Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (1 Viewer)

TheIronSheik said:

Henry Ford said:

TheIronSheik said:

TobiasFunke said:

TheIronSheik said:

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

I'd also like to point out that I still think that Sheik is way cooler than the #####y argument he's running with right now.

Click to expand...

It's kinda surprising and disappointing, right? I'm a charter member of the Sheik fan club.

Click to expand...

I have no ill will towards either of you. You're actually two of my favorite posters. The only point I'm trying to make here is that people can become offended over any word. I understand what you guys are saying. And I understand what your arguments are. But I don't feel that they apply with the word Redskin. I don't think people should be able to say, "Hey. You know that name that you guys use? The one that you chose because you felt it represented strength and warrior like fight about your team? The one that your players feel pride wearing knowing they have similar qualities as the people it represents? Well, it turns out some of our people think you're being offensive rather than honoring them. And even though I know no one has used that word in a derogatory manner in over a century, at least, some of our people are offended by it. So, I guess what I'm saying is, you need to change it." Offense can only be taken. It can't be given.

I realize we differ in opinions. And that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. Doesn't mean we can't still be besties. Amirite?

Click to expand...

It wasn't so much your opinion as the arguments you made in support of it. The "analogy to other sports nicknames that reference groups of people" one has been made many times before, as has the "origins of the word" one. Neither makes much sense.

Also, FWIW the Redskins didn't choose the name "because they felt it represented strength and a warrior like fight." They chose it because they used to be called the "Braves" and played in Boston and the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, decided he wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball team (also in Boston at the time) but wanted to keep the imagery and whatnot. Link

Marshall, by the way, was a horrible racist. So his choosing that word as an alternate way to refer to Native Americans is not great for the pro-name argument.

Click to expand...

If he was racist, why would he name is team after them at all? That makes no sense. "Boy I hate black people. Guess I'll call my team the ######s."

Click to expand...

"Racists wouldn't make sense in your version" isn't a great argument.

Because it was already a Native American name and he didn't want to have to completely rebrand.

It's more like "well, I don't want to be confused with that other team called the Nelson Mandelas. I'll change mine to ######s."

Click to expand...

Yeah. That makes zero sense as well.

And just so we're clear, Yankee was originally an offensive term. It's origin is directly from being used as a derogatory term.

So it's cool to use a term that started out as derogatory. Just not one that people eventually started thinking was derogatory. Interesting.

That is almost as baffling as saying that someone is so racist that they name the team they own a racist name. That'll show them.

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

Henry Ford said:

TheIronSheik said:

TobiasFunke said:

TheIronSheik said:

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

I'd also like to point out that I still think that Sheik is way cooler than the #####y argument he's running with right now.

Click to expand...

It's kinda surprising and disappointing, right? I'm a charter member of the Sheik fan club.

Click to expand...

I have no ill will towards either of you. You're actually two of my favorite posters. The only point I'm trying to make here is that people can become offended over any word. I understand what you guys are saying. And I understand what your arguments are. But I don't feel that they apply with the word Redskin. I don't think people should be able to say, "Hey. You know that name that you guys use? The one that you chose because you felt it represented strength and warrior like fight about your team? The one that your players feel pride wearing knowing they have similar qualities as the people it represents? Well, it turns out some of our people think you're being offensive rather than honoring them. And even though I know no one has used that word in a derogatory manner in over a century, at least, some of our people are offended by it. So, I guess what I'm saying is, you need to change it." Offense can only be taken. It can't be given.

I realize we differ in opinions. And that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. Doesn't mean we can't still be besties. Amirite?

Click to expand...

It wasn't so much your opinion as the arguments you made in support of it. The "analogy to other sports nicknames that reference groups of people" one has been made many times before, as has the "origins of the word" one. Neither makes much sense.

Also, FWIW the Redskins didn't choose the name "because they felt it represented strength and a warrior like fight." They chose it because they used to be called the "Braves" and played in Boston and the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, decided he wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball team (also in Boston at the time) but wanted to keep the imagery and whatnot. Link

Marshall, by the way, was a horrible racist. So his choosing that word as an alternate way to refer to Native Americans is not great for the pro-name argument.

