SB Nation- DC - Washington Redskins' COO And Dan Snyder Ally Dave Donovan Resigns For 'Personal Reasons'

[Buford]

http://dc.sbnation.com/washington-redskins/2011/7/11/2270367/dave-donovan-resign-washington-redskins-coo-dan-snyder

By Mike Prada (http://dc.sbnation.com/authors/mike-prada) - Senior Editor
Dave Donovan, the chief operating officer of the Redskins and a longtime ally to Dan Snyder, has resigned for "personal reasons." He will continue to help in a consulting role.


(http://www.facebook.com/pages/SB-Nation-DC/127523070608479)
Jul 11, 2011 - Dave Donovan, the chief operating officer of the Washington Redskins (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/washington-redskins) and a longtime adviser to owner Dan Snyder, has resigned from his position for "personal reasons," according to a team press release. Donovan will be returning to the law firm he came from back in 2005. He will continue to consult with the Redskins, according to owner Dan Snyder in the release.
"I have had a great six years with the Redskins. It has been an experience I will always appreciate and never forget. For personal reasons, I am returning to partnership in the law firm that I left in 2005," Donovan said in the statement. "I am thrilled that I will have the ability to continue my relationship with the Redskins. I would like to thank Dan Snyder and all coaches and staff who I have worked with over my time with the team"
Donovan was probably best-known publicly for answering for Snyder on many issues, including the seizing of signs at FedEx Field in 2009.
For more on Donovan's resignation, visit Hogs Haven (http://www.hogshaven.com/).

[Riggo#44]

Dave Donovan, the chief operating officer of the Redskins and a longtime ally to Dan Snyder

If memory serves me correctly, this guy was #2 d-bag behind Cerrato (#3 if you include Snyder)...

[tshile]

If memory serves me correctly, this guy was #2 d-bag behind Cerrato (#3 if you include Snyder)...

he was a lawyer.

by default (to many people) he was disliked. add to it that it was his job to defend snyder, and you get a lot of people who disliked him.

i personally think he did a good job. he got a bad rap because people in this area love to be sensationalists about everything, instead of being objective. the media is the same way for the most part.

edit: by good job, i'm assuming he's not the one actualyl making all of those decisions (even the ones i agree with), just the one trying to justify the legality of them in an effort to defend snyder.

[SonnyandSam]

If memory serves me correctly, this guy was #2 d-bag behind Cerrato (#3 if you include Snyder)...

You're wrong. He was a good guy and a major force behind most of the positive changes that have occurred on the non-football side of operations over the past 3-4 years. You shouldn't post crap about someone you know nothing about.

[lovetoaster]

You're wrong. He was a good guy and a major force behind most of the positive changes that have occurred on the non-football side of operations over the past 3-4 years. You shouldn't post crap about someone you know nothing about.



Hey Dave, calm down :).

Just kidding, from what I have heard of him, he seems like a pretty good dude.

[SkinsHokieFan]

The poor man was sent out in public to defend Snyder during the height of the "burgandy revolution" in October '09, which was also in the aftermath of the Post writing about the law suits against deadbeat club seat holders.

He did his job as best as he could, but at times this owner makes it very difficult to work for him

[terpskins10]

Hey...I'll be a lawyer in 3 years. Hire someone to keep the seat warm for me ;)

[Riggo#44]

The poor man was sent out in public to defend Snyder during the height of the "burgandy revolution" in October '09, which was also in the aftermath of the Post writing about the law suits against deadbeat club seat holders.

He did his job as best as he could, but at times this owner makes it very difficult to work for him

Maybe that's what it was -- defending Snyder would make anyone look pretty bad. I just remember him coming off sounding like a complete arrogant jerk during that time...Sounds like I am wrong, which isn't often ;)

[bedlamVR]

"burgandy revolution"

The what - when did that happen ?

[LetThePointsSoar]

The what - when did that happen ?

Oh, you knoooow....shortly after the maroon and black revolution....

[TK]

You're wrong. He was a good guy and a major force behind most of the positive changes that have occurred on the non-football side of operations over the past 3-4 years. You shouldn't post crap about someone you know nothing about.
Yeah Dave's a pretty good guy. Funny too. I remember him giving our bartender in Jacksonville pre game field passes so, as he told her, see what a real team looked like. :ols:

[SonnyandSam]

Maybe that's what it was -- defending Snyder would make anyone look pretty bad. I just remember him coming off sounding like a complete arrogant jerk during that time...Sounds like I am wrong, which isn't often ;)

No, that was the Washington Post with their own agenda against Snyder. Snyder did a lot of stupid things early on but when he got rid of his first team of advisors and replaced them wtih guys like Dave, things started to turn around. Snyder's first group seemed more interested in protecting Dan (which they did a lousy job of) than doing what was right for the franchise. I remember Dave telling me that the hardest thing he was fighting was turning around a "culture" throughout the non-football operation that was so focused on making every single penny and protecting Snyder at all costs that empoyees at all levels simply were forgetting to treat the fans as the customers they are.

[LetThePointsSoar]

Yeah Dave's a pretty good guy. Funny too. I remember him giving our bartender in Jacksonville pre game field passes so, as he told her, see what a real team looked like. :ols:

Nice. Good story. So any idea on what the reasoning was behind him stepping down? Was there tension that led to it? Or truly just a personal decision to return to a previous job and therefore really a non event?

[RichmondRedskin88]

Oh, you knoooow....shortly after the maroon and black revolution....

We don't have enough bandwidth for all the face palms.

[Alvin_Walton40]

I remember Dave telling me that the hardest thing he was fighting was turning around a "culture" throughout the non-football operation that was so focused on making every single penny and protecting Snyder at all costs that empoyees at all levels simply were forgetting to treat the fans as the customers they are.


So the guy who humanized Dan hit the road........what does that mean for the fan base?

[TK]

Nice. Good story. So any idea on what the reasoning was behind him stepping down? Was there tension that led to it? Or truly just a personal decision to return to a previous job and therefore really a non event?
In his quote he said it was personal reasons, so go with that.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Didn't this guy become Snyder's public henchman after the fall of Karl?

[Coach Janky Spanky]

Donovan is a good guy.

Even when he was standing up for Snyder during the Zorn years, when Donovan came into the public light more, he ended up sounding very competent and rational even while defending Snyder's awful PR decisions publicly.

He's going back to the law firm where he came from. No need to read anything into this.

[Califan007]

I am shocked--SHOCKED--that we are on page two already and there hasn't been a steady stream of "This is somehow Snyder's fault" posts yet.

[jflow78]

I am shocked--SHOCKED--that we are on page two already and there hasn't been a steady stream of "This is somehow Snyder's fault" posts yet.

Shhhhhhhhh, you're jinxing it.

[RFKFedEx]

I look forward to a time when we don't all know the team attorney by name.


Granted, 95% of our fanbase probably wouldn't have a clue who David Donovan is if you were to ask them randomly. We're the hardcore 5%, I get that.

I'm just sayin, I'd be surprised if team lawyers play as prominent of a public roll with other sports franchises as Donovan has served here. It just doesn't seem normal to me.

[SonnyandSam]

I look forward to a time when we don't all know the team attorney by name.


Granted, 95% of our fanbase probably wouldn't have a clue who David Donovan is if you were to ask them randomly. We're the hardcore 5%, I get that.

I'm just sayin, I'd be surprised if team lawyers play as prominent of a public roll with other sports franchises as Donovan has served here. It just doesn't seem normal to me.

Except during the last several years, Dave was the Chief Operating Officer for non-football operations. He's the guy who brought in the HDTV screens, a new stadium management director, new people to run the Hall of Fame store and other retail operations, started the party deck/roof? changes, restructured the ticket office and changed ticket policies, brought in the auto upgrade process for STHs, worked to improve the parking situation including a new parking lot and new parking lot management team, new paint in the stadium, etc. He started out as in house Chief Counsel but eventually ran all the non football operations. But the media still wants to "sell" him to the fanbase as a lawyer and Snyder "ally" whatever the hell that means.

[DC9]

I am shocked--SHOCKED--that we are on page two already and there hasn't been a steady stream of "This is somehow Snyder's fault" posts yet.


I'm shocked that we've made it this far and no one has dropped a one-liner about the City Paper lawsuit, and how bad Donovan made Danny look with that letter to the city paper talking about bankrupting the hedgefun that the city paper uses to operate. AND, the subsequent SLAP legislation that resulted from said suit (amongst others).

