Is Redskins management concerned about the Burgundy Revoluiton?

November 4, 11:11 AMWashington Redskins ExaminerMark Newgent

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Washington Redskins Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

(Photo credit: Mark Newgent)

Did the absolute prohibition on signs at FedEx Field reflect a larger concern by upper management about the burgeoning Burgundy Revolution? Redskins Chief Operating Officer, David Donovan told Mike Wise on his radio show that isn’t the case. “Come on, guys, the notion that somehow we are trying to protect Dan Snyder from bad press is silly. We've got you guys—the Washington Post has all the ink in the east coast to print all the stories they want.”

True the Post does have a lot of ink. However, banning all signs makes the Redskins look like they are indeed trying to shield Snyder from criticism or tamping down fan protests in the stadium that would be picked up by the media.

Furthermore, if you look at the timeline from the loss to Detroit through the loss to the Eagles, the pattern suggests that Redskins were indeed concerned about the Burgundy Revolution and media coverage of it.

September 27: Redskins lose to Detroit 19-14 shortly thereafter first sparks of the Burgundy Revolution s appear: selling of fandom on e-bay, and hand wringing over free game tickets.

October 4: The 16-13 squeaker over Tampa Bay, in which fans booed the team even in victory. This date is also last time Dan Steinberg noted the old banner policy—allowing fan-made signs—appeared on the team website.

October 11: Redskins blow a 15-point lead—on the road—in a 20-17 loss to Carolina. Fan anger grows, and the Burgundy Revolution organizes it’s first protest—Black Sunday 10/18—for the next week’s game against Kansas City.

October 18: Redskins lose to winless Kansas City 14-6. Black Sunday brought mixed results. However, a lot of folks were wearing black foul-weather gear, which gave the appearance of a sizable protest. Rick Snider noted that some 20 percent of the crowd was wearing black in protest.

October 26: Philadelphia thumps the Redskins 27-17, and the full sign ban and stadium security harassing fans wearing anti-Snyder/anti-Cerrato t-shirts become major issues.

When you match the chronology of fan angst fueling the Burgundy Revolution against the sudden absolute prohibition on signs, Donovan’s explanation doesn’t hold water. Donovan told Wise that signs, “get in the way of other people viewing the game, and people get poked in the head. That stuff happens. We have an absolute prohibition. We don't care what [the signs] say."

I can’t accept that explanation for many reasons. First, the Redskins do allow more potentially harmful signs if they are marketing pieces from a corporate partner. Second, where are the reports of signs obstructing views of the game and poked heads? Third, the new sign policy is clearly more rigid and apart from the norm compared with the rest of the league. Lastly, where was the written notice of a change in policy to season ticket holders? The team announced it’s new tailgating/parking policy three months before the start of the season? Why no forewarning of the sign ban?

That last question leads to another one. When did the team officially change the banner policy? We don’t know. Steinberg pointed out that a Redskins spokesman told him that he wasn’t sure when the policy changed. I made a similar inquiry, but the team has not responded.

However, we do know that the stadium security has been confiscating signs since at least the October 4 Tampa Bay game, before the first reports of the policy change after the Eagles game. Also, in another curious incident after the Tampa game, the Redskins requested the Post remove photos Steinberg snapped of protesting fans in the stands.

At the October 11, game against Kansas City, Chris Devine and Mike Broderick were harassed by stadium security for bringing in a Dumb and Dumber sign featuring Dan Snyder and Vinny Cerrato, the same sign Steinberg posted a photo of from the Carolina game (see video below.)

The sound quality of the video is bad, but here is what Chris told me went down: “The security guard told us that signs of any kind were not allowed in the stadium whether they were derogatory or not. He said that the policy had changed during the week and was posted online. So I told him since I am a season ticket holder I should have been notified in writing about the policy change.”

Notice the discrepancy here. According to the security guard who confiscated their sign the policy was changed during the week sometime between between October 11 and October 18, yet as noted above security was confiscating signs a whole week earlier at the October 4 Tampa Bay game, where fan Jeff Lavine related to Steinberg that security told him “no signs today.”

So when exactly was the policy change made? Why did it take the Redskins nearly a month—after angering many fans—to admit there was a change in policy?

Chris and Mike were also at the center of the t-shirt controversy. Both were harassed by stadium security over similar Dumb and Dumber t-shirts they wore to the Monday night game against the Eagles.

According to Mike, he and Chris made their way to the upper deck to visit some friends before half time, then “a stadium security guard, [name removed] stopped us and told us to take off the shirts,” Mike said. “When I told her no and that I didn't understand why, she called the PG Police! We had 8 officers show up!” They were told to turn their shirts inside out or leave the stadium and Mike had to provide identification, and was threatened with losing his season tickets. “One of the officers pulled me to the side to tell me to contact the Post or TV to tell what is happening at FedEx because they are sick of the nonsense. The officer told him “they have must better things to do with their time at the stadium.”

That jibes with another similar incident, related by a commenter on Steinberg’s site, in which men wearing “Fire Snyder” and “Fire Vinny” shirts were confronted by security and police officers. In that situation, the security guard said “upper management told us to come up here and ask these men to remove their shirt.”

Obviously, I don’t have smoking gun evidence, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Redskins changed their banner policy and cracked down on protest t-shirts in some covert PR strategy to mitigate any fan revolt and media coverage of it. However this is a court of public opinion not a court of law.

I find it beyond coincidence that security began confiscating signs at the very time the Burgundy Revolution started to make some real noise. Steinberg, myself, and others were reporting on the nascent movement’s baby steps and it’s growth after each loss. Redskins’ management had to see it coming as well. The fact that security was confiscating signs a month before team officials even admitted a total ban suggests that very concern. Even if we take Donovan’s head poking explanation as the God’s honest truth did it not dawn on anyone in management that imposing a complete prohibition—in the face of a growing revolt—would be viewed as a crack down on fan protest? Throw in multiple anecdotes of stadium security—acting on the authority of upper management—threatening ejection and loss of season tickets against fans wearing anti-Snyder/anti Cerrato t-shirts, and you’ve got a lot of evidence, which contradicts the official line.