Jump to content

Bad news supposedly coming out of Washington eventually


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

Or, maybe we should examine the culture that a leader creates in how they manage their employees and the examples they set. Employees will follow the lead and ethical approach to the workplace that the person in charge exhibits (at whatever level that "leader" is). Whether that is Daniel Snyder, I am not sure, but there certainly seems to be smoke there. 

Something is wrong inside the Washington Redskin organization that allows this type of behavior to be allowed, and apparently prevalent. If you set the tone of your organization correctly, these things do not manifest, and the miscreant that falls outside the line is dealt with swiftly and in a demonstrative way.

The problem was not the existence of cheerleaders. The problem was the culture. I can't believe I am having this discussion in 2020. Or, maybe I can.

More importantly, maybe you should to a better job of reading and understanding the point that is being made before misrepresenting what somebody is saying.

And yes, if the Redskins had no cheerleaders, I'm sure this would still be going on.  Their very existence has nothing to do with any of this.  

It's dumb.  It's 2020.  100 percent risk with zero benefit.  Fans don't even care if they're at the games but the club takes on the risk of a PR nightmare when a few creeps get out of line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

This is burn-the-tapes level hilarious now. 
 

 

Suspect the owners via their employee Goodell do not want to have A Frank McCourt/Donald Sterling situation of the NFL forcing someone to sell a franchise. Because that would set a precedent any of them could someday face themselves. Snyder is a a-hole, but if they're counting how many there are in that room he is not alone. What we know about Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft already is enough to have most CEOs of publicly-traded companies kicked out. 

McCourt was removed for a bad divorce, yet somehow the WIlpons being part of 2 Ponzi schemes was not a big deal.Was that MLB owners closing ranks or Selig and then Manfred protecting their friends?  

Sterling was an embarrassment and bad at the business end of basketball for decades. But one racist tape recording and he was gone. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AFJF said:

More importantly, maybe you should to a better job of reading and understanding the point that is being made before misrepresenting what somebody is saying.

And yes, if the Redskins had no cheerleaders, I'm sure this would still be going on.  Their very existence has nothing to do with any of this.  

It's dumb.  It's 2020.  100 percent risk with zero benefit.  Fans don't even care if they're at the games but the club takes on the risk of a PR nightmare when a few creeps get out of line.

Why then, even bring up "why are there cheerleaders" in this thread? Anyone can then assume the link you are creating.

There is something called in the art of conversation "appropriate context", where you weigh the positive and negative effects of what you are about to say and how they may be construed. 

With bringing up a single line of "why are there even cheerleaders" in a thread of sexual misconduct by an organization, I would imagine it looks like this:

Positive- You come across as a sensitive, caring individual understanding of women's rights. 

Negative-You come across as a miscreant that places the blame on the women themselves for being objectified and used.

Was that worth it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Why then, even bring up "why are there cheerleaders" in this thread? Anyone can then assume the link you are creating.

There is something called in the art of conversation "appropriate context", where you weigh the positive and negative effects of what you are about to say and how they may be construed. 

With bringing up a single line of "why are there even cheerleaders" in a thread of sexual misconduct by an organization, I would imagine it looks like this:

Positive- You come across as a sensitive, caring individual understanding of women's rights. 

Negative-You come across as a miscreant that places the blame on the women themselves for being objectified and used.

Was that worth it?

Your inability to understand a very short, very simple and very basic comment is not my fault.  It's yours.  I assigned no blame to anyone yet you claimed I did.

The very existence of this thread shows that my position is valid.  Don't add people to your organization whose value is nil but whose risk is astronomical.

I don't lose sleep over how people on a message board feel about my opinion, which I stand by.  In 2020, don't hire women to take off 95% of their clothing for a bunch of drooling creeps and inevitably, the eventual handful of lowlives within your ranks. 

The only thing that surprises me about this case is that we're not hearing about it on one level or another from every team that has them.  However, if this gets traction, expect more claims from more clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Your inability to understand a very short, very simple and very basic comment is not my fault.  It's yours.  I assigned no blame to anyone yet you claimed I did.

The very existence of this thread shows that my position is valid.  Don't add people to your organization whose value is nil but whose risk is astronomical.