Click to expand...

If he was racist, why would he name is team after them at all? That makes no sense. "Boy I hate black people. Guess I'll call my team the ######s."

Click to expand...

"Racists wouldn't make sense in your version" isn't a great argument.

Because it was already a Native American name and he didn't want to have to completely rebrand.

It's more like "well, I don't want to be confused with that other team called the Nelson Mandelas. I'll change mine to ######s."

Click to expand...

Yeah. That makes zero sense as well.

And just so we're clear, Yankee was originally an offensive term. It's origin is directly from being used as a derogatory term.

So it's cool to use a term that started out as derogatory. Just not one that people eventually started thinking was derogatory. Interesting.

That is almost as baffling as saying that someone is so racist that they name the team they own a racist name. That'll show them.

Click to expand...

Das Boot said:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/powerful-anti-redskins-ad-to-air-during-game-3-of-nba-finals-203013166.html

linked article:

The anger in some circles over the "Redskins" nickname for Washington's NFL team isn't going away, no matter how much the league would like to put it off until it does.

The latest commentary came in the form of an advertisement that ran in some markets during Game 3 of the NBA Finals on Tuesday night. The ad, which has been on YouTube since January but had not gotten as much widespread exposure as it did during the Heat-Spurs game, is two minutes on YouTube but the Washington Post wrote that a one-minute version would run during the game. According to the Post, it was scheduled to run in seven major cities during halftime of the game.

In the ad, the culture and history of Native Americans are celebrated. Near the end of the ad, the narrator says, "Native Americans call themselves many things. The one thing they don't ... "

And then it cuts to a photo of a Washington Redskins helmet. It's powerful.

According to the Post, the ad was paid for by the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, which is about an hour northeast of San Francisco. The tribe would not tell the Post how much the ad cost, only that it was a "significant investment."

“It’s just a time to get people thinking about putting an end to outward hatred and using sports as a tool to focus on racism,” Chairman Marshall McKay said, according to the Post.
The issue surrounding Washington's nickname has been debated for many years and gets more heated every year, it seems. Politicians have argued against it. Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has said he doesn't plan to change the name, citing a study that suggests a majority of Native Americans don't find the nickname offensive. The NFL has never made any comments or taken any action that would indicate it has any desire to change the name, either.

Until that happens, there will be a vocal opposition that won't stop fighting it.

- - - - - - -

Frank Schwab is the editor of Shutdown Corner on Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at shutdowncorner@yahoo.com or follow him on Twitter! Follow @YahooSchwab

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

Henry Ford said:

TheIronSheik said:

TobiasFunke said:

TheIronSheik said:

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

I'd also like to point out that I still think that Sheik is way cooler than the #####y argument he's running with right now.

Click to expand...

It's kinda surprising and disappointing, right? I'm a charter member of the Sheik fan club.

Click to expand...

I have no ill will towards either of you. You're actually two of my favorite posters. The only point I'm trying to make here is that people can become offended over any word. I understand what you guys are saying. And I understand what your arguments are. But I don't feel that they apply with the word Redskin. I don't think people should be able to say, "Hey. You know that name that you guys use? The one that you chose because you felt it represented strength and warrior like fight about your team? The one that your players feel pride wearing knowing they have similar qualities as the people it represents? Well, it turns out some of our people think you're being offensive rather than honoring them. And even though I know no one has used that word in a derogatory manner in over a century, at least, some of our people are offended by it. So, I guess what I'm saying is, you need to change it." Offense can only be taken. It can't be given.

I realize we differ in opinions. And that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. Doesn't mean we can't still be besties. Amirite?

Click to expand...

It wasn't so much your opinion as the arguments you made in support of it. The "analogy to other sports nicknames that reference groups of people" one has been made many times before, as has the "origins of the word" one. Neither makes much sense.

Also, FWIW the Redskins didn't choose the name "because they felt it represented strength and a warrior like fight." They chose it because they used to be called the "Braves" and played in Boston and the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, decided he wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball team (also in Boston at the time) but wanted to keep the imagery and whatnot. Link

Marshall, by the way, was a horrible racist. So his choosing that word as an alternate way to refer to Native Americans is not great for the pro-name argument.