LOL, Donovan, never met the dude, I have opinions of him that obviously differ from most of the guys on here who have shared personal experiences with the man, so I'll keep them to myself.

But I will say that this is great for Danny, one more spot opens at the table for a football guy.


HAIL!

[tr1]

He probably wanted to make more money...that's the reason most people leave jobs.

[SonnyandSam]

In the Washington Post article, Donovan said he almost never saw his family from August to January. I'd say he'd like to spend some quality time with his kids and wife. Can you blame him if true?

[IronMike]

Dave Donovan is a great guy who cared about this team and the fan experience. I first met him walking thru the parking lot before a game last year, checking things out for the fans and making sure things were working smoothly. Hands on, in charge, doing the best for the team and the fans. After I knew who he was, I saw him often before games in the parking lots, checking things out. Did you like the big screen, HDTVs in the parking lots? Thank D.D. Funny, self-deprecating sense of humor. You should hear him describe the *!#$ storm after the idiots put their charcoal grill in their trunk, car explodes in the parking lot, setting fire to the adjoining cars. Oh, I forgot. That was Dan Snyder's fault, too!

[hail2skins]

I'd still like to know who ordered the banning of the signs from FedEx Field that Monday night in 2009.

If it was Snyder himself, he of course couldn't or wouldn't have fired himself.

If it was anyone else, including Swanson or Donovan, that person should've been fired the next day. That incident still sticks in my craw as the biggest black-eye in the relationship between the team and its fans.

[SonnyandSam]

I'd still like to know who ordered the banning of the signs from FedEx Field that Monday night in 2009.

If it was Snyder himself, he of course couldn't or wouldn't have fired himself.

If it was anyone else, including Swanson or Donovan, that person should've been fired the next day. That incident still sticks in my craw as the biggest black-eye in the relationship between the team and its fans.

It was never "ordered". Donovan said so the next day. Some security guys took it upon themselves to prevent signs from entering the stadium. There was no order "from on high" as so many want to believe.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Donovan is the force behind the Dave McKenna / WCP lawsuit. He's the one who wrote the initial letter trying to shake down WCP's parent, Atalaya Capital Management. That letter will eventually doom the lawsuit due to SLAPP defenses. It's the smoking gun.

This resignation could be for a lot of reasons, including "personal reasons" having nothing to do with the WCP lawsuit. However, if that lawsuit folds like a cheap lawn chair soon, you'll know that this was the reason Donovan had to go.

Right now that's speculation. But, see what happens in the next few weeks.

[McD5]

Donovan is the force behind the Dave McKenna / WCP lawsuit. He's the one who wrote the initial letter trying to shake down WCP's parent, Atalaya Capital Management. That letter will eventually doom the lawsuit due to SLAPP defenses. It's the smoking gun.



Good to see you ASF. Many here say he's a great guy on a personal level. I'm happy to see him go. Mainly because he was involved with the dysfunction and sleaze we had going on here for years.

Also, SAS......I believe you are shorting Bruce Allen in a few of the changes you noted earlier in this thread.

[scruffylookin]

I am shocked--SHOCKED--that we are on page two already and there hasn't been a steady stream of "This is somehow Snyder's fault" posts yet.

Well I think this is likely because nobody really gives a damn about this Donovan guy leaving. He's strictly Danny henchman with no apparent influence on the football side of the team so his "loss" will not impact wins and losses. So why blame Danny for a guy bailing if we don't care about him.

[DC9]

It was never "ordered". Donovan said so the next day. Some security guys took it upon themselves to prevent signs from entering the stadium. There was no order "from on high" as so many want to believe.


Are you interested in buying some ocean front property in Nebraska? I'll cut you a good deal. PM me and we can work out the details.


HAIL!

[skinsdude]

Donovan is the force behind the Dave McKenna / WCP lawsuit. He's the one who wrote the initial letter trying to shake down WCP's parent, Atalaya Capital Management. That letter will eventually doom the lawsuit due to SLAPP defenses. It's the smoking gun.

This resignation could be for a lot of reasons, including "personal reasons" having nothing to do with the WCP lawsuit. However, if that lawsuit folds like a cheap lawn chair soon, you'll know that this was the reason Donovan had to go.

Right now that's speculation. But, see what happens in the next few weeks.

I'm thinking more along these lines as well. I can't say that I'm unhappy to see him go. I hope that we see some more changes from top to bottom. We need to amend our culture.

[RFKFedEx]

It was never "ordered". Donovan said so the next day. Some security guys took it upon themselves to prevent signs from entering the stadium.

Sorry S&S, but that sounds like classic Snyder spin. Just like the tree cutting incident was a National Park Service error in miscommunication, along with the barring of pedestrian access to the stadium having been strictly a 'safety' decision made by the PGPD independent of team influence.

I'm not gonna take away the good deeds Donovan may have done for this fanbase as COO of non football opps; he's probably a really nice guy from what I'm reading of those who've met him.

However, at the same time I know that Donovan is an attorney and a corporate spokesperson; thus he is a professional liar by trade. That's what good lawyers and good spokespersons do. It doesn't make him a bad guy.

[SonnyandSam]

Donovan is the force behind the Dave McKenna / WCP lawsuit. He's the one who wrote the initial letter trying to shake down WCP's parent, Atalaya Capital Management. That letter will eventually doom the lawsuit due to SLAPP defenses. It's the smoking gun.

This resignation could be for a lot of reasons, including "personal reasons" having nothing to do with the WCP lawsuit. However, if that lawsuit folds like a cheap lawn chair soon, you'll know that this was the reason Donovan had to go.

Right now that's speculation. But, see what happens in the next few weeks.

Your speculation is flat out wrong. Based on what I know, I am almost positive he was opposed to the lawsuit. This was Tony Wyllie's idea; not Donovan; not Snyder.

I agree the lawsuit was stupid; but McKenna is still a dirtbag who has a personal agenda and his writing had nothing to do with journalism. It was always about his own personal vendetta against Snyder.

[bird_1972]

Your speculation is flat out wrong. Based on what I know, I am almost positive he was opposed to the lawsuit. This was Tony Wyllie's idea; not Donovan; not Snyder.

I agree the lawsuit was stupid; but McKenna is still a dirtbag who has a personal agenda and his writing had nothing to do with journalism. It was always about his own personal vendetta against Snyder.

You sound like someone with connections to the organization and/or Snyder. Am I right?

That might color your opinion on the matter, IMHO.

[SonnyandSam]

Sorry S&S, but that sounds like classic Snyder spin. Just like the tree cutting incident was a National Park Service error in miscommunication, along with the barring of pedestrian access to the stadium having been strictly a 'safety' decision made by the PGPD independent of team influence.

I'm not gonna take away the good deeds Donovan may have done for this fanbase as COO of non football opps; he's probably a really nice guy from what I'm reading of those who've met him.

However, at the same time I know that Donovan is an attorney and a corporate spokesperson; thus he is a professional liar by trade. That's what good lawyers and good spokespersons do. It doesn't make him a bad guy.

Well, the "spin" works both ways and usualy the truth is somewhere in between. the internet bloggers and people behind hidden avatars with no responsibility or usually proof of what they post, say whatever they want which eventually spreads like a virus.....whether right or wrong. Technology like the internet, blogs, and Twitter have even warped regular media into a game of who can report first and the hell with being accurate anymore.

I had an email discussion with Donovan about the sign fiasco. What I wrote is what he said to me. The only sign policy they had was that they could not be dangerous and they could not be so big as to block the view of other fans. In the almost 3 years we exchanged emails, he always came across as honest and straight. He readily admitted where they screwed up and needed to iimprove.He did not shy away from being critical of the organization on may topics. So, yes, I believe him when he said there was no order from the top.

I have worked for two governors in PA at a high enough level that I sat across from them on a regular basis discussing policy issues. Everyone always assumes the governor micromages every little detail and "ordered" stuff that some stupid underling did thinking it was what the governor would want done. Thousands of decision, good and bad, get done every day in PA state government and the governor had no say or involvement in the decision.

