.   In fact, it didn't rise to the level of evidence.  Its only an allegation...which is not even evidence.

 

Snyder denied the woman’s allegations, the letter states, and a team investigation accused her of fabricating her claims as part of an extortion attempt. But Snyder and the team eventually agreed to pay her a seven-figure sum as part of a settlement in which she agreed not to sue or publicly disclose her allegations.

 

And to think that any fan cared enough about this issue that they dug deeply into the situation...before they decided to watch football on Sundays or watch the Washington Football Team .....like the NFL is pretending they think they would.....is laughable. 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, RollerColt said:

This statement is also labeling... 

Who said labeling is a bad thing?   Its why products have clear labels.  To clearly describe the contents.

 

Labeling things incorrectly is what's bad.

[RollerColt]

45 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Who said labeling is a bad thing?   Its why products have clear labels.  To clearly describe the contents.

 

Quote

Good Lord, there is a thing called an investigation....before you can label somebody a sexual harasser.

Insinuating waiting on an investigation before making a label.

 

What investigation concluded Jim as being "creepy"? 

[jvan1973]

8 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I said PROOF.  You now say evidence.   In fact, it didn't rise to the level of evidence.  Its only an allegation...which is not even evidence.

 

Snyder denied the woman’s allegations, the letter states, and a team investigation accused her of fabricating her claims as part of an extortion attempt. But Snyder and the team eventually agreed to pay her a seven-figure sum as part of a settlement in which she agreed not to sue or publicly disclose her allegations.

 

And to think that any fan cared enough about this issue that they dug deeply into the situation...before they decided to watch football on Sundays or watch the Washington Football Team .....like the NFL is pretending they think they would.....is laughable. 

Why did he pay her 1.6 million dollars?

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

Why did he pay her 1.6 million dollars?

How should I know.  I assume that's part of the reason why the NFL is spending millions of dollars to investigate.

 

If it was as easy to know the same way you know, they would probably save the money and not have an investigation.

[2006Coltsbestever]

25 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

 

Insinuating waiting on an investigation before making a label.

 

What investigation concluded Jim as being "creepy"? 

Jim got arrested while driving under the influence, I guess a million people out there are creeps. -I have had a couple of relatives get pulled over and arrested for that and they both a great people that would not harm a fly. He had a pill addiction, Snyder is the creep, creeping on women.

[Shive]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

No, a settlement occurs when THERE IS NO PROOF.   That's why the NFL is investigating.    And now Jim states an opinion about what he heard in the investigation.  Cheap pandering.

A settlement occurs when the defendant in the case doesn't want to go to court, generally because if they do there's discovery and evidence is presented. Snyder has the money and legal team to handle a case with zero merit going to court if it indeed has no merit. When you're rich, you don't settle just because you don't want to deal with it. You settle because there's usually merit to the accusation, but offering someone 7 figures to drop it makes it go away (since part of the settlement is generally an NDA) gives you the cover of "innocent until proven guilty". If its one or 2 incidents, I can maybe think it's a disgruntled employee trying to extort their prior boss. This isn't 1 or 2 incidents though. This is a pattern of behavior, along with a toxic workplace environment, over the past 2 decades. I do love how you're citing the official statement from the team as evidence of his innocence though, because it definitely wasn't written by or at the direction of the accused....

 

I also don't get why you seem to be stuck on the notion that the only reason Snyder should be able to be voted out is if he's done something illegal. It's been stated before, but you don't seem to understand yet so I'll mention it again. Snyder entered into a contract when he purchased the team, which set out guidelines and standards for operation and management of the team. If he creates a hostile work environment rife with sexual harassment (not just him harassing directly, but enabling others to harass without repercussions [his COO and at least one player for example]), that alone gives credence to having Snyder removed. We all know sexual harassment is a "he said, she said" situation, where some people's default is to defend the man and accuse the woman of lying, but when it's so rampant, that's a tough position to maintain. If you as an owner allow behavior like that to persist for decades and allegedly participate in it yourself, you're operating your organization in a manner that isn't consistent with the contract you agreed to. Add in the allegations of skimming profits and I don't see how you could even start to support Snyder.

 

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the judicial system. Court of public opinion has a much lower threshold and in a world where bad PR hurts the bottom line, Snyder being bad for business for the league could definitely be justification for him to be forced to sell his team.