Click to expand...

If he was racist, why would he name is team after them at all? That makes no sense. "Boy I hate black people. Guess I'll call my team the ######s."

Click to expand...

"Racists wouldn't make sense in your version" isn't a great argument.

Because it was already a Native American name and he didn't want to have to completely rebrand.

It's more like "well, I don't want to be confused with that other team called the Nelson Mandelas. I'll change mine to ######s."

Click to expand...

Yeah. That makes zero sense as well.

And just so we're clear, Yankee was originally an offensive term. It's origin is directly from being used as a derogatory term.

So it's cool to use a term that started out as derogatory. Just not one that people eventually started thinking was derogatory. Interesting.

That is almost as baffling as saying that someone is so racist that they name the team they own a racist name. That'll show them.

Click to expand...

glock said:

TheIronSheik said:

Henry Ford said:

TheIronSheik said:

TobiasFunke said:

TheIronSheik said:

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

I'd also like to point out that I still think that Sheik is way cooler than the #####y argument he's running with right now.

Click to expand...

It's kinda surprising and disappointing, right? I'm a charter member of the Sheik fan club.

Click to expand...

I have no ill will towards either of you. You're actually two of my favorite posters. The only point I'm trying to make here is that people can become offended over any word. I understand what you guys are saying. And I understand what your arguments are. But I don't feel that they apply with the word Redskin. I don't think people should be able to say, "Hey. You know that name that you guys use? The one that you chose because you felt it represented strength and warrior like fight about your team? The one that your players feel pride wearing knowing they have similar qualities as the people it represents? Well, it turns out some of our people think you're being offensive rather than honoring them. And even though I know no one has used that word in a derogatory manner in over a century, at least, some of our people are offended by it. So, I guess what I'm saying is, you need to change it." Offense can only be taken. It can't be given.

I realize we differ in opinions. And that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. Doesn't mean we can't still be besties. Amirite?

Click to expand...

It wasn't so much your opinion as the arguments you made in support of it. The "analogy to other sports nicknames that reference groups of people" one has been made many times before, as has the "origins of the word" one. Neither makes much sense.

Also, FWIW the Redskins didn't choose the name "because they felt it represented strength and a warrior like fight." They chose it because they used to be called the "Braves" and played in Boston and the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, decided he wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball team (also in Boston at the time) but wanted to keep the imagery and whatnot. Link

Marshall, by the way, was a horrible racist. So his choosing that word as an alternate way to refer to Native Americans is not great for the pro-name argument.

Click to expand...

If he was racist, why would he name is team after them at all? That makes no sense. "Boy I hate black people. Guess I'll call my team the ######s."

Click to expand...

"Racists wouldn't make sense in your version" isn't a great argument.

Because it was already a Native American name and he didn't want to have to completely rebrand.

It's more like "well, I don't want to be confused with that other team called the Nelson Mandelas. I'll change mine to ######s."

Click to expand...

Yeah. That makes zero sense as well.

And just so we're clear, Yankee was originally an offensive term. It's origin is directly from being used as a derogatory term.

So it's cool to use a term that started out as derogatory. Just not one that people eventually started thinking was derogatory. Interesting.

That is almost as baffling as saying that someone is so racist that they name the team they own a racist name. That'll show them.

Click to expand...

Yankee became a "badge" of honor worn by the "Yankees", so it's not the same thing.

Click to expand...

Henry Ford said:

TheIronSheik said:

Henry Ford said:

TheIronSheik said:

TobiasFunke said:

TheIronSheik said:

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

I'd also like to point out that I still think that Sheik is way cooler than the #####y argument he's running with right now.

Click to expand...

It's kinda surprising and disappointing, right? I'm a charter member of the Sheik fan club.

Click to expand...