The same holds true for most any reasonable size organization. The CEO and other top leaders set the standards and the polices but the managment and interpretation f those policies goes to others at a lower level. For example, people refused to believe that Snyder and Donovan had no knowledge of premium ticket reps bundling GA tickets with club seats to sell to brokers. I believed it because that kind of detail would not normally rise to the CEO/COO level. Those people are interested in results. They would not be micromanaging the sale of individual tickets.

The National Park Service thing is a great example of how the internet made Snyder a villain when he went through all the proper channels, made a request, and the request was approved....by the National Park Service. No one found bribes; no one found any undue pressure brought to the Park Service; there were no threats of lawsuits. But the internet and a nice WashPo butcher job convinced everyone that Snyder must have done something wrong. He just must have. He's rich. He's powerful. He's the almighty! Did Snyder get cited? Did he get fined? Was their a legal investigation into wrongdoing? No.

People have preconceived notions about a lot of stuff. They come to an opinion without knowing all the facts or without evaluating what facts they do have. Or they just assume every lawyer is a professional liar by trade because, well, all lawyers must be liars. I always thought better of you RFK. That kind of assumption on your part is pretty disappointing. You are assuming that there was no "order" because Donovan is a lawyer and therefore must be lying when he says the next day there was no order given; and therefore the order must have been commanded to the contract security staff. Anyone find a security guy or their supervisor who said they were ordered to stop negative signs of Snyder? No. But who cares.....it must be true....because Snyder is rich; Snyder is evil; Snyder controls all; Snyder must have ordered it because, well because he must have done it.

Let's just say, I hope you are never on a jury where an innocent person is being railroaded on circumstantial evidence and you base your decision on "all lawyers are professional liars" and the hell with looking at any real evidence to base my opinion on.

Maybe that's harsh, but your message really disappointed me, RFK.

P.S. I am not a lawyer. I have worked often with lawyers and had my share of strong debates and discussions with lawyers. As in any profession, there are good lawyers, there are bad lawyers; and there are mediocre lawyers. That is pretty much true of any profession. But we all like to kick lawyers, myself included at times.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 10:24 AM ----------


You sound like someone with connections to the organization and/or Snyder. Am I right?

That might color your opinion on the matter, IMHO.

You would be absolutely wrong. I do not work nor have I ever worked for the Washington Redskins or anyone connected with the Redskins. However, I did have an a regular email relationship over the past 2+ years with Dave Donovan in which we discussed a lot of stuff, good and bad that the Skins have done over the years. His responses have always come across as honest and straightforward. No legal or lawyer BS. He readily admitted when they screwed up and noted when the media and internet blog/posters/dumb****s were off base. He never shied away from difficult questons or issues I raised. And problems I pointed out were typically addresses quickly or he got back to me why they could not do certain things.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 10:25 AM ----------


Are you interested in buying some ocean front property in Nebraska? I'll cut you a good deal. PM me and we can work out the details.


HAIL!

See my reply to RFK

[AdmiralWaugh]

Well said, SonnyandSam.

[RFKFedEx]

:cheers: No worries S&S. To agree to disagree is what makes this place great.

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire when it comes to the media and what they report about this team.

I don't live in Green Bay nor Pittsburgh, and I don't know how those teams work nearly as well as I know this one. However, I don't picture those franchises trotting out their attorneys/spokespersons nearly as often as Donovan and Wylie see the media spotlight here in DC. Though I could be wrong.

I just hope the next decade of Redskins will bring us more winning football and fewer lawyers, maybe we can be more like the Packers and Steelers, and less like the Redskins of the y2ks.

[Destino]

Well, the "spin" works both ways and usualy the truth is somewhere in between. the internet bloggers and people behind hidden avatars with no responsibility or usually proof of what they post, say whatever they want which eventually spreads like a virus.....whether right or wrong. Technology like the internet, blogs, and Twitter have even warped regular media into a game of who can report first and the hell with being accurate anymore.

I had an email discussion with Donovan about the sign fiasco. What I wrote is what he said to me. The only sign policy they had was that they could not be dangerous and they could not be so big as to block the view of other fans. In the almost 3 years we exchanged emails, he always came across as honest and straight. He readily admitted where they screwed up and needed to iimprove.He did not shy away from being critical of the organization on may topics. So, yes, I believe him when he said there was no order from the top.
The evidence indicates there was an order from somewhere. Words are cheap and meaningless especially when professional interests exist. If one gate had been confiscating signs your email friend's response would seem reasonable and likely. The fact that sign confiscation that spread into certain t-shirts being banned were being reported in large numbers suggests this wasn't a few overzealous security guards. Did they get on the radios and randomly, without the authority to do so, change policy at all gates? Seems highly unlikely.




People have preconceived notions about a lot of stuff. They come to an opinion without knowing all the facts or without evaluating what facts they do have. Or they just assume every lawyer is a professional liar by trade because, well, all lawyers must be liars. I always thought better of you RFK. That kind of assumption on your part is pretty disappointing. You are assuming that there was no "order" because Donovan is a lawyer and therefore must be lying when he says the next day there was no order given; and therefore the order must have been commanded to the contract security staff. Anyone find a security guy or their supervisor who said they were ordered to stop negative signs of Snyder? No. But who cares.....it must be true....because Snyder is rich; Snyder is evil; Snyder controls all; Snyder must have ordered it because, well because he must have done it.

Let's just say, I hope you are never on a jury where an innocent person is being railroaded on circumstantial evidence and you base your decision on "all lawyers are professional liars" and the hell with looking at any real evidence to base my opinion on.
Is your position that when the only person associated with the team to make a statement is the lawyer and what he says is completely illogical that the correct course of action is to take him at his word? I have to say your jury example fits you as well. Let's hope it takes more to prove anything to you then the word of a lawyer for you to make up your mind on something.

Employees of the redskins have a vested interest in NOT speaking to the media. The club doesn't have a good relationship with them to begin with and going to the press as a security guard would be a great way to get fired. Though it's reasonable to conclude that angering the fan base by making up crazy rules pertaining to words on t-shirts and signs when you have no authority to do so would get a person fired as well.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 06:15 PM ----------


Your speculation is flat out wrong. Based on what I know, I am almost positive he was opposed to the lawsuit. This was Tony Wyllie's idea; not Donovan; not Snyder.

I agree the lawsuit was stupid; but McKenna is still a dirtbag who has a personal agenda and his writing had nothing to do with journalism. It was always about his own personal vendetta against Snyder.
What is the basis for his personal vendetta? These days mud slinging sells more papers and in this case it put a anonymous sports writer into the headlines. The lawsuit is absurd but I never thought it was personal to me it just seemed like a football example of what you see in the rest of the national press. Negative press, with little emphasis on accuracy, is very profitable. I'm not saying it isn't personal I just have never come across something saying why it would be.

[SonnyandSam]

:cheers: No worries S&S. To agree to disagree is what makes this place great.

I just hope the next decade of Redskins will bring us more winning football and fewer lawyers, maybe we can be more like the Packers and Steelers, and less like the Redskins of the y2ks.

I can agree with both of those sentiments whole heartedly.

[Crazy Levi]

I am shocked--SHOCKED--that we are on page two already and there hasn't been a steady stream of "This is somehow Snyder's fault" posts yet.

I'm Shocked -SHOCKED - that you don't realize that nobody really cares about this guy enough to blame it on Snyder. Seriously, I've never heard of this guy untill 40 seconds ago and his leaving doesn't affect me one way or another. Why bother blaming Snyder?

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 05:11 PM ----------


I agree the lawsuit was stupid; but McKenna is still a dirtbag who has a personal agenda and his writing had nothing to do with journalism. It was always about his own personal vendetta against Snyder.

I don't know McKenna, do you? How can you say he's a dirtbag?

That article was funny, informative, and - in keeping with it's purpose - did a great job of distilling AND satirizing the anger and disgust most Skins fans had with Snyder that week after the Eagles atrocity.

His "agenda" was to write an entertaining cover story for the City Paper. Mission accomplished.

[DC9]

See my reply to RFK

Sonny and Sam,

Did I miss the spot where you covered a "lunch" between Roger Goodell and Danny the following week after that Monday Night Game and a bunch of changes...too include an in-season front office shake up and a NDA signed by Vinny Cerrato.

Also, why would a security guard take the initiative on that particular Monday Night Game that was nationally televised, when in weeks leading up to that game nothing was frowned upon?

Seriously, how about that ocean front property man? Let's talk turkey....