I don't lose sleep over how people on a message board feel about my opinion, which I stand by.  In 2020, don't hire women to take off 95% of their clothing for a bunch of drooling creeps and inevitably, the eventual handful of lowlives within your ranks. 

The only thing that surprises me about this case is that we're not hearing about it on one level or another from every team that has them.  However, if this gets traction, expect more claims from more clubs.

Yup, the cheerleaders created the culture.  They had it coming to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, AFJF said:

There's a term in the business world called a "risk benefit anaylsis".  It's basically when you're making a decision and you weigh the positives vs negatives.  What's the best thing that can happen in a situation versus the worst thing.  

With cheerleaders, I imagine it would look something like this:

Benefit:

Enticing to teenagers and viagra-popping creeps who are unhappy with their home lives.  Nobody has ever purchased season tickets to look at a cheerleader from 50-500 feet away.

Risk:

See Washington Redskins

Hope this helps you get the point as you clearly missed it the first time since nobody said a word about who was at fault for what  happened.

Another benefit could be people who enjoy their dancing and being entertained during time outs, halftime, etc.  Or maybe the team sells more gear due to having cheerleaders (sex sells).  Heck, it could just be that people enjoy the tradition of having cheerleaders.  Whatever the reason, most NFL teams think cheerleaders enhance the gameday experience.

But let's also look at this from another perspective.  Why are we looking to take away a potential job/career opportunity in the name of protecting adult females from making their own decisions about where to work?  If they feel like it's creepy/skeevy then they don't have to take (or keep) the job.  There are other jobs that can be done in the world.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Another benefit could be people who enjoy their dancing and being entertained during time outs, halftime, etc.  Or maybe the team sells more gear due to having cheerleaders (sex sells).  Heck, it could just be that people enjoy the tradition of having cheerleaders.  Whatever the reason, most NFL teams think cheerleaders enhance the gameday experience.

But let's also look at this from another perspective.  Why are we looking to take away a potential job/career opportunity in the name of protecting adult females from making their own decisions about where to work?  If they feel like it's creepy/skeevy then they don't have to take (or keep) the job.  There are other jobs that can be done in the world.

Nobody is buying a ticket to a football game to watch a girl dance from 500 feet away.  If they are, that's the guy you DO NOT WANT in your building. Will somebody look at them?  Sure, why not?  Commercial timeout and you don't have anyone active on your fantasy team, what else are you gonna' look at? 

Will the team be any better off for having them there?  Not at all.  So their benefit is negligible, whereas their presence may cost you your team.  He's an idiot for bringing them on board.  Even the best leaders (not to say Snyder is a good one) can't account for hundreds and hundredds of employees for every second of the day.  Sadly, in a group of hundreds of employees, you will absolutely have some pervo creeps.  They'll do what pervs do, and get you where Dan Snyder is today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Yup, the cheerleaders created the culture. 

Yup, if there were no cheerleaders, this would all still be happening. 

Edited by AFJF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Nobody is buying a ticket to a football game to watch a girl dance from 500 feet away.  If they are, that's the guy you DO NOT WANT in your building. Will somebody look at them?  Sure, why not?  Commercial timeout and you don't have anyone active on your fantasy team, what else are you gonna' look at? 

Will the team be any better off for having them there?  Not at all.  So their benefit is negligible, whereas their presence may cost you your team.  He's an idiot for bringing them on board.  Even the best leaders (not to say Snyder is a good one) can't account for hundreds and hundredds of employees for every second of the day.  Sadly, in a group of hundreds of employees, you will absolutely have some pervo creeps.  They'll do what pervs do, and get you where Dan Snyder is today.

 

I will make sure that I don't hire the receptionist that may be a bit too curvy, and a bit too cute, because, you know, I can't trust my guys. It is a shame because she was the best candidate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

I will make sure that I don't hire the receptionist that may be a bit too curvy, and a bit too cute, because, you know, I can't trust my guys. It is a shame because she was the best candidate. 

If your receptionist has the same impact on your buisness that a cheerleader has on a football team, I'd tell you to stop throwing money away by hiring one in the first place.