I have no ill will towards either of you. You're actually two of my favorite posters. The only point I'm trying to make here is that people can become offended over any word. I understand what you guys are saying. And I understand what your arguments are. But I don't feel that they apply with the word Redskin. I don't think people should be able to say, "Hey. You know that name that you guys use? The one that you chose because you felt it represented strength and warrior like fight about your team? The one that your players feel pride wearing knowing they have similar qualities as the people it represents? Well, it turns out some of our people think you're being offensive rather than honoring them. And even though I know no one has used that word in a derogatory manner in over a century, at least, some of our people are offended by it. So, I guess what I'm saying is, you need to change it." Offense can only be taken. It can't be given.

I realize we differ in opinions. And that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. Doesn't mean we can't still be besties. Amirite?

Click to expand...

It wasn't so much your opinion as the arguments you made in support of it. The "analogy to other sports nicknames that reference groups of people" one has been made many times before, as has the "origins of the word" one. Neither makes much sense.

Also, FWIW the Redskins didn't choose the name "because they felt it represented strength and a warrior like fight." They chose it because they used to be called the "Braves" and played in Boston and the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, decided he wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball team (also in Boston at the time) but wanted to keep the imagery and whatnot. Link

Marshall, by the way, was a horrible racist. So his choosing that word as an alternate way to refer to Native Americans is not great for the pro-name argument.

Click to expand...

If he was racist, why would he name is team after them at all? That makes no sense. "Boy I hate black people. Guess I'll call my team the ######s."

Click to expand...

"Racists wouldn't make sense in your version" isn't a great argument.

Because it was already a Native American name and he didn't want to have to completely rebrand.

It's more like "well, I don't want to be confused with that other team called the Nelson Mandelas. I'll change mine to ######s."

Click to expand...

Yeah. That makes zero sense as well.

And just so we're clear, Yankee was originally an offensive term. It's origin is directly from being used as a derogatory term.

So it's cool to use a term that started out as derogatory. Just not one that people eventually started thinking was derogatory. Interesting.

That is almost as baffling as saying that someone is so racist that they name the team they own a racist name. That'll show them.

Click to expand...

It's cool to use a term that isn't currently offensive. If a bunch of white people came out and said they find the term "Yankee" offensive, and said we should remove it from "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and the New York MLB team, and stop calling people that, it would absolutely be worth looking at doing that. Unfortunately, the only people doing that are... you. And you don't actually find it offensive, you are trying to make a point. It's just a bad point, because the term you're using is a word that's been fully adopted by the people who were being called that, and has been used as a point of pride for hundreds of years.

Click to expand...

eoMMan said:

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

glock said:

TheIronSheik said:

Henry Ford said:

TheIronSheik said:

TobiasFunke said:

TheIronSheik said:

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

I'd also like to point out that I still think that Sheik is way cooler than the #####y argument he's running with right now.

Click to expand...

It's kinda surprising and disappointing, right? I'm a charter member of the Sheik fan club.

Click to expand...

I have no ill will towards either of you. You're actually two of my favorite posters. The only point I'm trying to make here is that people can become offended over any word. I understand what you guys are saying. And I understand what your arguments are. But I don't feel that they apply with the word Redskin. I don't think people should be able to say, "Hey. You know that name that you guys use? The one that you chose because you felt it represented strength and warrior like fight about your team? The one that your players feel pride wearing knowing they have similar qualities as the people it represents? Well, it turns out some of our people think you're being offensive rather than honoring them. And even though I know no one has used that word in a derogatory manner in over a century, at least, some of our people are offended by it. So, I guess what I'm saying is, you need to change it." Offense can only be taken. It can't be given.

I realize we differ in opinions. And that's cool. We don't have to agree on everything. Doesn't mean we can't still be besties. Amirite?

Click to expand...

It wasn't so much your opinion as the arguments you made in support of it. The "analogy to other sports nicknames that reference groups of people" one has been made many times before, as has the "origins of the word" one. Neither makes much sense.

Also, FWIW the Redskins didn't choose the name "because they felt it represented strength and a warrior like fight." They chose it because they used to be called the "Braves" and played in Boston and the owner at the time, George Preston Marshall, decided he wanted to avoid confusion with the baseball team (also in Boston at the time) but wanted to keep the imagery and whatnot. Link

Marshall, by the way, was a horrible racist. So his choosing that word as an alternate way to refer to Native Americans is not great for the pro-name argument.

Click to expand...