 

Note: You keep saying that Snyder would have his team taken from him and that's false. He would be forced to sell his team, meaning he would be paid for the team. Having it taken from him insinuates that he simply loses possession of the team with no compensation. Again, that's false.

 

Edit: Just in case you want to hear some of the allegations levied against the organization, this podcast episode by HBO Sports contains a number of them (some NSFW language used when describing events):

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/exclusive-the-untold-story-of-the/id1549749078?i=1000549837226

[2006Coltsbestever]

5 minutes ago, Shive said:

A settlement occurs when the defendant in the case doesn't want to go to court, generally because if they do there's discovery and evidence is presented. Snyder has the money and legal team to handle a case with zero merit going to court if it indeed has no merit. When you're rich, you don't settle just because you don't want to deal with it. You settle because there's usually merit to the accusation, but offering someone 7 figures to drop it makes it go away (since part of the settlement is generally an NDA) gives you the cover of "innocent until proven guilty". If its one or 2 incidents, I can maybe think it's a disgruntled employee trying to extort their prior boss. This isn't 1 or 2 incidents though. This is a pattern of behavior, along with a toxic workplace environment, over the past 2 decades. I do love how you're citing the official statement from the team as evidence of his innocence though, because it definitely wasn't written by or at the direction of the accused....

 

I also don't get why you seem to be stuck on the notion that the only reason Snyder should be able to be voted out is if he's done something illegal. It's been stated before, but you don't seem to understand yet so I'll mention it again. Snyder entered into a contract when he purchased the team, which set out guidelines and standards for operation and management of the team. If he creates a hostile work environment rife with sexual harassment (not just him harassing directly, but enabling others to harass without repercussions [his COO and at least one player for example]), that alone gives credence to having Snyder removed. We all know sexual harassment is a "he said, she said" situation, where some people's default is to defend the man and accuse the woman of lying, but when it's so rampant, that's a tough position to maintain. If you as an owner allow behavior like that to persist for decades and allegedly participate in it yourself, you're operating your organization in a manner that isn't consistent with the contract you agreed to. Add in the allegations of skimming profits and I don't see how you could even start to support Snyder.

 

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the judicial system. Court of public opinion has a much lower threshold and in a world where bad PR hurts the bottom line, Snyder being bad for business for the league could definitely be justification for him to be forced to sell his team.

 

Note: You keep saying that Snyder would have his team taken from him and that's false. He would be forced to sell his team, meaning he would be paid for the team. Having it taken from him insinuates that he simply loses possession of the team with no compensation. Again, that's false.

 

Edit: Just in case you want to hear some of the allegations levied against the organization, this podcast episode by HBO Sports contains a number of them (some NSFW language used when describing events):

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/exclusive-the-untold-story-of-the/id1549749078?i=1000549837226

I was going to post the exact same thing  , just joking, I am too lazy for that, excellent post, excellent 

[GoColts8818]

20 minutes ago, Shive said:

A settlement occurs when the defendant in the case doesn't want to go to court, generally because if they do there's discovery and evidence is presented. Snyder has the money and legal team to handle a case with zero merit going to court if it indeed has no merit. When you're rich, you don't settle just because you don't want to deal with it. You settle because there's usually merit to the accusation, but offering someone 7 figures to drop it makes it go away (since part of the settlement is generally an NDA) gives you the cover of "innocent until proven guilty". If its one or 2 incidents, I can maybe think it's a disgruntled employee trying to extort their prior boss. This isn't 1 or 2 incidents though. This is a pattern of behavior, along with a toxic workplace environment, over the past 2 decades. I do love how you're citing the official statement from the team as evidence of his innocence though, because it definitely wasn't written by or at the direction of the accused....

 

I also don't get why you seem to be stuck on the notion that the only reason Snyder should be able to be voted out is if he's done something illegal. It's been stated before, but you don't seem to understand yet so I'll mention it again. Snyder entered into a contract when he purchased the team, which set out guidelines and standards for operation and management of the team. If he creates a hostile work environment rife with sexual harassment (not just him harassing directly, but enabling others to harass without repercussions [his COO and at least one player for example]), that alone gives credence to having Snyder removed. We all know sexual harassment is a "he said, she said" situation, where some people's default is to defend the man and accuse the woman of lying, but when it's so rampant, that's a tough position to maintain. If you as an owner allow behavior like that to persist for decades and allegedly participate in it yourself, you're operating your organization in a manner that isn't consistent with the contract you agreed to. Add in the allegations of skimming profits and I don't see how you could even start to support Snyder.

