Redskins Owner to NFL Commissioner: No Plans to Change Name

[Revmitchell]

Washington Redskins Owner Daniel Snyder told NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday that he has no plans of changing the team's name when the two met about the Redskins name.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...r-to-NFL-Commissioner-No-Plans-to-Change-Name

 

[InTheLight]

Washington Redskins Owner Daniel Snyder told NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday that he has no plans of changing the team's name when the two met about the Redskins name.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...r-to-NFL-Commissioner-No-Plans-to-Change-Name

From the article. I wouldn't call this a real news story:

According to one person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because neither the league nor the team publicly confirmed the meeting nor discussed what happened in it, Snyder reiterated to Goodell that he has no plans to change the Redskins’ name.


Your article is from Tuesday. So, if they have no intention of changing their name why is the NFL meeting with native Americans the next day?

According to a person with knowledge of the situation, the NFL’s representatives at Wednesday’s meeting with the Oneida Nation will be Adolpho Birch, a league senior vice president, and executive vice presidents Jeff Pash and Paul Hicks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...dell-he-has-no-plans-to-change-redskins-name/

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Why can't they keep the Native american logo and imagry, but change the name to something less derogatory like the 'Warriors' or something like that?

 

[InTheLight]

Why can't they keep the Native american logo and imagry, but change the name to something less derogatory like the 'Warriors' or something like that?

Because they'd probably have an explosion in licensed product merchandise sales as dedicated fans would need to buy new jerseys, hats, coffee mugs, etc. with the new name imprinted on them?

 

[Salty]

Why can't they keep the Native american logo and imagry, but change the name to something less derogatory like the 'Warriors' or something like that?

For one thing the name Warriors is already use - (Golden State Warriors) yes, it is in the NBA, but very possible that the name is trademarked. (Washington wanted to be called the Senators, but the Texas Rangers still hold the Trademark)

and for another thing - other names - such as Warriors, Indians, Chiefs, Braves,Blackhawks, ect will be next on the chopping block - though one at a time.

Now, I am waiting for the AFL-CIO to process a lawsuit against the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburg Steelers, Milwaukee Brewers ......

Then the Portland Timbers.....

Orlando Majic..... NJ Devils, LA Angels...

Milwaukee Admirals ....

Nashville Predators....

Sounds like a lot of mascots are offensive....

I have one question - suppose a graduate of Oneida HS who is an Indian (Oneida nation prefers that over Native Americian) were to be drafted by the Washington Redskins - do you think he would play for them - along with a multi-million dollar contract?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

For one thing the name Warriors is already use - (Golden State Warriors) yes, it is in the NBA, but very possible that the name is trademarked. (Washington wanted to be called the Senators, but the Texas Rangers still hold the Trademark)

That doesn't make any difference, oh Salted One. :laugh:

The NFL's Cardinals were in St. Louis from 1960-86, using the same stadium (Busch) the baseball Cardinals still use. The only reason they avoid using names that are already in use by other, different-sport, franchises now is marketing -- easier and more brand-efficient to have t-shirts that simply say "Royals" than to have to put "Kansas City" on them because another team might have the same name. Hasn't stopped the Cardinals in either league from using the same name.

and for another thing - other names - such as Warriors, Indians, Chiefs, Braves,Blackhawks, ect will be next on the chopping block - though one at a time.

The Kansas City Chiefs are one of the most storied and longest-lived franchises in NFL history. When they moved from Dallas to Kansas City, they changed their nickname from the Texans to the Chiefs. There was a very distinct reason why the Chiefs have that particular nickname.

The reason for the Chiefs moniker isn't because of a Native American tribe in the area. Instead, the Chiefs got their nickname from H. Roe Bartle who died in 1974. He was a civic leader and executive for the Boy Scouts of America. Bartle was mayor of Kansas City for two terms and was very popular in the ciy when the football team moved from Texas.

It was during his time with the Boy Scouts from 1928 to the 1950s that Bartle got his nickname "Chief." He was an imposing figure at 6-3 and was respected by everyone. As mayor from 1955 to 1959, he was instrumental in bringing the franchise to the city. Lamar Hunt honored his hard work and dedication by naming his team after Bartle's nickname, "Chief." So let 'em come after the Kansas City NFL franchise. Clark Hunt will tell them to go stuff it.

Orlando Majic..... NJ Devils, LA Angels...

Maybe. Tampa Bay's MLB team changed its name to simply the Rays, removing the former "surname" "Devil" from the franchise name.

I have one question - suppose a graduate of Oneida HS who is an Indian (Oneida nation prefers that over Native Americian) were to be drafted by the Washington Redskins - do you think he would play for them - along with a multi-million dollar contract?

You double-darn betcha he would!