Report: Daniel Snyder to meet with Roger Goodell about Redskins name
By John Breech | CBSSports.com
October 28, 2013 9:25 pm ET
The NFL is scheduled to meet with the Oneida Indian Nation on Wednesday regarding the Washington Redskins team name. However, before that meeting happens, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell will meet with Redskins owner Daniel Snyder in New York, according to the Washington Post.
According to the Post, Snyder hasn't changed his stance on the team's name -- and his stance is to not change it -- but Snyder will meet with Goodell so that Goodell can "get more of an understanding from the club as to how it plans to address the issue."
Snyder wrote an open letter to fans in early October citing reasons why he wouldn't be changing the name. In the letter, Snyder mentioned the franchise's great history, tradition and legacy.
The Oneida Indian Nation have spearheaded the effort to get the name changed. The Oneida have bought radio ads denouncing the name and even held a protest before the Redskins played in Green Bay in September.
The Oneida have been vocal enough that the NFL agreed to meet with them in New York in November. Snyder's actually been invited to attend that meeting, but he's unlikely to be there. The Oneida commissioned a poll in mid-October and 77 percent of respondents said they believed Snyder should attend. Instead, it looks like Snyder will have the aforementioned meeting with Goodell next week.
President Obama and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell both seem open to a name change, but Goodell did say in September that the decision is ultimately Snyder's to make.
Hog Bowl III, V, X Champion (2011, 2013, 2018)
Hognostication Champion (2011, 2013, 2016)
Hognostibowl XII Champion (2017, 2018)
Scalp 'em, Swamp 'em, We will take 'em big score! Read 'em, Weep 'em Touchdown, We want heap more!
The team started off with its usual tactic of ignoring this one. With the intense media pressure the issue has generated, it's important that Snyder demonstrate that he understands the other side of the argument and is actively listening and engaged. You couldn't help but notice his pointing this out in the letter that was sent out to fans. I actually think Goodell is in our corner on this one and can help the team show the public in an appropriate way that they care . . . without actually changing the name, of course. Just my .
Irn-Bru wrote:The team started off with its usual tactic of ignoring this one. With the intense media pressure the issue has generated, it's important that Snyder demonstrate that he understands the other side of the argument and is actively listening and engaged. You couldn't help but notice his pointing this out in the letter that was sent out to fans. I actually think Goodell is in our corner on this one and can help the team show the public in an appropriate way that they care . . . without actually changing the name, of course. Just my .
+1 - Dan is going to get together with Roger and the 2 of them will figure out a way for this to be 'managed' going forward
Dan does NOT need to 'stand firm' or make silly statements - he needs to do whatever it takes to make it seem like he's understanding etc. etc. and just keep the name
same for Roger - he wants to make sure the NFL is proactive and at the same time he's VERY aware he cannot actually force Dan to change the name
these 2 need to 'handle' this just like the politicians … make it seem like you're doing what the people want and then do absolutely nothing … all with the proper amount of 'respect', of course
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
I'm not arguing whether its right or wrong. But I seriously think that the NFL is going to make them do *something* to address this issue. Its not an issue the NFL wants to see being debated week after week, and simply saying "NO" may not be enough anymore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax "We're on the rise, man, whether you're on the train or not." - Josh Norman
Good for Dan. If we lose our name we lose so much history. We will be like the Ravens, Titans, Buccaneers, etc. The next thing you know our uniforms will be changed to look like pajamas, like those teams. We will have the look and feel of an expansion team. Good for Dan.
Irn-Bru wrote:The team started off with its usual tactic of ignoring this one. With the intense media pressure the issue has generated, it's important that Snyder demonstrate that he understands the other side of the argument and is actively listening and engaged. You couldn't help but notice his pointing this out in the letter that was sent out to fans. I actually think Goodell is in our corner on this one and can help the team show the public in an appropriate way that they care . . . without actually changing the name, of course. Just my .
cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:Change the logo back to the arrow head and the name to the skins... And call it a day already. This is absurd.