If he was racist, why would he name is team after them at all? That makes no sense. "Boy I hate black people. Guess I'll call my team the ######s."

Click to expand...

"Racists wouldn't make sense in your version" isn't a great argument.

Because it was already a Native American name and he didn't want to have to completely rebrand.

It's more like "well, I don't want to be confused with that other team called the Nelson Mandelas. I'll change mine to ######s."

Click to expand...

Yeah. That makes zero sense as well.

And just so we're clear, Yankee was originally an offensive term. It's origin is directly from being used as a derogatory term.

So it's cool to use a term that started out as derogatory. Just not one that people eventually started thinking was derogatory. Interesting.

That is almost as baffling as saying that someone is so racist that they name the team they own a racist name. That'll show them.

Click to expand...

Yankee became a "badge" of honor worn by the "Yankees", so it's not the same thing.

Click to expand...

Southerns despised being called Yankees.

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. I'm just wondering how many people have to find it offensive before it needs to be changed.

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

eoMMan said:

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

Click to expand...

Nope.

Click to expand...

eoMMan said:

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

Click to expand...

eoMMan said:

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

Click to expand...

Don Quixote said:

eoMMan said:

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

Click to expand...

I don't think it is, but that's also why I'm okay with a name change. It's not a big deal, except to those that are offended by the name.

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. I'm just wondering how many people have to find it offensive before it needs to be changed.

Click to expand...

jonessed said:

Don Quixote said:

eoMMan said:

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

Click to expand...

I don't think it is, but that's also why I'm okay with a name change. It's not a big deal, except to those that are offended by the name.

Click to expand...

If that were true the name would already have been changed.

Click to expand...

Decision: As to each of the registrations subject to
the petition to cancel herein, the petition to cancel under
Section 2(a) of the Act is granted on the grounds that the
subject marks may disparage Native Americans and may bring
them into contempt or disrepute. As to each of the
registrations subject to the petition to cancel herein, the
petition to cancel under Section 2(a) of the Act is denied
on the ground that the subject marks consist of or comprise
scandalous matter. The registrations will be canceled in
due course.

Click to expand...

Don Quixote said:

jonessed said:

Don Quixote said:

eoMMan said:

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

Click to expand...

I don't think it is, but that's also why I'm okay with a name change. It's not a big deal, except to those that are offended by the name.

Click to expand...

If that were true the name would already have been changed.

Click to expand...

I'm not following that. Some that are offended have filed repeated lawsuits with PTO, lobbied Congress and the NFL, bought expensive ad time during highly-rated sporting events, and staged protests outside of games. It seems like you would have to think it is somewhat of a big deal to do all of those things.

Click to expand...

Da Guru said:

Don Quixote said:

jonessed said:

Don Quixote said:

eoMMan said:

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

Click to expand...

I don't think it is, but that's also why I'm okay with a name change. It's not a big deal, except to those that are offended by the name.

Click to expand...

If that were true the name would already have been changed.

Click to expand...

I'm not following that. Some that are offended have filed repeated lawsuits with PTO, lobbied Congress and the NFL, bought expensive ad time during highly-rated sporting events, and staged protests outside of games. It seems like you would have to think it is somewhat of a big deal to do all of those things.

Click to expand...

Right now it has turned into more of a "cause" against Snyder than people actually being offended by the name. The "cause" has gained more steam every time Snyder has said he will never change the name. So getting the name changed is secondary to putting Snyder in his place.

Click to expand...

Henry Ford said:

Da Guru said:

Don Quixote said:

jonessed said:

Don Quixote said:

eoMMan said:

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

Click to expand...

I don't think it is, but that's also why I'm okay with a name change. It's not a big deal, except to those that are offended by the name.

Click to expand...

If that were true the name would already have been changed.

Click to expand...

I'm not following that. Some that are offended have filed repeated lawsuits with PTO, lobbied Congress and the NFL, bought expensive ad time during highly-rated sporting events, and staged protests outside of games. It seems like you would have to think it is somewhat of a big deal to do all of those things.

Click to expand...

