Other EmailGate

Remove this Banner Ad

Jerry Jones is “very satisfied” with WFT investigation

by Mike Florio on October 27, 2021, 12:42 PM EDT

The NFL’s owners haven’t said very much about the investigation that the league is determined to keep secret. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones shared his two cents on Wednesday.

Via multiple reporters, Jones said he is “very satisfied” with the investigation.

Indeed he is. Beyond the fact that Jones likely feels a debt to Washington owner Daniel Snyder because, four years ago, Snyder was one of the only owners who sided with Jones in his fight against Commissioner Roger Goodell, the league’s decision to protect Snyder in turn protects all other owners who may find themselves accused of workplace misconduct by current or former employees.

The precedent created by the WFT investigation becomes an insurance policy for the other owners. It doesn’t mean that they have been or will be in hot water; it means that if/when the water starts to heat up, they won’t have to worry about information that would potentially cook their goose becoming public.

All owners should be “very satisfied” with the investigation. By giving Snyder a pass now, they’ve set themselves up for a pass later, if for some reason they ever need one.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that Jones or any other owner is happy with the fact that supposedly secret emails were weaponized by someone who wanted to take out Raiders coach Jon Gruden. Not many (if any) questions have been asked about that specific wrinkle at the league meetings happening Tuesday and Wednesday in New York.
 
Taking a look at the “summary of findings” from Beth Wilkinson’s WFT investigation

Posted by Mike Florio on October 27, 2021, 12:07 PM EDT

On at least two occasions during Tuesday’s press conference after the first day of the first in-person ownership meetings since December 2019, Commissioner Roger Goodell justified the absence of transparency regarding the Washington Football Team investigation by explaining that the league released a “summary of findings” from attorney Beth Wilkinson, who conducted the probe.

Some were confused by the references to a “summary of findings,” because no specific factual findings were disclosed when the discipline of owner Daniel Snyder was disclosed on July 1.

Per the league, the “summary of findings” appears in these two paragraphs from the press release issued that day:
“Based on Wilkinson’s review, the Commissioner concluded that for many years the workplace environment at the Washington Football Team, both generally and particularly for women, was highly unprofessional. Bullying and intimidation frequently took place and many described the culture as one of fear, and numerous female employees reported having experienced sexual harassment and a general lack of respect in the workplace.

“Ownership and senior management paid little or no attention to these issues. In some instances, senior executives engaged in inappropriate conduct themselves, including use of demeaning language and public embarrassment. This set the tone for the organization and led to key executives believing that disrespectful behavior and more serious misconduct was acceptable in the workplace. The problems were compounded by inadequate HR staff and practices and the absence of an effectively and consistently administered process for reporting or addressing employee complaints, as well as a widely reported fear of retaliation. When reports were made, they were generally not investigated and led to no meaningful discipline or other response.”

These broad, general conclusions lack any specifics or examples of conduct that caused the Commissioner to determine that the workplace environment “was highly unprofessional,” that “bullying and intimidation frequently took place,” that “many described the culture as one of fear,” that “numerous female employees” experienced sexual harassment, and that ownership and senior management ignored the situation and provided no meaningful mechanism for reporting complaints. The league continues to hide behind the notion that, just because an unspecified number of former or current employees requested anonymity, the ENTIRE INVESTIGATION must be cloaked in secrecy.

The league’s position offends the intelligence of the average person, or even the below-average person (like me). Some wanted their names left out of it, so the entire investigation is kept under wraps? It’s malarkey. It’s nonsense. It’s bovine excrement.

The league is keeping the specifics quiet because, if we knew about the specific words and/or actions that sparked the conclusions contained in the “summary of findings,” Washington owner Daniel Snyder likely would have to sell the team. And, more importantly, other owners would have to worry about similar entanglements for themselves.

What if, for example, an employee of some other team saw in writing the specific actions that sparked the conclusions reached by Wilkinson and said, “I deal with that every day”? It wouldn’t take all that much to give employees of other teams a roadmap for making similar allegations.

So by protecting Snyder, they protect themselves. That’s why the NFL won’t be disclosing any of the information — and why it will take whatever nonsensical position that it has to take to justify disclosing none of the specific findings that led to the very broad and troubling conclusions that the Commissioner made.
 
Daniel Snyder’s fine, “suspension” reconfirm that owners don’t suffer the same consequences as others

Posted by Mike Florio on October 27, 2021, 9:33 AM EDT

Commissioner Roger Goodell’s Tuesday press conference included several (but given the nature and length of the session not nearly enough) questions about the Washington Football Team investigation. Here’s one of the questions he fielded: “Has Dan Snyder been held accountable adequately in your opinion and is there more to be done there?”