I wonder if that isn't going to be the first appeasement step (changing the logo). That alone could show good faith and cool things down perhaps, but some people need a fight to get meaning out of their lives.
Man, I don't know. It is starting to look inevitable, which sucks. I'll still love 'em like before, but it won't be quite the same. You fellas probably feel the same way. All because of some yokels who don't have enough to deal with in living, period, but have to actually seek out additional ways to suffer or feel aggrieved. Total, unequivocal BS. See, the thing about political correctness is, once you give in on the first issue there's another, then another, ad infinitum. It never ends. Thus it stands to reason that it should not be allowed to begin whenever and wherever possible.
Well if we have to change the name Redskins, you better get on the phone with Notre Dame and tell them they must follow suit. As an American of Irish decent, I am appalled at the depiction of my race as a bunch of drunks always looking for a good donnybrook. Oh, and get Hal Steinbrenner on the phone too. As someone from New York, I do not like to be called a 'damn yankee' by southerners. It hurts my feelings.
gregory smith wrote:Good for Dan. If we lose our name we lose so much history. We will be like the Ravens, Titans, Buccaneers, etc.
I get the Ravens and Titans (although the Ravens actually started new, and left the Browns' history to Cleveland), but the Buccaneers? That was their name from the get go.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
cowboykillerzRGiii wrote:Change the logo back to the arrow head and the name to the skins... And call it a day already. This is absurd.
I wonder if that isn't going to be the first appeasement step (changing the logo). That alone could show good faith and cool things down perhaps, but some people need a fight to get meaning out of their lives.
I still dig the arrow logo.
The whole argument is over the name, not the logo. Really, it's not either so much as the use of Indians as mascots across the board. But they know they can make headway with the name because so many non-Indians mistakenly perceive it to be racist.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
If Dan Snyder concedes this fight I will cease being a Redskins fan (literally). I have never liked him as an owner for many reasons. I'll simply quit paying any attention to the whole sport of NFL Football. I have a 45-year history as a Redskins fan and I will prefer to keep the memories pure. The team has been a failure ever since he bought the franchise and I would view this as the ultimate and final failure I will endure as a fan. I might possibly renew a fan-hood if he ever sold the team. I will just focus all the more on collegiate sports.
This entire "controversy" has been contrived and invented and embellished into some kind of distraction and politically-correct pacification. The entire culture is suffering intellectually because of this overly-sensitive crap. If people cannot understand how the context of Redskin in The Washington Redskins is completely benign, and actually shows honor, then that is their problem. If you are the owner, or fan, or even casual observer, and you have to bend YOUR version of it, then you're failing even more than the ones who cannot understand you.
PAPDOG67 wrote:Well if we have to change the name Redskins, you better get on the phone with Notre Dame and tell them they must follow suit. As an American of Irish decent, I am appalled at the depiction of my race as a bunch of drunks always looking for a good donnybrook. Oh, and get Hal Steinbrenner on the phone too. As someone from New York, I do not like to be called a 'damn yankee' by southerners. It hurts my feelings.
While I get your point, I think the "sensitivity" is a result of the word "skins" being in the name (at least that is my take). That said, if they changed the team name to "whiteskins" -- I couldn't care less. The real question is why now --- the name made it through the WWII and the civil rights movement --- yet all of a sudden it has mysteriously become an issue. IMHO, this is another example of ESPN deciding they need to create another controversy.
But the fact is that when dealing with PRIVATE companies --- such as the redskins ---- historically the government has allowed the market to dictate appropriate action. Therefore, if people truly are against the name and deem it culturally insensitive, then those people should boycott games, apparell, tickets, merchandise, etc. If it results in such a signficant financial hit to the franchise, then Dan will have no other choice but to change the name........ But alas ---- that would never happen because no one outside of the about 100 members of the media and activist groups consider it offensive.
fabe wrote:Attention people of the Oneida Indian Nation. You are NOT Redskins! WE are Redskins! We are a part of Redskins nation, and we are damn proud of it!