Right now it has turned into more of a "cause" against Snyder than people actually being offended by the name. The "cause" has gained more steam every time Snyder has said he will never change the name. So getting the name changed is secondary to putting Snyder in his place.

Click to expand...

Native Americans have been filing actual lawsuits for almost 20 years trying to get the name changed - since before Snyder owned the team. I think that may be primary in general.

Click to expand...

Henry Ford said:

TheIronSheik said:

I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. I'm just wondering how many people have to find it offensive before it needs to be changed.

Click to expand...

What seems fair to you? If it offended 90% of the U.S. should it be changed? Where's your cutoff?

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

Southerners play on the Yankees, right?

Click to expand...

TheIronSheik said:

Henry Ford said:

TheIronSheik said:

I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. I'm just wondering how many people have to find it offensive before it needs to be changed.

Click to expand...

What seems fair to you? If it offended 90% of the U.S. should it be changed? Where's your cutoff?

Click to expand...

I'm asking you. You seem to be the one who feels if people are offended, it needs to be changed. But laugh at me when I say Yankess is offensive to me and a few others. What is your cutoff?

Click to expand...

Don Quixote said:

jonessed said:

Don Quixote said:

eoMMan said:

Is this really that big of a deal? Really?

Click to expand...

I don't think it is, but that's also why I'm okay with a name change. It's not a big deal, except to those that are offended by the name.

Click to expand...

If that were true the name would already have been changed.

Click to expand...

I'm not following that. Some that are offended have filed repeated lawsuits with PTO, lobbied Congress and the NFL, bought expensive ad time during highly-rated sporting events, and staged protests outside of games. It seems like you would have to think it is somewhat of a big deal to do all of those things.

Click to expand...

Dan Snyder on name change: “Over my dead body”

Posted by Darin Gantt on June 13, 2014, 7:35 AM ED

At a time when public pressure seems greater than ever, Redskins owner Dan Snyder seems to be digging in deeper on the subject of his team’s nickname

During an interview with Jim Rome on Showtime this week, NBC Sunday Night Football play-by-play man Al Michaels was asked if he thought Snyder would try to hang onto the name despite the complaints.

“It seems to me as if he is going to hold on,” Michaels said, via the Washington Post. “I mean all of the sudden — I mean, for 70-some odd years this was a zero issue, and then it became an issue. I understand we live in this politically correct environment. It’s crazier than ever; you know, senators want to weigh in on this, like there’s nothing better to do in Congress. This becomes a big issue. I mean, I just think it’s nuts.



“And I do know, I’ve talked to Snyder about it — not recently but when we were in Washington last year — and he basically said ‘over my dead body.’”

The defiant stance is nothing new from Snyder, which is unsurprising since rich people seldom like hearing they’re wrong.

But when respected players (and former players) such as Champ Bailey chime in, and name-change commericals air during the NBA Finals to a nationwide audience, at some point the voices may turn into a roar that Snyder can no longer pretend to not hear.

Click to expand...

The Football Freak said:

TheIronSheik said:

Southerners play on the Yankees, right?

Click to expand...

Southerners are one of the only groups that still use it as a kind of slur. I can almost guarantee no southern player for the Yankees is upset or insulted by their team name, unless they really feel like their team name has to describe only them for some bizarre reason. The New York Southerners just doesn't quite work, though. Weird, but true. I can also say, with a large degree of confidence, that almost no one really finds the term yankee offensive any more.

Click to expand...

Franknbeans said:

Not sure why Danny wouldn't want to change the name. Doubles the marketing plus he may just be confused with being a good owner.

Click to expand...

The Hornets led the NBA in attendance for seven consecutive seasons in Charlotte, but the Bobcats have not been as successful in the market, which spurred the movement to return to the name.

Click to expand...

TobiasFunke said:

PTO cancels Washington Redskins trademark

Click to expand...

Henry Ford said:

TobiasFunke said:

PTO cancels Washington Redskins trademark

Click to expand...

Again.

We'll see what happens with the appeals this time.

Click to expand...

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

TobiasFunke said:

PTO cancels Washington Redskins trademark

Click to expand...

Again.

We'll see what happens with the appeals this time.

Click to expand...

In the meantime can people make bootleg Redskins gear without consequence?