Better yet, let's call this what it is....a PHENOMINAL MOVE by the Redskins...albeit if we are calling it a resignation. Like I said earlier, it just opens up a fresh spot at the table for someone else, someone who may do a better job and someone who can follow legal ethics. That's all we can ask out of our general counsel, isn't it?


HAIL!

[CPORTISFAN999]

In the Washington Post article, Donovan said he almost never saw his family from August to January. I'd say he'd like to spend some quality time with his kids and wife. Can you blame him if true?

im guessing its because of the lockout and nobody really knew a few months ago when it would be over.

[hail2skins]

I had an email discussion with Donovan about the sign fiasco. What I wrote is what he said to me. The only sign policy they had was that they could not be dangerous and they could not be so big as to block the view of other fans. In the almost 3 years we exchanged emails, he always came across as honest and straight. He readily admitted where they screwed up and needed to iimprove.He did not shy away from being critical of the organization on may topics. So, yes, I believe him when he said there was no order from the top.

Donovan's comments to Matt Terl shortly after the incident suggested that there was a prohibition on all signs:

http://blog.redskins.com/2009/10/27/your-t-shirts-are-okay-with-fedexfield-also-lots-of-mike-wise/

So this blanket prohibition was the result of some overzealous security guys?

Also, signgate also happened at the same game where the Redskins gave out their own GEICO-sponsored signs! But there's no way those signs would block anyone's view, right??

And then, somehow, after the outrage of all this........the blanket prohibition on the signs was lifted.

Sorry, S&S, I don't take Donovan at face value regarding this story.......just as knowledgable fans never took the organization at face value regarding their stupid waiting list numbers.

But that's in the past.......I look forward to the annoucement tomorrow of the other improvements planned to FedEx (although I'll be out of town.......hopefully will be able to hear the news in a timely manner). I'll be wearing a fresh pair of socks to hopefully be knocked off (as Larry Michael has promised).

[SonnyandSam]

The evidence indicates there was an order from somewhere. Words are cheap and meaningless especially when professional interests exist. If one gate had been confiscating signs your email friend's response would seem reasonable and likely. The fact that sign confiscation that spread into certain t-shirts being banned were being reported in large numbers suggests this wasn't a few overzealous security guards. Did they get on the radios and randomly, without the authority to do so, change policy at all gates? Seems highly unlikely.

What "evidence" You have no evidence. All you have are a few fans who complained online and to a radio call in show that their shirts and/or banners were confiscated. I will grant you that that did happen. You have no evidence to suggest or prove that either Snyder or Donovan or any other high ranking Skins official made such a decision.

Consider this.....you have a 25 year experienced lawyer from a highly prestigious law firm serving as the team's Chief Operating Officer. He is in charge of all game non-football decisions. Donovan comes out the next morning and states flat out that no direction was given to the contracted security who are not Redskins employees to prevent such shirts or banners from entering the stadium. He did not waffle; he did not spin anything. NO LAWYER with his credentials is going to lie to the media and fans knowing that all it would take is one part time contracted security guy earning a little over minimum wage to anonymously report to the media that the COO of the Redskins is blatantly lying. Did anyone report that Dave Donovan was lying? Anyone? No. And don't hide behind that line that "they would be scared for their jobs". BS. These guys work for a security firm under contract to the Redskins and earn a little over minimum wage for their part time work. They could give a rats ass about the Redskins or Snyder. IN FACT, I know several are Ravens and Cowboys fans who surely would love to embarrass the Redskins if they had the goods on Snyder.


Is your position that when the only person associated with the team to make a statement is the lawyer and what he says is completely illogical that the correct course of action is to take him at his word? I have to say your jury example fits you as well. Let's hope it takes more to prove anything to you then the word of a lawyer for you to make up your mind on something.

Yes...he is a lawyer...an esteemed lawyer who is not going to risk his reputation with an outright lie that could be proved by one or more security staff going to the media to call him on such a lie. And let's remember, while the media likes to portray Donovan as Snyder's lawyer and "ally", he is and was for some time, the team's Chief Operating Officer. The COO is exactly who should confront such allegations about non football team operations. He is in charge of all game day operations.

If he had "spun" his answer, I might agree with you. But he did not do that. He was about as straight forward as you could possibly be in denying any involvement.


Employees of the redskins have a vested interest in NOT speaking to the media. The club doesn't have a good relationship with them to begin with and going to the press as a security guard would be a great way to get fired. Though it's reasonable to conclude that angering the fan base by making up crazy rules pertaining to words on t-shirts and signs when you have no authority to do so would get a person fired as well.

As I said, they are not Redskins employees. They are basically cheap rent a cop type security guys. They hire people who are purposely NOT Redskins fans so they can focus on their job and could care less what goes on on the field. Many are Cowboy and Ravens fans. I know....I've talked to them and vendor staff. Clearly, one or more would have an incentive to embarrass the Skins....yet .....no one did....hmmmm.

Just where is this smoking gun.....or are you just smoking something you shouldn't be?



What is the basis for his personal vendetta? These days mud slinging sells more papers and in this case it put a anonymous sports writer into the headlines. The lawsuit is absurd but I never thought it was personal to me it just seemed like a football example of what you see in the rest of the national press. Negative press, with little emphasis on accuracy, is very profitable. I'm not saying it isn't personal I just have never come across something saying why it would be.

Good question. I don't know. Nor do I know him like I do know Dave Donovan. However, I used to read his articles regularly for several years leading up to the last article in question. The lawsuit is not about that one article. McKenna has been crossing the line for years in his articles about Snyder.....not the Redskins.....but Snyder. After a while, I just got fed up reading his crap because one, it wasn't very well written, and more importantly, I thought his articles were always directed at Snyder and "crossing the line" of real journalism into hack journalism. And this was during a time when I was pretty angry with Snyder with what he was doing with the coaches, player involvement, obstructed view seats, increased ticket prices, favoritism towards premium STHs at the expense of GA STHs., etc. (see I can and have been highly critical of Snyder).

The Washington Post during that time was also highly critical and continues to be of both Snyder and the team in general. But the Post never crossed the line from being more negative than positive to junk journalism that smelled of a personal vendetta. McKenna is a hack journalist. Its why he works for a "free" newspaper and cannot get a real journalism job with a real newspaper or magazine. He never will either, IMHO.

By the way, you do know that Snyder's father was a long time journalist/reporter, right? He, more than any of us, knows more about journalistic ethics from his father. And for the record, Snyder was talked into the lawsuit by the new Executive VP for Public Relations, Tony Wyllie. It was not Donovan's idea, IMHO, based on what I know. I do know Wyllie was behind it. Snyder's lawyers in that case do not involve Donovan or his law firm. Another law firm is in charge of the case.

[hail2skins]

S&S, from the Terl link in my previous post, I think Donovan cited overzealous security guards in having people remove clothing. I might give him the benefit of the doubt on that side. But the signs? No way.......this was something ordered from on high.

[SonnyandSam]

Donovan's comments to Matt Terl shortly after the incident suggested that there was a prohibition on all signs:

http://blog.redskins.com/2009/10/27/your-t-shirts-are-okay-with-fedexfield-also-lots-of-mike-wise/

So this blanket prohibition was the result of some overzealous security guys?

Also, signgate also happened at the same game where the Redskins gave out their own GEICO-sponsored signs! But there's no way those signs would block anyone's view, right??

And then, somehow, after the outrage of all this........the blanket prohibition on the signs was lifted.

Sorry, S&S, I don't take Donovan at face value regarding this story.......just as knowledgable fans never took the organization at face value regarding their stupid waiting list numbers.

But that's in the past.......I look forward to the annoucement tomorrow of the other improvements planned to FedEx (although I'll be out of town.......hopefully will be able to hear the news in a timely manner). I'll be wearing a fresh pair of socks to hopefully be knocked off (as Larry Michael has promised).

Where is the lie and where is the proof. No blanket policy against banners? Have you EVER been inside FedEx Field for a game? Have you EVER seen any homemade banners anywhere or even handheld signs? In nine years, I've seen maybe a couple. One for Sean Taylor that got special permission by the fan from management after he was turned away the first game. He wrote about it here on this message board. And maybe a few slipped through. I think his description of the banner policy is pretty consistent with the facts that there are never any homemade banners or signs in FedEx Field.

