The Redskins should strike a deal with the Quaker Oats Company,
change their name to Aunt Jemima’s and slap that logo on their helmets.

(06-18-2014 11:34 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 11:27 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 11:24 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 11:19 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 11:09 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Could they just use the logo (wasn't cancelled by what I read), not officially call them the Redskins but let it be the unofficial name of the franchise? Let them just be the Washington Football Club, but all the fans are free to call them the Redskins and the band can still play "Hail to the Redskins".

Nope. That's giving in and sets a precedent with the tyrants that they can win.

Well if he loses his appeal, they're going to lose a lot of merchandise revenue.

I know winning isn't important to Dan Snyder, but he's going to have to decide what he's going to do.

I think you are overstating the impact of how many people want to manufacture Redkins gear.

You must not be familiar with the severity of counterfeit merchandise in the US.

I am fully aware of it and I am not saying this is not a problem. However, I don't think this is a dagger in battle. He has some legal ramifications and a loyal fans base.

I do not support this action.

(06-18-2014 11:26 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Would blacks be offended if they called them the
Washington Blacks
or Indians (from India), someone from the Philippines or Puerto Ricans if they called a team the
Cleveland Browns

It depends on why they would call them the Washington Blacks. Is it because of all black uniforms? because the owner/famous coach's last name was black? Or is it in direct relation to black people?

I can't imagine a way that the owner that named the Washington franchise , who actively prevented black players from being signed, that he would have ANY positive way to portray black people. Imagine the logo.

Did you clamoring yahoos even read the damn linked story? Good Lord!

Quote:In addition, Native Americans have won at this stage before, in 1999. But the team and the NFL won an appeal to federal court in 2009. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, however, but threw it out, saying that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to file it. The team is likely to make the same appeal this time.

Robert Raskopf, a lawyer who has been representing the team since the first case was filed in 1992, was not concerned about the ruling.

“We’ve seen this story before,” he said. “And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo.

“We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins’ trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board.”

Raskopf said the team’s trademark registrations would remain effective during the appeal.

Idiots. SMH

(06-18-2014 04:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Did you clamoring yahoos even read the damn linked story? Good Lord!

Quote:In addition, Native Americans have won at this stage before, in 1999. But the team and the NFL won an appeal to federal court in 2009. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, however, but threw it out, saying that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to file it. The team is likely to make the same appeal this time.

Robert Raskopf, a lawyer who has been representing the team since the first case was filed in 1992, was not concerned about the ruling.

“We’ve seen this story before,” he said. “And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo.

“We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins’ trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board.”

Raskopf said the team’s trademark registrations would remain effective during the appeal.

Idiots. SMH

That's in line with what I've said.

So 5 people who claim to be offended over something that is decades old can turn a business upside down. But millions of people who are offended by the thought of gays calling their relationships marriage have to pound sand. What harm are the Indians suffering? F**k them - because of those injuns I want every person who resells tickets to stop being called scalpers - that is a term every media uses for this activity and it implies pain and death to white people.

Here's the thing about this. If the appeal loses, 31 of the 32 NFL teams are affected by the merchandise conflict.

Moral victory. Nothing more. Stupid as fck decision IMO and it sets a very dangerous precedent. I expect that is why the court rejected it the last time. It is a Pandora's box well not opened.

From Miami Athletic's Twitter page:

Quote:Miami Athletics @MiamiRedHawks · 6h
Hey @Redskins, if you need help finding a new name just let us know. #RedHawks