Skip to content

Bruce Allen channels Charlie Sheen in letter to Redskins fans

Dan Snyder, Bruce Allen

It’s fitting, we suppose, that on the same day the Redskins Washington Football Team flexed their trademark muscle against the Washington Post, the organization infringed on the trademark phrase of unemployed actor Charlie Sheen.

“We care deeply about our passionate fans of the Burgundy & Gold and we are determined to bring you a winning football team,” G.M. Bruce Allen said in the last paragraph of a letter to fans.  “You should know that the current status of the Collective Bargaining Agreement will not disrupt our preparation for the 2011 season or swerve our focus from the Redskins’ objective — WINNING.”

We would have developed a ton of respect for the organization if Allen had added a hashtag.

The rest of Allen’s letter echoes the league’s placement of blame on the players’ “abandonment of bargaining and subsequent decertification,” and also claims that those actions “led to” the “difficult but necessary step to lock out” the players.  As if the league wasn’t going to lock the players out anyway.

“We remain committed to getting a new deal done and believe that the fastest way to a fair agreement is through mediation and not litigation,” Allen writes.  We continue to believe both can be accomplished.  Mediation may occur during litigation, and the uncertainty of the ruling that will result from the April 6 hearing on the players’ effort to lift the lockout could (actually, should) nudge both sides toward controlling their destiny before the leverage swings sharply, one way or the other.

Allen described the offer from which the players “walked away” as “fair,” a term which has little relevance absent a full understanding of the positions and the circumstances.  He also tries to foment friction between former players and current players, pointing to the “additional benefits the proposal would have provided” to the league’s retirees.

“Our organization is rich in history and we are proud of the men who have contributed to our glorious past and helped create our great fan base that we all benefit from today,” Allen writes.  “The Redskins alumni continue to play an integral role within our community, and the union’s decision to walk away from a deal that would have benefited our retired players is especially disappointing.”

And no letter from the G.M. of D.C.’s team would be complete without reiteration of the league’s position that Congressional involvement is not desire (except, of course, when Congress is leaning on the NFLPA* to work with NFL Alumni).

“As the home team in the nation’s capital, we understand and respect the political process,” Allen says.  “However, we feel a deal will be reached at the negotiating table and not with the involvement of Congress. The NFL remains committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process, which is the most effective way to reach a new agreement — one that is good for the long-term future of the game.”

We’re not sure that a coordinated P.R. effort will set the right move for further talks, and we’d prefer at this point that the two sides focus not on pointing fingers but on finding a way to get back to the table and continue their work on a new deal.

Permalink 38 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union, Washington Redskins
38 Responses to “Bruce Allen channels Charlie Sheen in letter to Redskins fans”
  1. billsfan27 says: Mar 16, 2011 7:36 AM

    There’s a little bit of Charlie Sheen in all of us.

  2. chapnastier says: Mar 16, 2011 7:39 AM

    I don’t really think the owners are pointing fingers really. They are just stating the facts. All indications have been so far that the NFLPA* has been throwing rhetoric non-stop towards the owners (see Adrain Peterson’s ignorance). ESPN did the same thing last night trying to spin this entire thing against the owners when there really is no evidence to support it. Based on the shift of comments on this website alone, the media spin isn’t “winning” at all.

    God I hate that I said that.

  3. rojones82 says: Mar 16, 2011 7:43 AM

    More to the point, There is a little of Charlie Sheen in most American Women.

  4. jc1958cool says: Mar 16, 2011 7:47 AM

    good PR guy dumb *ss GM and dan snyder suck ___!

  5. joepags says: Mar 16, 2011 7:57 AM

    i still blame owners for this one.

  6. toe4 says: Mar 16, 2011 7:57 AM

    “It’s fitting, we suppose, that on the same day the Redskins flexed their trademark muscle against the Washington Post…”

    Wasn’t it just yesterday you wrote you wouldn’t be using that term again except when quoting someone?

  7. dldove77 says: Mar 16, 2011 8:01 AM

    Already given up on the boycott of using the term Redskins? Disappointed.

  8. shallowfan says: Mar 16, 2011 8:04 AM

    The Redskins are committed to winning?

    They do know they hired Shanahan as the coach right…and that they don’t have a QB because they ran him out of town?

    Just sayin…

  9. jeffro33 says: Mar 16, 2011 8:14 AM

    There is more Sheen in the Redskins ownership maybe, as they are certainly a dynamic group…

    But the Redskins players are more closely linked to Sheen’s kids- misguided, without consistent leadership, and certain to be screwed up…

  10. dccowboy says: Mar 16, 2011 8:29 AM

    Who exactly are they going to have mediation with since there is no union?