He made it quite clear that they have no policy on banning shirts except those with profanity. Why would they OK shirts that say "Danny Sucks" but not a banner; but make such a policy for the MNF game.

GIECO signs. Did you get one of those at the game? Did you see how small they were? They were about 3-4 inches square and pulled apart about 12-15 inches. About the width of my wife's chest. Yeah, that is going to block a lot of people. It was a free giveaway. They had total control over the size and makeup of the giveaway item. It could not likely be used as a weapon and could not block the view like a 2 x 3 foot sign or a sheet that is 5 x 8 feet wide, or whatever. Why don't you complain that the Redskins gave away all those rally towels and that would block the vision of the game. Do you not realize how ridiculous you sound and how far you are stretching things to support an unsupportable position?

You have no proof, period. You don't even have any circumstantial evidence that suggests a conspiracy to muzzle the fans. You make **** up and throw it against the internet wall and figure it will stick if you can convince enough other gullible idiots that it is the truth.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 11:31 PM ----------


Sonny and Sam,

Did I miss the spot where you covered a "lunch" between Roger Goodell and Danny the following week after that Monday Night Game and a bunch of changes...too include an in-season front office shake up and a NDA signed by Vinny Cerrato.

Also, why would a security guard take the initiative on that particular Monday Night Game that was nationally televised, when in weeks leading up to that game nothing was frowned upon?

Seriously, how about that ocean front property man? Let's talk turkey....

Better yet, let's call this what it is....a PHENOMINAL MOVE by the Redskins...albeit if we are calling it a resignation. Like I said earlier, it just opens up a fresh spot at the table for someone else, someone who may do a better job and someone who can follow legal ethics. That's all we can ask out of our general counsel, isn't it?


HAIL!

What the hell are you talking about? Lunch? What does that got to do with anything being discussed here. But I'll bite.....what the hell does lunch with the commissioner have to do with Vinnie going? Are you saying the Commissioner ordered Snyder to fire his GM? Really? You believe that ****? Hittin' the bong again tonight, huh? By the way....who cleaned house. Vinnie was fired...who else left?

It wasn't one security guard. Sounds like it was a lot. You do realize that those guys have supervisors and probably a manager. My guess is the supervisors and/or managers made a decision and told the security staff to confiscate the stuff and muzzle the meanies. It wasn't one security guy....wake up and get in the game.

Banners get banned at every game including all those leading up to the MNF game. As for shirts, how do you know no shirts with negative stuff about Danny or Vinnie or whoever were worn or not turned away?

The loss of Dave Donovan is a loss for the fans. All the positive non football stuff that has happened over the last 2-3 years were because of him and his leadership and commitment to improve the non-football operations that had been run into the ground by Snyder's first group of managers. You make false accusations about following legal ethics and doing a better job when you don't know **** about what the man did.

---------- Post added July-12th-2011 at 11:38 PM ----------


S&S, from the Terl link in my previous post, I think Donovan cited overzealous security guards in having people remove clothing. I might give him the benefit of the doubt on that side. But the signs? No way.......this was something ordered from on high.

This is the easiest statement of Donovan's to prove with facts. Every been to FedEx Field for a game? Ever see home made signs or banners any where in the stadium? Ever see them on the video screen or TV. Almost never. In my nine years, I have seen a small handful of banners or signs in the crowd. I always wondered why other teams had them but our fans never brought them to the game. Now we know why. There was a ban on banners and signs. If the banners and signs were never allowed prior to the MNF game even when they were positive signs, why would Snyder or Donovan issue orders to stop any signs negative about Snyder or Cerrato?

Come on....use some common sense....I've read your posts often....you're not that thick headed.

[hail2skins]

So I'm confused:

First, people not being able to bring in signs was a result of some overzealous security guys.

Now, the reason people weren't allowed to bring them in was because there had always been a blanket policy against signs.

And then why did the Redskins amend their policy on signs for the next home game?

As for the GEICO signs, I wasn't at that particular game, but remember getting one of the signs from someone who was there. True, the signs weren't huge, but IIRC, in order to display them you had to pull them out from the ends. If someone held them at or above their head while doing so, they would have the effect of blocking the view of someone behind them.

But I was making the point to show the hypocrisy of the organization that particular night. Truth be told, anyone who holds a sign up over their head while play is in progress should be booted.

BTW, here's a thread from the wayback machine on signgate......seems like it started before the Eagles game (maybe Tampa?):

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?302533-Change-to-FedEx-Field-banner-policy-(No-paper-bags-allowed-either).

And Steinberg in the Sports Bog:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2009/10/signs_banned_at_fedex_field.html

[DC9]

What the hell are you talking about? Lunch? What does that got to do with anything being discussed here. But I'll bite.....what the hell does lunch with the commissioner have to do with Vinnie going? Are you saying the Commissioner ordered Snyder to fire his GM? Really? You believe that ****? Hittin' the bong again tonight, huh? By the way....who cleaned house. Vinnie was fired...who else left?

Um, Goodell had lunch with Dan Snyder the week after the Eagles games and "sign gate." Do you think they were talking about NRG solar panels? Goodell is in charge of the league keeping it's integrity. You had a bingo caller calling plays, you had an embarrassment of a season going, you handcuffed your head coach, your "GM" was embarrassing himself in the press, and you just confiscated fan's signs a week or two after a Nationally televised game focused more on the negative signs than it did on the football. Yeah. Yeah, I do. I was in stationed in the Seattle area at the time, and I got to hear the unbiased coverage (free of 980 and 106.7 the fan respectively) and that was the consensus by every big writer out there, and the easy one to draw if you are a free thinker. Show me that didn't happen.


It wasn't one security guard. Sounds like it was a lot. You do realize that those guys have supervisors and probably a manager. My guess is the supervisors and/or managers made a decision and told the security staff to confiscate the stuff and muzzle the meanies. It wasn't one security guy....wake up and get in the game.

And that particular game just happened to be picked out? Really? Really dude? Don't come at me with the "bong" crap, either. That's you copping out of a real debate. And that week before, people were kicked out of the game by said security for having anti-snyderatto regalia. Doesn't anything add up or do you have another clever drug reference to throw my way?


Banners get banned at every game including all those leading up to the MNF game. As for shirts, how do you know no shirts with negative stuff about Danny or Vinnie or whoever were worn or not turned away?

Really? As I said, it was either the previous week or two weeks prior to that MNF game, and there were SIGNS O' PLENTY. LOL. Nationally televised game, plenty of anti-Snyderatto signs. The next nationally televised game, all signs are confiscated. Hmmmmm. Why? Why was that game picked out by anyone in the security as THE game to enforce the policy?


The loss of Dave Donovan is a loss for the fans. All the positive non football stuff that has happened over the last 2-3 years were because of him and his leadership and commitment to improve the non-football operations that had been run into the ground by Snyder's first group of managers. You make false accusations about following legal ethics and doing a better job when you don't know **** about what the man did.

Um. Just a hint, the legal world is my profession. I know a little about legal ethics. Is it legally ethical to say you are going to bankrupt a hedgefund if they don't issue an apology/retraction? Absolutely. That's what we would call a "textbook definition." And as I've said, I've never met Donovan, sounds like a fun guy to hang out with at a bar, he's probably a good family man if he wants to spend more time with them by taking his old job.

Nothing in the last 2-3 years had improved, and would not have had Snyder not had a meeting with Goodell. Just my opinion. Cerrato "resigned" three weeks after that lunch. SLAPP legislation is in front of congress, inspired by Donovan's letter and Snyder's lawsuit against the City Paper. Donovan "resigns" a few months later. Let's be real here buddy. I would give more credit to guys like Bruce Allen and Tony Wylie (even though Wylie fell on his sword for Snyder and Donovan in the whole city paper lawsuit, his record is prestine elsewhere and speaks for itself).

I am not tying to pick a fight with you, or pick on you. These are my opinions. You say that I am "hitting the bong," rather than addressing the holes in your logic. Fine with me. I don't care. But, again, if you want to PM me about real estate, let me know. : )


HAIL!

[Destino]

What "evidence" You have no evidence. All you have are a few fans who complained online and to a radio call in show that their shirts and/or banners were confiscated. I will grant you that that did happen. You have no evidence to suggest or prove that either Snyder or Donovan or any other high ranking Skins official made such a decision.