If she brings value and fills a need, hire the best woman (or man) for the job.

Edited by AFJF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Nobody is buying a ticket to a football game to watch a girl dance from 500 feet away.  If they are, that's the guy you DO NOT WANT in your building. Will somebody look at them?  Sure, why not?  Commercial timeout and you don't have anyone active on your fantasy team, what else are you gonna' look at? 

Will the team be any better off for having them there?  Not at all.  So their benefit is negligible, whereas their presence may cost you your team.  He's an idiot for bringing them on board.  Even the best leaders (not to say Snyder is a good one) can't account for hundreds and hundredds of employees for every second of the day.  Sadly, in a group of hundreds of employees, you will absolutely have some pervo creeps.  They'll do what pervs do, and get you where Dan Snyder is today.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel like you're (essentially) saying "we shouldn't have cheerleaders because that profession is bad for women due to 'pervo creeps'".

If so, I feel like that's the equivalent of you telling women "Even though you're an adult, I want to take away this potential job opportunity from you because I know what's better for you than you do".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

 

There is something called in the art of conversation "appropriate context", where you weigh the positive and negative effects of what you are about to say and how they may be construed. 

 

That sounds like something invented in a secular university where the scholars live safely behind the four walls and they don't have to cheapen themselves by mixing with the commoners.  

How a statement is viewed, whether positively or negatively, is up to those who hear the statement.  If someone wants to view a statement as positive or negative is on them, not on the person uttering the statement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AFJF said:

If your receptionist has the same impact on your buisness that a cheerleader has on a football team, I'd tell you to stop throwing money away by hiring one in the first place.

If she brings value and fills a need, hire the best woman (or man) for the job.

How about, I set the correct culture for my business, and hire anyone regardless how they look or dress (within appropriate reasons), because the culture I have set allows for boundaries and appropriate conduct? 

Do you believe that Daniel Snyder did not know about this? I want an honest answer here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel like you're saying "we shouldn't have cheerleaders because that profession is bad for women due to 'pervo creeps'".  If so, I feel like that's the equivalent of you telling women "Even though you're an adult, I want to take away this potential job opportunity from you because I know what's better for you than you do".

No, I'm saying don't have them becasue they bring zero value to a football team and can lead to what we're seeing with the Redskins right now.  As I'd said earlier, it all boils down to risk/benefit.

IMO, benefit would be around negligible with close to 100% risk.

What I would be saying is, "you're a woman who is an adult, but in this role there is nothing to be gained for my company/business so we're going to move on.  If there is some way for your presence to be a net gain for us, let me know about it and we can talk".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I feel like you're (essentially) saying "we shouldn't have cheerleaders because that profession is bad for women due to 'pervo creeps'".

If so, I feel like that's the equivalent of you telling women "Even though you're an adult, I want to take away this potential job opportunity from you because I know what's better for you than you do".

OR....if you want to be a cheerleader, go for it.  But don't expect every man to respect you in a 2020 hand-holding sort-of way.  If you want to dance as a cheerleader, then role with the punches.  If someone treats you well, treat them well back.  If someone whistles at you, ignore them or give them the finger.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

How about, I set the correct culture for my business, and hire anyone regardless how they look or dress, because the culture I have set allows for boundaries and appropriate conduct? 

Do you believe that Daniel Snyder did not know about this? I want an honest answer here. 

We're having two different conversations.

I'm talking about whether or not a company should add an employee who brings no value with tons of risk.  You're talking about what they'll wear to work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AFJF said:

No, I'm saying don't have them becasue they bring zero value to a football team and can lead to what we're seeing with the Redskins right now.  As I'd said earlier, it all boils down to risk/benefit.

 

They actually bring tremendous value to a football team from a marketing standpoint. I had a football team as a client and we did photoshoots of the cheerleaders for calendars and other merchandise. While I was not privy to the sales, these calendars continued to be produced year over year, so I would guess they were profitable.

Teams also use the cheerleaders as a link to the community to create fans that would normally not be fans. Beyond the "pervos" as you claim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AFJF said:

No, I'm saying don't have them becasue they bring zero value to a football team and can lead to what we're seeing with the Redskins right now.  As I'd said earlier, it all boils down to risk/benefit.