  11. Kave Krew says: Mar 16, 2011 8:45 AM

    another chapter in the tales of The Foreskins……

  12. handlethehandles says: Mar 16, 2011 8:46 AM

    At a poker table isnt the guy with less chips more likley to go out first….

    Go owners…

  13. tombradyswig says: Mar 16, 2011 8:50 AM

    REDSKINS = LOSING!!

  14. MichaelEdits says: Mar 16, 2011 8:50 AM

    When I first heard about Charlie Sheen, I was wondering if someone had a script lying around for Hot Shots Part 3. But then someone else in a blog somewhere mentioned that Charlie would be perfect in a biopic of Moammir Ghadafy. And that, my friends, is what separates winners (not me) from losers (hi).

    Oh, what? Football? What’s that?

  15. grimsleeper78 says: Mar 16, 2011 8:51 AM

    I really hope the players aren’t relying on congress to fix this. The U.S. Government may possibly shut down next week because they cant agree on a national budget. U.S Military members will have to work and not get paid. And the players want the gov’t to help fix their labor dispute??

    that is WINNING!!

  16. boysroll says: Mar 16, 2011 9:01 AM

    what a dope this allen guy is? seriously…what has he done in this league besides ruin franchises?

    and to piggyback on the WINNING comment of Charlie Sheen…great marketing…ghee..I want to buy season tickets now to watch that garbage this team puts out only to finish last every yr..he should of used the term LOSING as that has been the theme with this joke of an org. lmao.

  17. r8rsfan says: Mar 16, 2011 9:03 AM

    So now Charlie Sheen owns the word “winning”? Silly story.

  18. ny82jy says: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 AM

    The NFL and the “ex” players union are so screwed up they make Charlie sheen look good.

  19. jackhall00 says: Mar 16, 2011 9:27 AM

    Worst run organization in pro sports. Hands down.

  20. bgmathis says: Mar 16, 2011 9:29 AM

    Maybe that should be whining…

  21. unclehilroy says: Mar 16, 2011 9:40 AM

    I didn’t realize that the nation’s capital is Landover, MD.

  22. thefiesty1 says: Mar 16, 2011 9:41 AM

    Winning – NOT!

  23. stanklepoot says: Mar 16, 2011 9:47 AM

    handlethehandles says: Mar 16, 2011 8:46 AM

    At a poker table isnt the guy with less chips more likley to go out first….

    Go owners…
    _______________________
    Actually, if you’ve ever watched a major poker tournament on tv, then you’d know that the guy who was the chip leader earlier in the tournament (in many cases, even at the beginning of the final table) tends to get knocked out of the tournament. Everything can change in a single hand. Additionally, when you’re short stacked you tend to play more aggressively, looking to make something happen, since you know you have less to lose. If you’re going to use an analogy, you might want to be sure that it actually backs up the point you want to make. Just saying.

  24. hendawg21 says: Mar 16, 2011 9:48 AM

    All u haters don’t act like your team has always won when the Bills, Skins, Giants, 49ers were playing and winning Super Bowls well except the Bills but they were at least making it there what was your team doing??? Everyone wants to think Snyder is a bad owner hey at least he’s willing to spend money to win has he made bad decisions yes I blame that on listening to “Cousin Vinny” it could be worse could be a Lions, Bengals, Cardinals, Browns and any other team that hasn’t won a Super bowl or anything yet.

  25. mulehead70 says: Mar 16, 2011 9:52 AM

    The big question is, does McNabb have tiger blood and Adonis DNA?

  26. whiteboy11 says: Mar 16, 2011 10:07 AM

    Hey Speaking of the name REDSKINS …..I thought a court a couple of years ago said that this name cant be “owned ” or be under copy write rules because it is slang or demeaning to a race of people ?????

    if thats the case …danny boy cant do diddly about what papers call their blogs

  27. stanklepoot says: Mar 16, 2011 10:10 AM

    ny82jy says: Mar 16, 2011 9:23 AM

    The NFL and the “ex” players union are so screwed up they make Charlie sheen look good.
    ___________________________
    Please explain. In my view, there’s a big difference between someone doing something I don’t like, and someone doing something messed up or stupid. The players believed that the owners had the advantage in negotiations under the original circumstances, but that they’d have an advantage if the issue went to court. Quite a few analysts agree too.

    While the players certainly have no guarantees with litigation, there’s a good chance they get an injunction against a lockout. If that happens, then the owners biggest bit of leverage (the idea that players would give in due to a loss of income) goes out the window. Additionally, any anti-trust finding against the owners could force both sides back to the negotiating table, only this time with the players in the cat bird seat.