Said Goodell, in part: “I do think he’s been held accountable . . . and I think we did an unprecedented fine. Dan Snyder has not been involved with the organization for now almost four months.”

Snyder is a multibillionaire, who now owns 100 percent of a franchise that (thanks to the ongoing gambling explosion) will in not much time be worth in the neighborhood of $10 billion. And while the fine itself may be “unprecedented,” Saints coach Sean Payton lost an amount in the general neighborhood of $10 million when he endured a full-season suspension for the bounty scandal in 2012.

For Payton, it was a suspension not a fine. But the suspension wipe out Payton’s entire earnings for a full year. Snyder won’t lose a penny of his revenue from owning an NFL team, whether it’s ticket sales or TV money or anything else he makes.

Even when an owner is suspended (like Colts owner Jim Irsay was in 2014), the owner doesn’t lose his income. Here, Snyder was not suspended. Even though Goodell said Snyder “has not been involved with the organization for now almost four months,” Snyder has been attending games. He’s just not running the team. His wife, with whom he presumably lives and regularly communicates, has been running the team in his place. With no input or recommendations (eye roll emoji) from him.

So while Snyder has had some accountability for the situation in Washington, it’s not nearly close to what it should have been. Indeed, if the factual findings made by attorney Beth Wilkinson had come to light, Snyder quite possibly would have had to sell the team.

That’s why they refuse to release the information. That’s why they’re hiding behind the righteous notion that they’re protecting current or former employees of the Washington Football Team. That’s why they’ll surely resist any and all efforts by Congress to get to the truth.

The truth is out there. But the NFL can’t handle the truth. And that’s the truth. Because the truth will literally set Dan Snyder free — from the realities of owning an NFL franchise.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

manureid said:
Sigh. Makes it hard to love the sport when it is run so corruptly. Try to divorce the games themselves from this stuff but it really is getting harder and harder.
Click to expand...

So agree getting so hard to support the nfl. I watch my 49ers play this week and that’s the only game I bothered with just didn’t feel like watching any other games first time I haven’t watched 4 or more games over weekend in years.Couldn’t even be bothered with checking my fantasy teams to make sure it was set for the week.

Ways it’s going I doubt I will bother following nfl come next year
 
Raiders, Jon Gruden reach settlement on his contract

Posted by Mike Florio on October 27, 2021, 10:24 PM EDT

Although Raiders coach Jon Gruden technically resigned, the resignation undoubtedly came under threat of termination, if he didn’t choose to leave voluntarily. Unresolved when he abruptly walked away was the balance of his reported 10-year, $100 million contract.

Via Vic Tafur of TheAthletic.com, owner Mark Davis said Wednesday that a settlement has been reached.

Gruden reportedly had $40 million in remaining guaranteed payments. PFT had reported when Gruden signed the contract that it was not fully guaranteed, and potentially backloaded.

The release of claims that Gruden signed in order to get his money likely extends broadly enough to cover the league, especially since the Raiders represent 1/32nd of it. If so, that would prevent Gruden from suing the league for intentional interference with his relationship with the Raiders.

“He’s hurt, he’s really hurt, and I understand that,” Davis said regarding Gruden. “But he understands the ramifications of what he said. I love Jon and I love his family. We all have demons in our lives, and you have to understand that, and you also have to look at redemption as well.”

Gruden’s redemption likely won’t come in the form of a return to coaching in the NFL. And he probably won’t be interested in something like the reconstituted XFL. His future could come in the form of providing NFL content for one of the various sports books, which are trying to get into the sports content business in order to gather a pool of visitors who then can potentially become customers. They’re throwing huge money around, and Gruden possibly could make the same $10 million per year from a gambling company that he was making from the Raiders.
 
Tanya Snyder tells other owners that email leaks didn’t come from her or her husband

Posted by Mike Florio on October 27, 2021, 7:31 PM EDT

Daniel Snyder has not personally denied leaking emails from the 650,000-document trove that brought down former Raiders coach Jon Gruden. Two people have done so on Snyder’s behalf.

Last week, lawyer Jordan Siev denied that Daniel Snyder had leaked emails in response to an allegation from a former Washington employee that he had leaked the documents. On Wednesday, Snyder’s wife, Tanya, told other owners that the leaks originated with neither she nor her husband, according to the Washington Post.

Snyder, per the report, “made the remarks unprompted.”