To be clear you originally wrote:

It was never "ordered". Donovan said so the next day. Some security guys took it upon themselves to prevent signs from entering the stadium. There was no order "from on high" as so many want to believe.

Evidence?
1 - It happened, which you admit.
2 - The fact that the Redskin sign policy was:

"Banners
Banners are permitted at FedEx Field; however, Guests may not display banners that advertise or mention products or services. Banners may not cover existing FedEx Field equipment or signage. Signs may not be made with metal or wood. Management reserves the right to remove any sign, including those deemed to be obscene, inappropriate or which obstructs the view of other Guests. For the safety of all Guests, banner poles are not permitted."
and was changed to

"Banners
Banners of any size are not permitted at FedExField."
3 - "The banners, we do have a prohibition against signs and banners in the stadium, and we don't care what they say. We take them down. They get in the way of other people viewing the game, and people get poked in the head -- that stuff happens. We have an absolute prohibition; we don't care what they say." - David Donovan on the Mike Wise show.

Is that enough evidence? :)

[carverkid]

Destino, I think you're ignoring the possibility that no Redskins officer "ordered" the confiscation of derogatory signs. It's possible that more signs than usual were being taken into the stadium, due to growing fan dissatisfaction. In the first instance, the security team (or individual members - doesn't matter) may have interpreted the "deemed to be. . . inappropriate" policy such that they decided, unilaterally, to confiscate the signs. In the second instance, perhaps team officials decided to invoke a prohibition because the growing number of signs was creating a larger problem, in the aggregate. The two decisions are not necessarily related.

At any rate, the only people who will ever know for sure are the ones in the room when decisions are made (or not made). My only point is that the "evidence" you point to is far from conclusive, and is largely circumstantial. There's probably enough that your opinion isn't unreasonable, but it's not an open/shut case.

[SonnyandSam]

So I'm confused:

First, people not being able to bring in signs was a result of some overzealous security guys.

Now, the reason people weren't allowed to bring them in was because there had always been a blanket policy against signs.

And then why did the Redskins amend their policy on signs for the next home game?

As for the GEICO signs, I wasn't at that particular game, but remember getting one of the signs from someone who was there. True, the signs weren't huge, but IIRC, in order to display them you had to pull them out from the ends. If someone held them at or above their head while doing so, they would have the effect of blocking the view of someone behind them.

But I was making the point to show the hypocrisy of the organization that particular night. Truth be told, anyone who holds a sign up over their head while play is in progress should be booted.

BTW, here's a thread from the wayback machine on signgate......seems like it started before the Eagles game (maybe Tampa?):

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?302533-Change-to-FedEx-Field-banner-policy-(No-paper-bags-allowed-either).

And Steinberg in the Sports Bog:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2009/10/signs_banned_at_fedex_field.html

It is quite easy to twist words when you take comments out of context. You know there have been almost no homemade signs at FedEx Field for like forever. I know this to be true for the past nine years. I've attended virutally every game over that time span as a STH. Once in a while a few signs have been seen. I have witnessed several times in the past (not counting last year) security throwing signs into the trash cans at FedEx or refusing fans entry with signs. FACT....witnessed it myself. And those I did see were POSITIVE signs. Does security get lax at times? Do they miss signs that are hidden away on someone's body? Sure. This is not a TSA pat down at the airport where they practically strip search you. A few slip through.

The Skins, to their credit, modified the ban because of the huge uproar (valid or not). I don't recall if it was the next home game but it was mid november, more than a month later. The reason for the ban originally was to avoid people being injured or blocking the vision of fans who wanted to see the game. Is that really so hard to understand? Was a complete ban unnecessary from the beginning? Perhaps. But it is much easier for security to enforce a total ban on signs and banners than to argue with customers over the size of a sign or banner or whether it is dangerous or not. They overreached maybe. So they were willing to change the policy to match the shirt/clothing policy. The original intention to protect fans was distorted by some to mean sign bans were only to protect Snyder from criticism. Yet the ban was in place for years long before "signgate" happened.

The GEICO sign is not hypocritical. If you had one in your hands, you know damn well it wasn't blocking anyone's vision like a large sign or 4-6 foot banner might. Come on....give me a freakin' break. They had total control over the approval of that item before giving it away. Something they cannot do for 85,000 fans walking into a stadium on game day.

And the "overzealous" comment from Donovan...wasn't that in answer to people being asked to remove their t shirts and or turn them inside out? I forget and can't find the quote quickly.

[Destino]

Destino, I think you're ignoring the possibility that no Redskins officer "ordered" the confiscation of derogatory signs. It's possible that more signs than usual were being taken into the stadium, due to growing fan dissatisfaction. In the first instance, the security team (or individual members - doesn't matter) may have interpreted the "deemed to be. . . inappropriate" policy such that they decided, unilaterally, to confiscate the signs. In the second instance, perhaps team officials decided to invoke a prohibition because the growing number of signs was creating a larger problem, in the aggregate. The two decisions are not necessarily related.

At any rate, the only people who will ever know for sure are the ones in the room when decisions are made (or not made). My only point is that the "evidence" you point to is far from conclusive, and is largely circumstantial. There's probably enough that your opinion isn't unreasonable, but it's not an open/shut case.

What second instance? Give me some dates. The reporting shows that at the start of the 2009 season the banner policy was as I wrote in my last post. They were allowed as long as they met certain criteria. In Oct prior to the monday night football game that spawned the media reports and fan anger the policy was changed and all banners/signs were banned. Are you saying there was an instance prior to Oct 2009 where signs were confiscated by overzealous security guards? That's a strong point if you can show it to be the case. I know that the monday night football game was Oct 26, 2009 and that's where the entire sign drama took place.

[SonnyandSam]

To be clear you originally wrote:


Evidence?
1 - It happened, which you admit.
2 - The fact that the Redskin sign policy was:

"Banners
Banners are permitted at FedEx Field; however, Guests may not display banners that advertise or mention products or services. Banners may not cover existing FedEx Field equipment or signage. Signs may not be made with metal or wood. Management reserves the right to remove any sign, including those deemed to be obscene, inappropriate or which obstructs the view of other Guests. For the safety of all Guests, banner poles are not permitted."
and was changed to

"Banners
Banners of any size are not permitted at FedExField."
3 - "The banners, we do have a prohibition against signs and banners in the stadium, and we don't care what they say. We take them down. They get in the way of other people viewing the game, and people get poked in the head -- that stuff happens. We have an absolute prohibition; we don't care what they say." - David Donovan on the Mike Wise show.

Is that enough evidence? :)

You have coveniently made up sign policies with quotations around them to suggest those are actual policies. Care to provide a link for us to verify that was the language with dates when they were changed? Never seen either policy in print nor described that way by a Redskins official.

Don't call them facts or evidence when you make **** up.

[Destino]

The original intention to protect fans was distorted by some to mean sign bans were only to protect Snyder from criticism. Yet the ban was in place for years long before "signgate" happened.
This is false.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090330025154/http://redskins.bridgelinesw.net/gen/articles/Stadium_Guide_1621.jsp

That is a snap shot from March 2009 of the Redskins stadium guide thanks to http://wayback.archive.org/web/ which archives just about everything. It clearly reads:


Banners

Banners are permitted at FedExField; however, Guests may not display banners that advertise or mention products or services. Banners may not cover existing FedExField equipment or signage. Signs may not be made with metal or wood. Management reserves the right to remove any sign, including those deemed to be obscene, inappropriate or which obstructs the view of other Guests. For the safety of all Guests, banner poles are not permitted.

Prior to the monday night football game (I do not know when) all banners were banned completely. Unless of course Donovan was lying when he said:
"The banners, we do have a prohibition against signs and banners in the stadium, and we don't care what they say. We take them down. They get in the way of other people viewing the game, and people get poked in the head -- that stuff happens. We have an absolute prohibition; we don't care what they say." - David Donovan on the Mike Wise show on October 27th (the day after the monday night football game)



You have coveniently made up sign policies with quotations around them to suggest those are actual policies. Care to provide a link for us to verify that was the language with dates when they were changed? Never seen either policy in print nor described that way by a Redskins official.

Don't call them facts or evidence when you make **** up.
Did you just accuse me of making up sign policies? Really? When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.


Edit:
I found a clue as to when the banner policy was changed right here on Extremeskins!
http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?302533-Change-to-FedEx-Field-banner-policy-%28No-paper-bags-allowed-either%29.