IMO, benefit would be around negligible with close to 100% risk.

What I would be saying is, "you're a woman who is an adult, but in this role there is nothing to be gained for my company/business so we're going to move on.  If there is some way for your presence to be a net gain for us, let me know about it and we can talk".

But then doesn't that mean you're telling the NFL how to run its (multi-billion dollar) business?  Most teams do have cheerleaders so I would imagine they think it makes sense to have them.  Maybe they think it enhances the gameday experience?  Maybe owners think that fans like the tradition?  Or maybe cheerleaders help the team advertise or do things to help promote the team that we're not thinking about?

Regardless, we're not the owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

OR....if you want to be a cheerleader, go for it.  But don't expect every man to respect you in a 2020 hand-holding sort-of way.  If you want to dance as a cheerleader, then role with the punches.  If someone treats you well, treat them well back.  If someone whistles at you, ignore them or give them the finger.  

What if your "boss" asks you to be an escort for men, provide "special services" to important clients, and takes your passport away while you are on an exclusive trip?

All in bounds?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott Dierking said:

They actually bring tremendous value to a football team from a marketing standpoint. I had a football team as a client and we did photoshoots of the cheerleaders for calendars and other merchandise. While I was not privy to the sales, these calendars continued to be produced year over year, so I would guess they were profitable.

Teams also use the cheerleaders as a link to the community to create fans that would normally not be fans. Beyond the "pervos" as you claim. 

Nobody is buying tickets to go see cheerleadrs (excpet for maybe a dozen or so pervs), nobody is going to stop being a fan because there are no cheerleaders.  I'm sure those calendar sales are what's keeping some of these teams afloat.

Also think that these communities would somehow manage to carry on if they didn't have the odd cheerleader photo op at the Golden Corral.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Nobody is buying tickets to go see cheerleadrs (excpet for maybe a dozen or so pervs), nobody is going to stop being a fan because there are no cheerleaders.  I'm sure those calendar sales are what's keeping some of these teams afloat.

Also think that these communities would somehow manage to carry on if they didn't have the odd cheerleader photo op at the Golden Corral.

 

Link? If I am an owner of any business, and I am told I can profit $1m, minimum for a department, I buy in appropriately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AFJF said:

We're having two different conversations.

I'm talking about whether or not a company should add an employee who brings no value with tons of risk.  You're talking about what they'll wear to work. 

That's a bit presumptuous, no?  You feel that NFL cheerleaders "add no value". 

Even if you're correct (and I'm not saying that I think you are), don't you feel like NFL owners (and to an extent, the league in general) are the ones who should make the call about whether these jobs should exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

But then doesn't that mean you're telling the NFL how to run its (multi-billion dollar) business?  Most teams do have cheerleaders so I would imagine they think it makes sense to have them.  Maybe they think it enhances the gameday experience?  Maybe owners think that fans like the tradition?  Or maybe cheerleaders help the team advertise or do things to help promote the team that we're not thinking about?

Regardless, we're not the owners.

It's not so much telling them how to run a business as much as it's looking at what they're doing and saying "seems dumb to me".  And yes, I"m sure it enhances the game day experience for some teens and guys who are generally unhappy with what they have to look at when they get home, but the NFL promotes itself IMO.  They rake in billions of dollars every year.  To retain an asset that offers a drop in the bucket financially with the risk that's posed if some creep gets graby just isn't worth it IMO.

There are also those who feel women should aspire to do more than make a living by taking most of their clothes off, but that's an entirely different discussion as there's the opposing view of how doing so liberates them and makes them independent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

That's a bit presumptuous, no?  You feel that NFL cheerleaders "add no value". 

Even if you're correct (and I'm not saying that I think you are), don't you feel like NFL owners (and to an extent, the league in general) are the ones who should make the call of whether these jobs should exist?