There, now that's settled. Can we move on from it now?
If our players and/or coaches start protesting the name, then I'm done. I quit. Seriously. It's bad enough that the team is playing awfully, but now I have to hear about this crap every week?
The worst thing a football team can have is a locker room distraction, and if players/coaches start complaining about the name of the team that pays them millions, then there is something really wrong in the world.
riggofan wrote:I'm not arguing whether its right or wrong. But I seriously think that the NFL is going to make them do *something* to address this issue. Its not an issue the NFL wants to see being debated week after week, and simply saying "NO" may not be enough anymore.
I may be missing something here … I understand that Dan met with Roger … then Roger was meeting with these people to listen to their views on this issue …
from all accounts, Dan is the only one that can change the name … Dan made it clear to Roger and the NFL, that, while he respects all the parties on both sides of this, he has decided not to change the name at this time …
there may be some changes that the NFL will ask Dan to consider and those might happen but one thing seems fairly clear …
the name, Washington Redskins is not changing at this time
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
markshark84 wrote:While I get your point, I think the "sensitivity" is a result of the word "skins" being in the name (at least that is my take). That said, if they changed the team name to "whiteskins" -- I couldn't care less. The real question is why now --- the name made it through the WWII and the civil rights movement --- yet all of a sudden it has mysteriously become an issue. IMHO, this is another example of ESPN deciding they need to create another controversy.
But the fact is that when dealing with PRIVATE companies --- such as the redskins ---- historically the government has allowed the market to dictate appropriate action. Therefore, if people truly are against the name and deem it culturally insensitive, then those people should boycott games, apparell, tickets, merchandise, etc. If it results in such a signficant financial hit to the franchise, then Dan will have no other choice but to change the name........ But alas ---- that would never happen because no one outside of the about 100 members of the media and activist groups consider it offensive.
Excellent points, brother. I hope this controversy follolws suit as you indicated. You sound as if you are familiar with similar situations in the past, and I can take heart from that. (?? not sure I understand what I just wrote, so nobody feel awkward if they don't either) I may have missed the sarcasm, but you don't seriously believe ESPN is behind this do you? I thinl we could put every liberal humanitarian group there is on a dartboard, from the ACLU to the NAACP, hit one, call it the instigators, and we'd be pretty darn close to the truth.
riggofan wrote:I'm not arguing whether its right or wrong. But I seriously think that the NFL is going to make them do *something* to address this issue. Its not an issue the NFL wants to see being debated week after week, and simply saying "NO" may not be enough anymore.
I may be missing something here … I understand that Dan met with Roger … then Roger was meeting with these people to listen to their views on this issue …
from all accounts, Dan is the only one that can change the name … Dan made it clear to Roger and the NFL, that, while he respects all the parties on both sides of this, he has decided not to change the name at this time …
there may be some changes that the NFL will ask Dan to consider and those might happen but one thing seems fairly clear …
the name, Washington Redskins is not changing at this time
Of course Snyder is the only person who can legally change the name, but you don't think the NFL can exert some pressure and influence on that decision??? I don't know if Goodell and the other owners would do this or not, but there is no shortage of ways they can pressure Snyder if they want to see the name changed.
I'm sure at the NFL level though its just a business decision. Which hurts business more: negative publicity over the name Redskins or pissing off fans by changing the name?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax "We're on the rise, man, whether you're on the train or not." - Josh Norman
the NFL (Roger & the other owners) would like Dan Snyder to change the name and they are going to 'manage' the issue by 'supporting' those that want a name change while at the same time they understand (and unofficially support) Dan's decision not to change the name (at this time) .
the issue can be discussed ad infinitum … at this time the name is not changing
Until recently, Snyder & Allen have made a lot of really bad decisions - nobody with any sense believes this franchise will get better under their guidance Snyder's W/L record = 45% (80-96) - Snyder/Allen = 41% (59-84-1)
.