The league consistently has denied releasing emails to the media. However, the league also has declined to say whether it’s investigating the source of the leaks. As PFT has reported, only a small handful had access to these emails, including people extremely high in the league office, a few owners, and their lawyers. It should not be impossible to track, by reviewing emails and text messages, the person(s) who improperly disclosed the information.

Some in league circles think that the leaks came from multiple persons, with the leak of emails sent by former Raiders coach Jon Gruden coming from one person and the leak of emails exchanged by NFL general counsel Jeff Pash and former Washington executive Bruce Allen coming from someone else.

More leaks are possible, until all documents are released. With Congress on the case and more and more fans and media agitating for transparency, maybe that will happen.
 
Rep. Krishnamoorthi “disturbed” by Roger Goodell’s comments regarding WFT investigation information

Posted by Mike Florio on October 27, 2021, 4:28 PM EDT

During the same press conference in which Commissioner Roger Goodell said that more information will not be released regarding the Washington Football Team investigation, he said that the NFL will be “cooperative” with the request from Congress for more information. One of the members of Congress who signed last Thursday’s letter to Goodell requesting more information can’t reconcile those two aspects of Goodell’s comments.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) told Adam Longo of WUSA-TV, “I’m disturbed by what [Goodell] said” regarding the league’s refusal to release more information.

“I’m not really sure what it means to cooperate with us if he doesn’t want to share what we’ve requested,” Rep. Krishnamoorthi said.

He added that, if the NFL doesn’t provide the information that Congress has requested, Congress has “tools at our disposal to compel the production of documents as well as live testimony,” and that he hopes an agreement can be reached for the materials to be produced.
The league surely won’t give in so easily. It’s concealing a fairly significant piece of information. People throughout the league are buzzing about it, and speculating about what the league is hiding by insisting so fervently — and on such flimsy grounds — to keep the materials private.

As one person not connected to the investigation (but generally connected to the happenings of the league) predicted on Wednesday, “It’s way bigger than even you think.”

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. One way to prove that it isn’t would be to release the information.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Wonder if some of these emails don’t have information about the St. Louis relocation that will cost the nfl billions and that’s why they don’t want to release the info
 
Constantgin said:
Florio has become my favourite nfl guy since he won’t let this go
Click to expand...
Yep if it wasnt for him, thered be no outrage demanding transparency from the victims, their lawyers, congress, fans, etc. It's also shameful journalism that other media outlets are staying away from it.
 
NFL declines to release 650,000 emails that fall beyond scope of WFT investigation

Posted by Mike Florio on October 28, 2021, 9:55 AM EDT

The NFL has pinned its refusal to produce any specific information about the Washington Football Team investigation on the notion that an unknown number of current or former employees have requested not just anonymity as to their involvement but full, sweeping secrecy as to the entirety of the probe.

Beyond the fact that this approach makes no sense, given the ability to easily change or redact names (more on that later today), the NFL has admitted that the 650,000 emails from which the Jon Gruden emails were harvested fall outside the scope of the investigation. Thus, the supposed concern for those who wanted anonymity and instead got full secrecy doesn’t apply to the 650,000 emails, since the emails aren’t part of the investigation.

We asked the NFL whether this would allow those emails to be released. Here’s what a league spokesman said Wednesday, via email: “Some of emails in the collection you are asking about are customary business emails, some of which involve confidential club and League business matters and are therefore not appropriate to release. Others concern personal information that is of no relevance to the league and its interests.”

There’s also a chance that some of these emails contain language that compels the same kind of consequences that Gruden received, or the same type of scrutiny that NFL general counsel Jeff Pash experienced based on his chummy messages with former WFT president Bruce Allen.

Surely, someone within the league structure has culled from the 650,000 emails a subset of potentially problematic emails. Let’s see all of them. If there is confidential or personal information in there, redact it. But let’s see what’s there.
Of course, even if the league were to do that, there’s no way to ensure that we’d be getting everything. That’s why all of the emails need to be made available for independent, thorough review.

The harder the league fights to conceal the information, the stronger the sense the league is hiding something big. If, alternatively, the league simply dumped the documents and moved on, most would shrug and do the same. Digging in makes more and more people think there’s good reason for the league to do it, and thus even better reason to keep pushing for full transparency.
 
Congressional inquiry also targets NFL’s use of NDAs

by Mike Florio on October 28, 2021, 4:58 PM EDT

The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform wants to know more about the Washington Football Team workplace misconduct investigation and the manner in which the league handed it. There’s another important, but largely overlooked, aspect of the Congressional inquiry.

