A Dog Named Kelso

I really do not think stereotypes created by Hollywood should dictate anyone's notion of anything. Nearly any villain in modern film has a British accent, as lampooned in the Jaguar commercial. I don't think anyone believes people for the Isle of Britannia are inherently evil. Nor do I think anyone now believes Native Americans behaved as they were suggested to have by Westerns from a by gone era. That said, I do believe it would be a huge endeavor and certainly has the potential to backfire. However; while educating Native Americans would occur, I was actually suggesting that he educate everyone else. Even marketing and branding push that would portray the name is a better than favorable light and a more general connotation(outside that of the team) . This is,of course, only if he makes the decision to keep the name, which I am not suggesting he do.

I believe he retired from that a long time ago.

I understand the rule but I wonder how such a rule would work in a bigger city like NY as they have multiple NFL teams. I am guessing the reason for the rule is to prevent some sort of Bias?

Just for the record I do not make that argument, I was just pointing out it could be made. As for your questions I suppose, and I am no marketing expert by any means but, they could just make a statement sans the helmet requesting "others look inward an not use words that are derogatory" and perhaps list several names they find offensive. Of course one of which would be Redskin thus not directly associating their message with the Team but in a general sense be "respectful of us".

There is of course a different avenue to explore for Snyder. I suppose that besides just giving to native american causes, if he truly believes the name is not derogatory, he could run an educational campaign to explain its history and build up the name as positive. I read here, so forgive me if it is not true, that the name was a sign of respect in its original meaning, if true, a great educational campaign may promote native americans and associate the name in a positive light.

The final shot, one could argue, does indeed attempt to demonize the Redskin organization for their continued use of the name.

I agree with this premise, but, unfortunately the larger community at large(our society), find only one meaning for certain words and they become taboo. A word such as slavery has become such a work. If it is used outside of describing the condition of African Americans before the Civil War many feign outrage, which is sad. That said, the community being noted by a given name should have the right to determine if such a name is or is not derogatory to them. It should not be another group to determine that regardless of historical precedent.

If you get the fans to contact the sponsors this will occur pretty quickly. It does not take a large percentage of them to make a lot of noise and noise(fear of bad publicity) is what moves sponsors. That is one of the reasons in an earlier post I suggested they may have selected the wrong venue to air their ad. I, for one, would not have known of its existence if not for this board.

I don't disagree; however, the fact is those billionaires(from the NFL) would have been far more embarrassed if that spot had run during their Draft then the NBA playoffs that may not or may not have the the same fans. In reality if local fans disapprove of the name and voice that they do there is, perhaps, no reason to for Snyder to continue with its use. Yes these other avenues are worth pursuing certainly but my point was two fold. First, local fans as they see themselves as stakeholders in the outcome(change their understanding and you hopefully sway their allegiance ) and second to ensure the correct audience sees your message. To my earlier statement, NFL fans(which include those billionaire owners) are not necessarily NBA fans and that is who they should be targeting.

Come on that is ridiculous! Where is he going to get a trident?!

Perhaps this ad should have been run the first night of the NFL draft as to really provide context to those who are fans of the team. That is really who you need to sway. If/Once Washington's fans start requesting a change en masse is when their cause will really take off.

Did they begin to play in OKC before the case was settled?

Thanks for indulging me. I know it is all academic and really I was just testing the theory that if someone was unscrupulous how far could it really go.

I had thought about that but was not sure if, each club is considered a separate business or not. (I.E. law suits by cheerleader against clubs and not the NFL proper)

How does a NY court enforce this, hypothetically, if the Bills choose to play in LA Coliseum and had already moved their personnel. I am assuming it would not be a Federal court but a state court(that may not be a correct assumption).

Oh, I totally agree it is far fetched, I am just interested in the discussion. Any thought on my earlier question? Also, as no games would be played in NY after the team moved it would be hard for the state to enforce any injunction no?

What moving vans? In the described scenario the Bills would pack up for their last away game and after said game announce they would not be returning. They would not need moving vans, they would have brought gear with them. Also, again moving vans assumes they want anything other than personnel.

Well theoretically , they could play their last away game and say "We are not coming back"(while bringing their home and away gear), thus allowing them to have their gear.

I think everyone understands its not a buyout. They believe a new owner(intent on moving the team) would move the team(break the lease/non-relocation by doing so, before a court case) and deal with the legal aftermath once a case was filed. While I believe it would not happen because the NFL would not approve any move, why would the NFL have to wait to approve a move? They could do it before the actual move took place(in reality they most like would not), correct? Also the statement that the moving vans would be stopped makes the assumption a new owner wants to move anything other than personnel. Also, as no games would be played in NY after the team moved it would be hard for the state to enforce any injunction no? Again, not sure if any of this is realistic just curious.

The whole point of the move would be to specifically to break the lease with them understanding what the consequences would be. I am not at all saying I know if it is possible or not I am just asking questions. Because if someone doesn't care about 400 million dollars who knows what they might do about a contract signed by someone else. I believe its highly unlikely just really playing devil's advocate.

I would think if they are willing to pay 400 million they would pay additional fines too.

I understand what the appropriate course of events should be. My point if someone wanted to pull an Irsay and move in the middle of the night ... nothing is really stopping them outside of what May Day 10 has brought up. If you do not care if you are paying out 400 million you may not care about the way you moved the team looks. Actually I guess the relocation NFL vote would prevent that ... unless that too was in secret(IDK if there would be federal laws preventing that).

Isn't a lease part of the civil code thus limiting punishment to monetary damages? If so, I do not think anyone would go to jail.

Actually, I believe, they could just move the team thus breaking their Non-Relocation agreement and pay the 400 million dollars, couldn't they?

I have seen pictures of this and it seems to me people should be looking and asking why wouldn't we do this with the money ... even at 50% more than the Citrus renovation it seems like a far better value then a brand new stadium. It seems like a company could even provide a route for a dome either with a retro or a future feature. I am not advocating for either a new stadium or retrofit of The Ralph just that all avenues actually be looked at. I am not sure why the NFL needs a "new" stadium per se vs a retrofit that would provide the amenities similar to that of a new build.