They don't add enough value to make it worth what happens if somebody gets out of line and it goes public.  Even if Snyder sold a million bucks worth of calendars, that's pennies to an NFL owner who is now looking at being forced out.  Risk not worth the reward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AFJF said:

It's not so much telling them how to run a business as much as it's looking at what they're doing and saying "seems dumb to me".  And yes, I"m sure it enhances the game day experience for some teens and guys who are generally unhappy with what they have to look at when they get home, but the NFL promotes itself IMO.  They rake in billions of dollars every year.  To retain an asset that offers a drop in the bucket financially with the risk that's posed if some creep gets graby just isn't worth it IMO.

There are also those who feel women should aspire to do more than make a living by taking most of their clothes off, but that's an entirely different discussion as there's the opposing view of how doing so liberates them and makes them independent.

So maybe send a letter to the team owners and tell them you think cheerleading is dumb.  I have to wonder how cheerleaders would respond to hearing that, btw.

As far as your statement "There are also those who feel women should aspire to do more than make a living by taking most of their clothes off", this is again you telling women how they should think.  Aren't they adults and can't they make their own decisions?

Btw, do you think dancing is a legit profession?  How about ballet?  How about the fact that cheerleaders might view that job as an opportunity to network?  Maybe they're using cheerleading as a stepping stone to something bigger in the future (that might not involve their looks btw)? 

In your rush to protect adult women from themselves (because you believe that you "know better"), you might be preventing them from greatly advancing their own careers.  But hey, you know better than the women and you know better than the owners!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

How about, I set the correct culture for my business, and hire anyone regardless how they look or dress (within appropriate reasons), because the culture I have set allows for boundaries and appropriate conduct? 

So face tattoos are out?  Asking for a friend.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AFJF said:

They don't add enough value to make it worth what happens if somebody gets out of line and it goes public.  Even if Snyder sold a million bucks worth of calendars, that's pennies to an NFL owner who is now looking at being forced out.  Risk not worth the reward.

Do you really believe that if executives are sexually preying upon cheerleaders within an organization, that it is limited to cheerleaders alone? You think someone with "boundary problems" limits it to only women that dress provocatively, because they "kinda had it coming. looking at how they dress"?

Please tell me you are not that narrow in thinking how this is pervasive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

So maybe send a letter to the team owners and tell them you think cheerleading is dumb.  I have to wonder how cheerleaders would respond to hearing that, btw.

As far as your statement "There are also those who feel women should aspire to do more than make a living by taking most of their clothes off", this is again you telling women how they should think.  Aren't they adults and can't they make their own decisions?

Btw, do you think dancing is a legit profession?  How about ballet?  How about the fact that cheerleaders might view that job as an opportunity to network?  Maybe they're using cheerleading as a stepping stone to something bigger in the future (that might not involve their looks btw)? 

In your rush to protect adult women from themselves (because you believe that you "know better"), you might be preventing them from greatly advancing their own careers.  

I don't feel the need to write a letter to every compnany/business that makes dumb decisions.  Dumb people (and smart people) are going to do what they want.  Free country.

Also, who said somebody can't make their own decisions? I literally presented both sides of an argument and didn't choose one over the other.  Again, free country.

Also, I said nothing about how the cheerleaders feel about any of this.  Of course it's a smart move to take a low paying job in exchange for an insane amount of exposure that could launch a career.  That's a no-brainer.  My comment was only in regards to how dumb it is for teams to do this.

At no point did I say a word about anybody not being able to advance their careers.  Free country.  Do what you like.

None of that changes the fact that a guy who runs a multi-billion dollar business is looking at being forced out because he ratained an asset that likely generates a couple million dollars a year.  Risk losing a multi-billion dollar asset to gain $2-3 million?  Dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scott Dierking said:

Do you really believe that if executives are sexually preying upon cheerleaders within an organization, that it is limited to cheerleaders alone? You think someone with "boundary problems" limits it to only women that dress provocatively, because they "kinda had it coming. looking at how they dress"?

Please tell me you are not that narrow in thinking how this is pervasive. 

I'd rather discuss what's being reported instead of introducing conspiracy theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AFJF said:

I'd rather discuss what's being reported instead of introducing conspiracy theories.

Simple question, do believe that someone that is a sexual predator, limits their authority of power to dominate only over those that dress suggestively? You think they distinguish along those lines? Or, may they continue to prey and consider it some sort of domination game?

It is a fair question to understand what your point is here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...