The Committee wants to know more about the use of non-disclosure agreements by NFL teams.

Last Thursday’s letter to Commissioner Roger Goodell asks the league to “confirm the number of confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements reported to the NFL, or entered into by the NFL, from January 1, 2016, through the present, including the names of the teams involved, dates of the agreements, and whether the agreements resulted from allegations of discrimination and retaliation.”

The letter also asks this question: “What actions has the NFL taken, if any, regarding the use of confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements in matters related to workplace abuses since January 1, 2016?”

It’s an important subject, because it was the disclosed terms of multiple non-disclosure agreements in late 2017 that resulted in Panthers founder Jerry Richardson promptly deciding to sell the team.

Mary Jo White, whom the league hired to conduct an investigation regarding the Carolina situation, recommended that the league ban the use of NDAs. The league has never said whether it followed her advice.

NFL owners, like other people of extreme means, use NDAs to buy silence. The problem is that, by dangling a stack of cash to resolve potential claims and also buy silence, misconduct never comes to light. However, when certain types of misconduct come to light, owners may end up being forced to sell.

That’s what the league is trying to avoid.
 
From.....

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...culty-of-making-wft-findings-public-is-false/

a press conference, presence at which requires a credential from the NFL, the prospect of getting into a public pissing match with the Commissioner would violate basic protocol and result in no future credentials being issued.

It’s not for the reporters to accuse him during the press conference of not telling the truth. It’s for the reporters to ask questions that lead to answers that can then may cause others to say, for example, that what he said isn’t believable.

Ideally, someone would have asked Goodell about the Cuomo report or other instances of actual redaction. But that’s now how press conferences work. It’s a shotgun with limited shells, and the reporters who are trying to ask questions already have a question in mind that they want to ask. The chances of coming up with an on-the-fly follow-up for an answer coming from someone else’s question are slim.

It would be better for Goodell to sit down for a one-on-one interview with someone who understands the issues involved. That most likely won’t happen. (We asked to interview Pash before his emails were released, and the league declined. We did not ask to interview Goodell. If we did, well, we have a feeling we know what the answer would be.)

Even in that setting, it’s not easy to call BS in real time. If, however, Goodell finds himself testifying before the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee, he’ll be far more likely to be asking pointed, direct, and/or aggressive questions from members of Congress who feel no compulsion to tiptoe on eggshells when dealing with the most powerful man in the NFL.

And that, frankly, could be happening. Many would say it needs to. Because it does
 
JC Tretter takes issue with “conspiracy theory” over Jon Gruden email leak

Posted by Mike Florio on October 29, 2021, 9:58 AM EDT


Three weeks ago today, the Jon Gruden email scandal emerged out of the clear blue sky in the middle of a quiet Friday afternoon. Given that the target of his racist trope — NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith — faced within hours after the email surfaced a vote on whether his job would be declared open in March, many around the league wondered whether the email was leaked by someone who wanted to help Smith keep his job.

That theory has been mentioned in various settings and contexts since then. On Thursday, NFLPA president JC Tretter addressed the speculation for the first time.

Tretter made his remarks in response to an article by Andrew Brandt that appeared on SI.com. Tretter characterized the notion that someone leaked the email in order to help Smith as a “conspiracy theory about the NFLPA and our player leaders.”

Wrote Brandt of the leak: “Sure, the timing could have been a totally random coincidence and not meant to evoke at least one empathy vote to save Smith’s job. However, knowing the cutthroat nature of NFL business, it would not surprise me if the leaker(s) wanted to ensure that Smith — who has negotiated two decade-long CBAs that have served NFL ownership very well — kept his job. It seems as if whoever leaked these selected emails wanted 1) DeMaurice Smith to keep his job, and/or 2) Jon Gruden to lose his job, and/or 3) coverage diverted from other behavior to Gruden’s behavior.”

In response, Tretter says that the Gruden email about Smith was “never discussed” during the conference call that culminated in Smith getting just enough votes from the NFLPA board of player representatives (22 of them) to get another contract. “For Andrew to imply that our player leadership would cast pity votes in support of De or allow unrelated issues to cloud a critical union issue is insulting and ridiculous,” Tretter writes.

There’s a difference, however, between the motivation of the leaker and the impact of the leak on the intended audience. There’s no way to know whether one of the 22 who voted for Smith was on the fence in the hours preceding the vote, and whether the very stark, offensive example of the treatment Smith has endured on behalf of NFL players helped change that person’s mind. Regardless, it’s hardly a “conspiracy theory” to suggest that someone in a very high position with the NFL or one of its teams saw an opportunity to boost Smith by leaking that email when it was leaked. Frankly, it’s far closer to Occam’s razor.