 

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the judicial system. Court of public opinion has a much lower threshold and in a world where bad PR hurts the bottom line, Snyder being bad for business for the league could definitely be justification for him to be forced to sell his team.

 

Note: You keep saying that Snyder would have his team taken from him and that's false. He would be forced to sell his team, meaning he would be paid for the team. Having it taken from him insinuates that he simply loses possession of the team with no compensation. Again, that's false.

 

Edit: Just in case you want to hear some of the allegations levied against the organization, this podcast episode by HBO Sports contains a number of them (some NSFW language used when describing events):

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/exclusive-the-untold-story-of-the/id1549749078?i=1000549837226

[DougDew]

1 hour ago, Shive said:

A settlement occurs when the defendant in the case doesn't want to go to court, generally because if they do there's discovery and evidence is presented. Snyder has the money and legal team to handle a case with zero merit going to court if it indeed has no merit. When you're rich, you don't settle just because you don't want to deal with it. You settle because there's usually merit to the accusation, but offering someone 7 figures to drop it makes it go away (since part of the settlement is generally an NDA) gives you the cover of "innocent until proven guilty". If its one or 2 incidents, I can maybe think it's a disgruntled employee trying to extort their prior boss. This isn't 1 or 2 incidents though. This is a pattern of behavior, along with a toxic workplace environment, over the past 2 decades. I do love how you're citing the official statement from the team as evidence of his innocence though, because it definitely wasn't written by or at the direction of the accused....

 

I also don't get why you seem to be stuck on the notion that the only reason Snyder should be able to be voted out is if he's done something illegal. It's been stated before, but you don't seem to understand yet so I'll mention it again. Snyder entered into a contract when he purchased the team, which set out guidelines and standards for operation and management of the team. If he creates a hostile work environment rife with sexual harassment (not just him harassing directly, but enabling others to harass without repercussions [his COO and at least one player for example]), that alone gives credence to having Snyder removed. We all know sexual harassment is a "he said, she said" situation, where some people's default is to defend the man and accuse the woman of lying, but when it's so rampant, that's a tough position to maintain. If you as an owner allow behavior like that to persist for decades and allegedly participate in it yourself, you're operating your organization in a manner that isn't consistent with the contract you agreed to. Add in the allegations of skimming profits and I don't see how you could even start to support Snyder.

 

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the judicial system. Court of public opinion has a much lower threshold and in a world where bad PR hurts the bottom line, Snyder being bad for business for the league could definitely be justification for him to be forced to sell his team.

 

Note: You keep saying that Snyder would have his team taken from him and that's false. He would be forced to sell his team, meaning he would be paid for the team. Having it taken from him insinuates that he simply loses possession of the team with no compensation. Again, that's false.

 

Edit: Just in case you want to hear some of the allegations levied against the organization, this podcast episode by HBO Sports contains a number of them (some NSFW language used when describing events):

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/exclusive-the-untold-story-of-the/id1549749078?i=1000549837226

No.  I have not listened to it, nor read much about it.  But I'm disappointed that so many would be nosey enough to do it.  I would expect that most people here would not have a clue as to what Daniel Snyder ever did, but some people need to be able Cancel others as a way of life I guess, so they must spend time knowing other people's dirt even when its irrelevant to the product they watch. 

 

What nonfootball stuff Snyder does, or Watson does, or Jimmy does, or Andrew Luck does while on the job or in their personal lives doesn't matter to me.  I'm, not interested in football, or become disinterested in football,  because of things like that. 

 

I'm like most fans.  I become/became disinterested in football when its leaders and FO pander to the people who readily would Cancel others,...the FO pretending that the fan base would stay away from watching football games because Daniel Snyder groped an employee and was never punished for it.. 

 

And Irsay feels like he needs to pander before the investigation is even completed.  Just like he pandered to a certain element last year with his vax comments.  Like I said, if he's worried about stuff like that impacting the fan base, then maybe he should retire and move to live around his soul brothers in California where pandering to an element that easily Cancels based on allegations (depending upon what they are) is a way of life.