Here is the OP:

The redskins changed their policy on fan signage as of this morning and banned all signs.

I checked the FedEx Field policies last night and it said that banners were permitted but they could not be attached to the stadium itself or be mounted on poles.

Today when we went through security they told us all signs are banned and made us throw them out.

I had a sign that said "Love the Redskins, Hate the owner" and I also handed out over 100 small signs with Snyders picture with a circle and red slash through it out in the Green Lot F41.

It seems to me that they changed this policy in order to avoid bad PR.

That was posted October 4, 2009.

[SonnyandSam]

Um, Goodell had lunch with Dan Snyder the week after the Eagles games and "sign gate." Do you think they were talking about NRG solar panels? Goodell is in charge of the league keeping it's integrity. You had a bingo caller calling plays, you had an embarrassment of a season going, you handcuffed your head coach, your "GM" was embarrassing himself in the press, and you just confiscated fan's signs a week or two after a Nationally televised game focused more on the negative signs than it did on the football. Yeah. Yeah, I do. I was in stationed in the Seattle area at the time, and I got to hear the unbiased coverage (free of 980 and 106.7 the fan respectively) and that was the consensus by every big writer out there, and the easy one to draw if you are a free thinker. Show me that didn't happen.



And that particular game just happened to be picked out? Really? Really dude? Don't come at me with the "bong" crap, either. That's you copping out of a real debate. And that week before, people were kicked out of the game by said security for having anti-snyderatto regalia. Doesn't anything add up or do you have another clever drug reference to throw my way?



Really? As I said, it was either the previous week or two weeks prior to that MNF game, and there were SIGNS O' PLENTY. LOL. Nationally televised game, plenty of anti-Snyderatto signs. The next nationally televised game, all signs are confiscated. Hmmmmm. Why? Why was that game picked out by anyone in the security as THE game to enforce the policy?



Um. Just a hint, the legal world is my profession. I know a little about legal ethics. Is it legally ethical to say you are going to bankrupt a hedgefund if they don't issue an apology/retraction? Absolutely. That's what we would call a "textbook definition." And as I've said, I've never met Donovan, sounds like a fun guy to hang out with at a bar, he's probably a good family man if he wants to spend more time with them by taking his old job.

Nothing in the last 2-3 years had improved, and would not have had Snyder not had a meeting with Goodell. Just my opinion. Cerrato "resigned" three weeks after that lunch. SLAPP legislation is in front of congress, inspired by Donovan's letter and Snyder's lawsuit against the City Paper. Donovan "resigns" a few months later. Let's be real here buddy. I would give more credit to guys like Bruce Allen and Tony Wylie (even though Wylie fell on his sword for Snyder and Donovan in the whole city paper lawsuit, his record is prestine elsewhere and speaks for itself).

I am not tying to pick a fight with you, or pick on you. These are my opinions. You say that I am "hitting the bong," rather than addressing the holes in your logic. Fine with me. I don't care. But, again, if you want to PM me about real estate, let me know. : )


HAIL!

If the legal profession is your "world", you must really suck if you take a lunch between two individuals and then pick and choose whatever following event and ASSume that they are related. Really? You really want to admit that you are in the legal profession and you would connect two separate actions weeks apart and insist they have to be connected with absolutely NO PROOF? Not even some smoke? Or a tip form a jailhouse snich? Really? I got no response....never heard such an asinine comment worth responding.

And then say it is unethical to bring a defamation suit which is permitted BY LAW. You do realize he does have that right under our judicial system correct? I know as the stellar legal professional you are, you have already ruled in your own small mind that it should be dismissed before reading or hearing any of the facts or arguments to be presented before the court. Really? The legal profession is your "World" and you've already decided he loses the case because some liberal has introduced SLAPP legislation that hasn't passed Congress?

Nothing good has happened in the last 2-3 years: Really? Did you not read my post before responding? Let me repeat a few highlights since you must have had a few bong hits prior to reading and responding:


Two New HDTV video screens
A new state of the art digital video and audio room to control those screens and audio.
A new Stadium manager to improve the game day experience.
A completely restructured ticket office with a new manager and new customer friendly policies
New automatic ticket upgrade software and system
New ticket policy to allow more people to move to the lower level when upgraded
New band room and uniforms for the Redskins Marching Band
More involvement and focus on the Redskins Band during the game
More highlights and away scores than in the past
More food carts on the concourse offering some additional food choices
A totally renovated stadium store so that product sales could be acomplished faster and easier.
HDTV Screens and all day tailgating for the 2010 opening game with the cowgirls.
A new parking contractor and changes to parking and access routes to improve parking flow
New parking lots inside the beltway for fans; no more busses to distant office buildings
Increased number of porta potties for us tailgaters.
More golf carts to move handicapped and elderly people from the parking lots to the Stadium and back.
Lots of improvements for premium STHs, too; but I am sure you don't want to hear about that because stuff for the upper class scum doesn't interest you.


---------- Post added July-13th-2011 at 01:00 PM ----------


This is false.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090330025154/http://redskins.bridgelinesw.net/gen/articles/Stadium_Guide_1621.jsp

That is a snap shot from March 2009 of the Redskins stadium guide thanks to http://wayback.archive.org/web/ which archives just about everything. It clearly reads:



Prior to the monday night football game (I do not know when) all banners were banned completely. Unless of course Donovan was lying when he said:
"The banners, we do have a prohibition against signs and banners in the stadium, and we don't care what they say. We take them down. They get in the way of other people viewing the game, and people get poked in the head -- that stuff happens. We have an absolute prohibition; we don't care what they say." - David Donovan on the Mike Wise show on October 27th (the day after the monday night football game)



Did you just accuse me of making up sign policies? Really? When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.


Edit:
I found a clue as to when the banner policy was changed right here on Extremeskins!
http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?302533-Change-to-FedEx-Field-banner-policy-%28No-paper-bags-allowed-either%29.

Here is the OP:


That was posted October 4, 2009.

Your link does not work for me....I will go home tonight and look at all my old parking maps and stadium policies from my previous season tickets and see what is there. A post from an angy fan is not proof. A copy of the policy is what I am looking for.

[DC9]

If the legal profession is your "world", you must really suck if you take a lunch between two individuals and then pick and choose whatever following event and ASSume that they are related. Really? You really want to admit that you are in the legal profession and you would connect two separate actions weeks apart and insist they have to be connected with absolutely NO PROOF? Not even some smoke? Or a tip form a jailhouse snich? Really? I got no response....never heard such an asinine comment worth responding.

Smoke? Re-read the last post. The abortion of a franchise that the Redskins were in 2009, a lunch with Goodell, two weeks later Vinny resigns. Smoke? Re-read it brother. LOL. And again, please don't resort to personal shots....or petty "bong" references. That's just not classy.



And then say it is unethical to bring a defamation suit which is permitted BY LAW. You do realize he does have that right under our judicial system correct? I know as the stellar legal professional you are, you have already ruled in your own small mind that it should be dismissed before reading or hearing any of the facts or arguments to be presented before the court. Really? The legal profession is your "World" and you've already decided he loses the case because some liberal has introduced SLAPP legislation that hasn't passed Congress?

Wow, you are worse than I thought. I didn't say it was unethical to bring a defamation suit. Which is weird that you would file suit against a paper, protected by the first ammendment. The ethical dilema comes from the line Donovan wrote where he said, "Mr. Snyder is prepared to spend blank amount of money, which would far surpass a hedgefund supported company," or words to that effect. That's Donovan saying, apologize/retract or we will bankrupt you in court. The Redskins would've lost that case, but the goal was to bankrupt the city paper. You don't have an issue with that? Geez. LOL.


Nothing good has happened in the last 2-3 years: Really? Did you not read my post before responding? Let me repeat a few highlights since you must have had a few bong hits prior to reading and responding:

Two New HDTV video screens
A new state of the art digital video and audio room to control those screens and audio.
A new Stadium manager to improve the game day experience.
A completely restructured ticket office with a new manager and new customer friendly policies
New automatic ticket upgrade software and system
New ticket policy to allow more people to move to the lower level when upgraded
New band room and uniforms for the Redskins Marching Band
More involvement and focus on the Redskins Band during the game
More highlights and away scores than in the past
More food carts on the concourse offering some additional food choices
A totally renovated stadium store so that product sales could be acomplished faster and easier.
HDTV Screens and all day tailgating for the 2010 opening game with the cowgirls.
A new parking contractor and changes to parking and access routes to improve parking flow
New parking lots inside the beltway for fans; no more busses to distant office buildings
Increased number of porta potties for us tailgaters.
More golf carts to move handicapped and elderly people from the parking lots to the Stadium and back.
Lots of improvements for premium STHs, too; but I am sure you don't want to hear about that because stuff for the upper class scum doesn't interest you.

lol, that looks like a lot of upgrades from LAST YEAR. Which would support my Tony Wylie/Bruce Allen argument. And would further support the "lunch" between Goodell and Snyder having an impact.