Brandt isn’t the only one who has said what he said. I’ve said it. Multiple times. However, Brandt has had a not-so-subtle bias against current NFLPA leadership, criticizing both the 2011 CBA and the 2020 version of it from behind what many regard as a not-so-thinly-veiled ambition to join the union as part of the post-Smith regime. Indeed, Brandt adds to his column the self-aggrandizing “disclosure” that he “was approached about” the NFLPA executive director position “a couple of times, though not recently, and decided against it.” We’re not aware of Brandt’s name ever emerging as a potential NFLPA executive director; his name had been mentioned as someone who would potentially be hired by a new executive director, possibly as in-house counsel.

Regardless, there’s a history of animosity between the current NFLPA and Brandt, which makes it not surprising that Tretter specifically targeted Brandt for saying something that plenty of others have said. And even if the leaked email didn’t help Smith win the vote, it’s reasonable to think someone who had access to the Gruden emails concluded that it couldn’t hurt.
 
manureid said:
Goodell about the most corrupt guy getting around in sport these days.
Click to expand...

He just takes the heat for the owners, that's his job yeah? Even if it eventually blows up people will end up being more angry with him for covering it up than for the issues he was covering up in the first place. Job well done.
 
Constantgin said:
So agree getting so hard to support the nfl. I watch my 49ers play this week and that’s the only game I bothered with just didn’t feel like watching any other games first time I haven’t watched 4 or more games over weekend in years.Couldn’t even be bothered with checking my fantasy teams to make sure it was set for the week.

Ways it’s going I doubt I will bother following nfl come next year
Click to expand...
Assume you’ve stopped following most sports then including AFL which is a insular boys club. I follow European soccer and can’t stand the bs but still like the games. NFL on the field has been entertaining this season…I just try and avoid the off field rubbish, yes hard to at times
 
Should the NFL rid itself of Daniel Snyder?

Posted by Mike Florio on October 30, 2021, 2:31 PM EDT

The NFL continues to take body blows over the chronic misconduct of the Washington Football Team on Daniel Snyder’s watch and the league’s bizarre handling of the investigation. It’s fair to wonder whether the league will realize that the easiest solution to its current problems is to simply rid itself of Snyder, once and for all.

When the conclusions regarding the WFT investigation first emerged, with zero facts that supported them disclosed, it became obvious that the NFL was protecting not Snyder but the rest of the owners. If those facts were to come out (and they still could), it will be as untenable for Snyder to continue as the owner of the Washington Football Team as it was for Jon Gruden to continue as the coach of the Raiders. And then a roadmap will be available for any current or former employees of other teams who may want to make accusations that become formal allegations that become a critical mass of contentions that spark an independent inquiry and then that owner may end up being forced to sell, too, if the facts come to light.

The best protection against that outcome would have been to simply push Snyder out of the club. Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post, in a biting, insightful, and generally brilliant column, shows that the NFL is getting what it deserves for not giving Snyder what he has long deserved.

With Congress on the case, it may be too late for the NFL to quietly throw Snyder overboard — even if it could. (He’d surely fight, tooth and nail, any effort to oust him.) While publication of certain facts relating to the investigation could be enough to create sufficient public outcry to force a sale, the precedent that could bring down other owners would be established and irreversible.

Plenty of owners are likely wishing they’d gotten rid of Snyder, or had never let him join Club Oligarch in the first place. As explained by Albert Breer of SI.com, Tanya Snyder (who is running the team during her husband’s “voluntary” indefinite exile) spoke to the other owners this week, and one person who heard her comments called them “tone deaf.” Two other owners, per Breer, agreed with that assessment.

And while Tanya Snyder insisted that neither she nor Dan Snyder leaked the emails, Jenkins points out that Snyder’s international crusade to inflict judicial vengeance for a false story that linked Snyder to Jeffrey Epstein placed some of those emails into the public record. Although a separate and subsequent leak seemed to trigger the downfall of Gruden, it arguably would have become much easier to justify leaking emails that already are hiding in plain sight.

Per Breer, Tanya Snyder also claimed that Daniel Snyder doesn’t have an email account. While that, if true, would suggest that the trove of 650,000 secret Bruce Allen emails includes no messages to or from Snyder, it’s irrelevant to whether Snyder or someone working on his behalf leaked either the Gruden emails or the Bruce Allen-Jeff Pash messages, or both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top