    Then again, it could all blow up in the players’ faces, and the court could rule in the NFL’s favor. If that happens, then the threat of those actions (which was an advantage for the players) is quite simply gone, and the owners are free to lean on the players in any way they want and for as long as they want.

    You can favor either side or neither side, but I don’t see where I can call the NFLPA’s move (it still exists as a trade association) dumb. The players don’t really lose until their paychecks don’t come. Granted, it can put free agents in a weird place, but they’ll end up playing somewhere. The owners, however, will be losing money very soon. It’s season ticket time, and you have to wonder if sales will be noticeably affected, despite promises of full refunds (some with interest) in case games are lost. It’s also the time companies are purchasing advertising time. Just because the networks signed deals that would force them to continue to pay in the even of any kind of work stoppage, that doesn’t mean that some companies are going to want to put themselves in that position. So, if the players get paid in the regular season (yeah, i know I’m leaving out off-season workout bonuses) and the owners set up their income in the off-season, then why wouldn’t the players be willing to ride things out during the off-season? Like I said before, I may not be happy about the circumstances, but I can certainly understand why they would do it.

  28. tumtum1288 says: Mar 16, 2011 10:14 AM

    Oh those Washington Free Agent Mistakes, what team isn’t committed to winning. Some are committed to winning games and super bowls super bowls, and teams like the Free Agent Mistakes are committed to winning in the most disappointed fans coming with the cowboys not far behind.

  29. Al Davis says: Mar 16, 2011 10:28 AM

    I want to hear what somebody whose not Brees, Brady, Manning, or any other player making 100’s of millions through the NFL and not to mention endorsements has to say about this situation. You know the guy who leads the special teams in tackles who gets like .03% of Mannings salary and see if he really likes where this is going. But on the topic of the Redskins, I bet you Haynesworth is probably loving where this is going right now

  30. richm2256 says: Mar 16, 2011 10:31 AM

    As if the Redskins (Sue me, Snyder, that’s the name of your damn team!) weren’t a big enough disaster, now they’re invoking that train-wreck known as Charlie Sheen?

    Yeah, I DO see the resemblance. Nevermind.

  31. joepags says: Mar 16, 2011 10:33 AM

    i cant believe all the support “fans” of football are giving towards the owners. the players are really getting a bad deal, i feel they need to gove the owners more off the top but 1billion is over kill.
    my opinion, i blame owners as i said before.

  32. jbcommonsense says: Mar 16, 2011 10:35 AM

    The owners should stop with the endless PR-spinning, which simultaneously bores the heck out of us and insults our intelligence. Instead they must face up to the facts of the situation and either open up their financial records or make the players a good enough offer to give up that legitimate demand.

  33. ehyates says: Mar 16, 2011 10:40 AM

    WAIT, WAIT, I HAVE IT!

    New Team Name: Landover Danskins.

    There’s probably some sort of marketing tie in there. Maybe the players start wearing leotards?

    Anything for more revenue…

  34. bradwins says: Mar 16, 2011 11:03 AM

    Duh, winning!

  35. bleedgreen says: Mar 16, 2011 11:23 AM

    joepags says:
    Mar 16, 2011 10:33 AM
    i cant believe all the support “fans” of football are giving towards the owners. the players are really getting a bad deal, i feel they need to gove the owners more off the top but 1billion is over kill.
    my opinion, i blame owners as i said before.
    ——————–

    Did you miss the news reports where the owners essentially came down to < 1/2 that and the Union turned their noses up at it, but didn't submit a counteroffer?

  36. beastofeden says: Mar 16, 2011 12:42 PM

    This is a direct rip from the boys at Hogs Haven

  37. turgidsen says: Mar 16, 2011 1:07 PM

    what a dope this allen guy is? seriously…what has he done in this league besides ruin franchises?

    and to piggyback on the WINNING comment of Charlie Sheen…great marketing…ghee..I want to buy season tickets now to watch that garbage this team puts out only to finish last every yr..he should of used the term LOSING as that has been the theme with this joke of an org. lmao.
    ==========================================================================
    Let me try this again(this will probably be removed again) Allen is GM unlike Jerrah who attempts to be a GM. The cowgirls finished the same place that the Indigenous peoples team did last year .Being the great cowboy fan that you are why is it I never see you defending Jerrah ,especially now,since he may be the one responsible for the players leaving the negotiating table.

  38. jsbrasha says: Mar 16, 2011 1:49 PM

    Hey bleedgreen:

    Half a turd is still, well, a turd. The whole “owners came half way” argument is silly when you don’t consider the specifics.

    A guy walks up to you and says “Hey, give me your testicles!” You say “No way”. He says, “Ok, give me one, we’ll split the difference.” Is that a good deal? A sign that he is “willing to negotiate” and you are not?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!