Do you think these changes would've taken place, do you think the train would've not gotten back on track, had it not been for that lunch?

And I am not sure where you are going with the upper class comment....come on man. What's that about?

Next?

[Destino]

Hard to argue against improvements when they added the huge screens. That was something fans have been waiting for,

[carverkid]

What second instance? Give me some dates.

I have no clue about dates, and don't have the time to research it. Anyway, I wasn't referring to chronological "instances", but separate events, whenever they occurred.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just trying to reason based on the information presented by members of this board. Unfortunately, I'll have to leave the fact-checking to someone else for the time being.

By the way, if the biggest issue we have to complain about is something that happened in 2009, that's GOOD NEWS to me. Why waste energy dwelling on it? If Donovan hadn't resigned, bringing attention to it, this wouldn't even be a discussion topic. I'm sure someday Dan Snyder will write a tell-all book about his time at the burgundy & gold helm; we can settle it then.

Hail

[SonnyandSam]

Smoke? Re-read the last post. The abortion of a franchise that the Redskins were in 2009, a lunch with Goodell, two weeks later Vinny resigns. Smoke? Re-read it brother. LOL. And again, please don't resort to personal shots....or petty "bong" references. That's just not classy.




Wow, you are worse than I thought. I didn't say it was unethical to bring a defamation suit. Which is weird that you would file suit against a paper, protected by the first ammendment. The ethical dilema comes from the line Donovan wrote where he said, "Mr. Snyder is prepared to spend blank amount of money, which would far surpass a hedgefund supported company," or words to that effect. That's Donovan saying, apologize/retract or we will bankrupt you in court. The Redskins would've lost that case, but the goal was to bankrupt the city paper. You don't have an issue with that? Geez. LOL.



lol, that looks like a lot of upgrades from LAST YEAR. Which would support my Tony Wylie/Bruce Allen argument. And would further support the "lunch" between Goodell and Snyder having an impact.

Do you think these changes would've taken place, do you think the train would've not gotten back on track, had it not been for that lunch?

And I am not sure where you are going with the upper class comment....come on man. What's that about?

Next?

NONE of those things are the responsiblity of Bruce Allen or Tony Wyllie. Tony Wyllie is in charge of PR (and responsible for the City Paper suit). Bruce Allen is in charge of football operations. Dave Donovan was the Cheif Operating Officer in charge of non-football operations. All of those changes were led by and accomplished by Dave.

And this whole lunch thing is ridiculous. You have NO PROOF of any connection what so ever. You don't think the Commission doesn't talk to every single owner on a regular basis? Sure, they could have talked about the stuff you allege. But Snyder owns the team. He does not work for the commissioner. In fact, it is the other way around. The commission works for the owners and Snyder is one of the 32 primary owners.

You are wose than JLC. You make up crap and throw against the wall with absolutely no foundaton; just your imagination. If not bong hits, then you just must be senile. You have absolutely no credibility with what you are saying.

[DC9]

[
SonnyandSam;8380158]NONE of those things are the responsiblity of Bruce Allen or Tony Wyllie. Tony Wyllie is in charge of PR (and responsible for the City Paper suit). Bruce Allen is in charge of football operations. Dave Donovan was the Cheif Operating Officer in charge of non-football operations. All of those changes were led by and accomplished by Dave.

Again, Tony Wylie didn't write the letter that was signed by David Donovan did he? It was SIGNED David Donovan, Chief Counsel. Was it not?


And this whole lunch thing is ridiculous. You have NO PROOF of any connection what so ever. You don't think the Commission doesn't talk to every single owner on a regular basis? Sure, they could have talked about the stuff you allege. But Snyder owns the team. He does not work for the commissioner. In fact, it is the other way around. The commission works for the owners and Snyder is one of the 32 primary owners.

Again, Sonny, look at the timing. What does your gut tell you?


You are wose than JLC. You make up crap and throw against the wall with absolutely no foundaton; just your imagination. If not bong hits, then you just must be senile. You have absolutely no credibility with what you are saying.

Wow. Again. You've refused to answer any of my questions and gone back to name calling. Class act, Sonny.


HAIL!

[SonnyandSam]

I'm really tired of this debate and there is nothing either side is going to say to change anyone's mind. But I promised to go home and check the stadium rules that get sent to STHs every year. So here it is. None of the stadium rules guides over the years say anything about banners or signs being prohibited from FedEx Field, including the current version online at Redskins.com.

However, I know two things. One we had a member who several years ago was not permitted to bring in his Sean Taylor sign (on some cloth material) at a game. He eventually got special permission to bring it to the game and hang it behind the Skins bench on the lower level. It still appears at most if not all games. And two, I have over the years watch security turn people away with banners and signs; either the fans return to their cars or they get tossed in the trash containers. And three, the stadium has always been almost devoid of home made signs unlike a lot of NFL stadiums. Of course this changed last fall, when negative signs about Danny and Cerrato began appearing mid season. Then we had the MNF blowup.

And DC9...I addressed virtually every if not every one of your arguements; there are a whole host of pieces of information that I presented in my posts that you did not address and conveniently ignored. You talk about "gut" feelings and I talk about "facts". I guess that is why we cannot agree. People's "gut" reactions are often wrong.

I'm done with this thread. I am willing to agree that we disagree. You can have the last word....but I have no more to add to this discussion.

Damn.....I wish the lockout were over so we could discuss real football issues....

[Riggo#44]

Speaking of Donovan (and completely changing the subject):


The Redskins announced on Monday that Dave Donovan, the team’s COO for the past six seasons and one of team-owner Daniel Snyder’s top advisers, is leaving the organization after a six-year run in Washington. Donovan spoke to 106.7 The Fan about his decision to leave the team earlier this week. Snyder’s role with the team over the past half-decade was one of the many topics that came up.

“His reported role in football operations has always been overstated,” Donovan said. “I don’t think he’s been nearly as involved as a lot of commentators have suggested, at least since I’ve been here.”

But what about during Jim Zorn’s unsuccessful two-year stint? It sounds like Snyder may have been more involved in the time after Joe Gibbs and before Mike Shanahan than he has been recently.

“Right now, compared to two or three years ago – he’s got 100 percent confidence in the head coach and he’s letting him totally run the football operation,” Donovan said. “He’s completely been hands off.”

Link: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2011/07/13/dave-donovan-on-dan-snyders-role-with-the-redskins/

[Rocky21]

I'm really tired of this debate and there is nothing either side is going to say to change anyone's mind. But I promised to go home and check the stadium rules that get sent to STHs every year. So here it is. None of the stadium rules guides over the years say anything about banners or signs being prohibited from FedEx Field, including the current version online at Redskins.com.

Sonny and Sam, I know from previous posts that you don't like how people pile on Snyder and blame him for everything. But you are aware that the Skins changed the policies on signs in the stadium in '09, right? It's common knowledge and was laid out fairly well by Steinberg of the Post at the time and by Destino in this thread.

[DC9]

And DC9...I addressed virtually every if not every one of your arguements; there are a whole host of pieces of information that I presented in my posts that you did not address and conveniently ignored. You talk about "gut" feelings and I talk about "facts". I guess that is why we cannot agree. People's "gut" reactions are often wrong.

I'm done with this thread. I am willing to agree that we disagree. You can have the last word....but I have no more to add to this discussion.

Damn.....I wish the lockout were over so we could discuss real football issues....

Cool man. No big deal here. Even though you only answered about 20% of what I asked you and then tried to deflect my ethics question, by saying that it wasn't ethical to file a defamation suit. But hey, you are obviously some sort of village elder here and I am the new guy, lol. No big deal.

And I definately agree..... END THIS DARN LOCKOUT PLEEEEASE!