This is why Snyder was such an idiot about this. I mean there's lot of reasons that he's an idiot, but he backed himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He can still keep the name like he promised he would, but it's gonna cost him many millions of dollars. It's either go back on his loud, repeated declarations or lose merchandising.

Click to expand...

Henry Ford said:

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

TobiasFunke said:

PTO cancels Washington Redskins trademark

Click to expand...

Again.

We'll see what happens with the appeals this time.

Click to expand...

In the meantime can people make bootleg Redskins gear without consequence?

This is why Snyder was such an idiot about this. I mean there's lot of reasons that he's an idiot, but he backed himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He can still keep the name like he promised he would, but it's gonna cost him many millions of dollars. It's either go back on his loud, repeated declarations or lose merchandising.

Click to expand...

The cancellation is pending the expiration of the appeal period. If the Redskins appeal (and they will) it will be further delayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Click to expand...

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

TobiasFunke said:

PTO cancels Washington Redskins trademark

Click to expand...

Again.

We'll see what happens with the appeals this time.

Click to expand...

In the meantime can people make bootleg Redskins gear without consequence?

This is why Snyder was such an idiot about this. I mean there's lot of reasons that he's an idiot, but he backed himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He can still keep the name like he promised he would, but it's gonna cost him many millions of dollars. It's either go back on his loud, repeated declarations or lose merchandising.

Click to expand...

The cancellation is pending the expiration of the appeal period. If the Redskins appeal (and they will) it will be further delayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Click to expand...

My dreams of amassing a fortune selling bootlegged RGIII gear are not completely dead, but I have to think that if the Skins lose the appeal my customer base will know the name is not long for this world.

Click to expand...

Henry Ford said:

The PTO decision I linked to upthread was decided in 1999. The final disposition of the case was when the Supreme Court denied cert at the end of 2009.

Click to expand...

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

TobiasFunke said:

PTO cancels Washington Redskins trademark

Click to expand...

Again.

We'll see what happens with the appeals this time.

Click to expand...

In the meantime can people make bootleg Redskins gear without consequence?

This is why Snyder was such an idiot about this. I mean there's lot of reasons that he's an idiot, but he backed himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He can still keep the name like he promised he would, but it's gonna cost him many millions of dollars. It's either go back on his loud, repeated declarations or lose merchandising.

Click to expand...

The cancellation is pending the expiration of the appeal period. If the Redskins appeal (and they will) it will be further delayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Click to expand...

My dreams of amassing a fortune selling bootlegged RGIII gear are not completely dead, but I have to think that if the Skins lose the appeal my customer base will know the name is not long for this world.

Click to expand...

Henry Ford said:

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

TobiasFunke said:

Henry Ford said:

TobiasFunke said:

PTO cancels Washington Redskins trademark

Click to expand...

Again.

We'll see what happens with the appeals this time.

Click to expand...

In the meantime can people make bootleg Redskins gear without consequence?

This is why Snyder was such an idiot about this. I mean there's lot of reasons that he's an idiot, but he backed himself into a corner with his rhetoric. He can still keep the name like he promised he would, but it's gonna cost him many millions of dollars. It's either go back on his loud, repeated declarations or lose merchandising.

Click to expand...

The cancellation is pending the expiration of the appeal period. If the Redskins appeal (and they will) it will be further delayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Click to expand...

My dreams of amassing a fortune selling bootlegged RGIII gear are not completely dead, but I have to think that if the Skins lose the appeal my customer base will know the name is not long for this world.

Click to expand...

RGIII will probably not be playing for the Redskins by the time the appeals have fully run on this case.

Click to expand...

dgreen said:

I don't remember: are merchandise revenues shared in the NFL or 100% goes to the team?

Click to expand...

Premier said:

dgreen said:

I don't remember: are merchandise revenues shared in the NFL or 100% goes to the team?

Click to expand...

Shared.

At some point the NFL needs to be above this and force a change with or without this guy's approval.

Goodell is so big on 'protecting the shield' and then he lets this go on right under his nose.

Click to expand...

TobiasFunke said:

this is gonna turn that battle into a massacre.

Click to expand...