I don't like this development; anyone know the Pats' policy on this?

[Jackson 2]

Kraft won't even stick it to Thomase or Borges.

He's above all that.

I know, you're right. I can dream, can't I?

 

[shmessy]

BTW, for any of the uninformed who don't know why Dan Snyder is a disgrace, he's some news from this week:



Redskins consider legal action against radio station parodies - SBNation.com

http://deadspin.com/the-redskins-get-jokes-you-guys-1476317371

 

[Koma]

How much would you pay (no pun intended) to witness that sniveling snot Shank Shaughnessy (how's that for alliteration?) have to pony up some dough to his favorite owner, Amos Alonzo Kraft as Shank calls him. I've been told by those who seem to know that Shank still has 6 nickels from his first paycheck.

I wonder if the Patriots could pay some of the locals not to write about the team?

 

[Observer]

Because it is a very slippery slope constitutionally. Freedom of press can't be limited based on the "type of news" as designated by the person making the news. Snyder doesn't get to say his news is different from other types of news, and therefore he gets to control access to it.

And, when you start charging, you are limiting who gets access to the information, and at what pace.

I don't understand why there is any slippery slope in this. The media is free to write whatever they please. At the same time the Redskins organization is free to talk to whoever they choose. All they are doing is saying their choice depends on money.

 

[Jackson 2]

I wonder if the Patriots could pay some of the locals not to write about the team?

There's a thought. Here's another: pay Vulgar and Spazz (aka Felger and Mazz) to take their show to Guatemala City permanently.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Regarding the main article cited here: Charging the media for access is a preposterous idea. A free press is a matter of public trust,

In the abstract, sure. But the WaPo, NYT, and Boston Globe (for example) having or being any sort of "public trust"? Sounds like the deranged utterings of someone with the IQ of a Jests or Squealers fan.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Because it is a very slippery slope constitutionally. Freedom of press can't be limited based on the "type of news" as designated by the person making the news. Snyder doesn't get to say his news is different from other types of news, and therefore he gets to control access to

You do understand the first amendment only applies to the government, right?

Snyder absolutely gets to control who he allows to have access to his team. If he wants to not let Newspaper X on team property or forbid his players from talking to Newspaper X he has every right to do so. (Subject to what the CBA with the players says about what restrictions can be put on player interactions with the media)

 

[Joker]

yes, that is 100% correct.

our forefathers fought for the right of all AMERICANS to run their lives as they see fit, a steep price paid on the blood drenched battlefields of 1776.The first amendment is a direct warning to any of those who would seek to abridge the freedoms of American citizens.

Snyder is free to cut off his nose to spite his face. It's HIS face. Knowing Snyder though, he'll cut his own head off first.

 

[lurker1965]

I don't understand why there is any slippery slope in this. The media is free to write whatever they please. At the same time the Redskins organization is free to talk to whoever they choose. All they are doing is saying their choice depends on money.

"Hi, I'm Jerry Jones the 5th, his great, great nephew. With the Dallas Cowboy paper, How 'bout Dem Cowboys weekly. I trust you got the check from dear old Unc. When can I get unlimited access to RGIII and Shanny?"

edit: No, I'm not saying this is a first amendment issue or that the government should protect a privately owned company. I just picked the wrong post to quote.

I'm just saying this is a stupid idea, but hey, it is his team.

 

[CelticPatriot]

I think the NY Post should be charged 5 million dollars a minute for access to ANY US sporting event. Sick of that scumbag, Murdoch and his yellow journalistic tactics.

Rupert Murdoch is a f***ing scumbag c**t...... and that's being nice.

 

[Tunescribe]

Snyder absolutely gets to control who he allows to have access to his team.

I'm curious what the league's position is on this; I would not be surprise to see it intervene. For instance, coaches are mandated to make themselves available to the press whether they like it or not. What Snyder's doing is bizarre and ultimately could backfire.

 

[primetime]

You do understand the first amendment only applies to the government, right?

Snyder absolutely gets to control who he allows to have access to his team. If he wants to not let Newspaper X on team property or forbid his players from talking to Newspaper X he has every right to do so. (Subject to what the CBA with the players says about what restrictions can be put on player interactions with the media)

While you are correct legally, I have a moral issue with the ramifications of this because Snyder's company is publicly subsidized, perhaps more than any other privately held company in the DMV area.

28% of Fedex Field was paid for by taxpayer subsidies - a much lower proportion than most football stadiums, but still $70.5 million dollars that could have gone to teachers, police officers, pothole filling, and many other uses that have a much broader public worth than a football field in no-man's land in Landover. In addition, Virginia handed Snyder $4 million in taxpayer dollars last year to upgrade the team's workout facilities. And there are more subtle subsidies, like more Metro work hours for Redskins games. (This, by the way, is a big issue with the Redskins name -- if it offends members of the public who subsidize the team, it should go).

Really, Snyder is just a petty tyrant, but there are disturbing implications to this. However, the root of it all is public subsidies for professional sports that far, far outweigh the social and economic benefits to any taxpayer but the very wealthy individual owners of a given franchise.

 

[shmessy]

Snyder is free to cut off his nose to spite his face. It's HIS face. Knowing Snyder though, he'll cut his own head off first.

......not before marketing a bidding war among the networks for the decapitation broadcasting rights.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I'm curious what the league's position is on this; I would not be surprise to see it intervene. For instance, coaches are mandated to make themselves available to the press whether they like it or not. What Snyder's doing is bizarre and ultimately could backfire.

I wouldn't be surprised if NFL rules and the CBA have something to say about this sort of thing. However, I was addressing the person who claimed this was somehow "constitutionally suspect" for Snyder to do this.

 

[jmt57]

This is the same Dan Snyder who wanted to charge fans to attend training camp practices a few years ago.


Those of you who live in the area would know better, but I seem to also recall that Snyder fully owned some sports talk radio stations in the DC area, and not so subtly controlled the viewpoints that were allowed to air.