Brits Don't Want the Redskins?
 

Sorry if a Q, saw this story today, and found it interesting. I guess they were OK with the Chiefs, but not the Redskins:

http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2016...ment-redskins/

The Washington NFL team is scheduled to play in London this fall, and two members of the British Parliament aren’t happy about it.

“We were shocked to learn the derivation of the term ‘R*dskin,’ pertaining as it does to the historic abuse of Native Americans,” Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin wrote in a letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, a copy of which was obtained by ESPN. “The exportation of this racial slur to the UK this autumn, when the Washington team is due to play, directly contravenes the values that many in Britain have worked so hard to instill.”

The two members of the British Labor Party want the league to change the team’s name or, “at the minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur.”
This is not the way we would want Native Americans introduced to our country.

Native American tribes have been trying to get Washington to change its name for years, but recently the movement has been gaining steam: In 2014, the U.S. Patent Office canceled Washington’s trademark of the name because it is “disparaging” to Native Americans; last year, California recently became the first state to ban all schools from using “Redskins” as a team mascot or name; and just last week, a congressman from New York sent Goodell a letter calling for a change. Even President Barack Obama has urged Washington to “think about changing the name.”

But Dan Snyder, the owner of the team, has been adamant about keeping the name. “We’ll never change the name,” he said in 2013. “It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”

The league has stuck by Snyder, even financing the team’s legal battle to keep the trademark. “A team’s name is a club decision,” Brian McCarthy, the NFL’s vice president of communications, told ESPN.

While it seems unlikely that the British Parliament can make Goodell and Snyder do something that President Obama (let alone mere empathy) couldn’t, Smeeth and Austin might actually have the law on their side in England.

“No nation has stricter anti-racism laws in sports, due in part to disturbing incidents encountered by black soccer players over the years, including having banana peels and monkey chants hurled at them during matches,” Mike Weiss of ESPN reported. “Clubs at every level can be heavily fined or banished from their respective leagues for any violation.”

It’s also significant that Wembley Stadium, the site of the game in October, has its own anti-racism charter that bans “racial, homophobic or discriminatory abuse, chanting or harassment.” ESPN reports that people at Wembley are currently discussing the issue internally.

Also potentially problematic? The BBC — the NFL’s broadcasting partner in the United Kingdom — is publicly owned.

“Given it’s taxpayer-funded, if we believe it’s a racial slur, then that means problems for the BBC in terms of coverage of the event,” Smeeth said.

The NFL has played games in London annually since 2007, and has had three per season there since 2014. The league has been very open about its desire to open a NFL franchise in London — possibly as soon as 2022. Why? London is a huge market, and the NFL is not keen on leaving money on the table.

So for Goodell and Co., the most important part of Smeeth and Austin’s argument might just be: “This is not the image the NFL wants portrayed in the UK.”

“We’re quite clear that sport is a vehicle for cultural change and celebration of what’s best about society rather than hate and division,” Smeeth told ESPN. “That’s why bringing in new racial slurs to Britain is unacceptable. This is not the way we would want Native Americans introduced to our country.”

“It is heartening to see leading officials in Britain demonstrating their commitment to fighting for equality and opposing racism in U.S. sports, just as they have historically in the UK,” representatives of Change the Mascot, a campaign launched by the Oneida Indian Nation, said in a statement. “Perpetuating the slurring of people of color runs counter to American and British ideals of respect and tolerance.”

I saw this on my phone this morning. Like the Brits have any dog in this fight. The PC thing has grown so large that foreign countries are worried about the names of our sports teams. :rolleyes:

Ruth Smeeth.

She just sounds like an ultra liberal Fem-Nazi.

"But we won't take the Irish"

Mmmmmhmmmmm

http://i.imgur.com/Eh3hKK2.jpg

This chick needs to get scissored. Hard.

So you were not familiar with Native Americans at any time in the last 400 years since English people started settling here and taking up Native American lands?

Sorry, this whole thing just really bugs me. You want the name changed (not talking to the English here), boycott the team. Hit them in the wallet and they will decide it is in their best interest to make a change. This does not mean lawsuits and lobbying for a new law but for the majority to step up and get a change.

made up story is made up story.

Story on ESPN:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14...ashington-name

Two things come to mind here, both already mentioned briefly.

1. The Irish. Dear UK, shut your ****ing pie hole about treatment of other people.

2. America, pre-USA and at the founding, was made up largely of...British citizens. So guess who got the ball rolling on all of that Native American slaughter?

To be fair, no one seems to be calling the US out on its treatment of Native Americans. They just oppose the use of a racial slur as a team name. It's a pretty simple argument. I mean... I don't really care if the NFL plays in Britain at all, much less what they think of a team's name, but the point remains valid.

dude, what's your point?
If its made up,its made up. The source doesnt make it true or legit.
Just gives the impression.

the nfl has dragged this stupid story along for 50 and more years. Now they are just making it a global non-issue

Same folks who actually debated banning a political figure here from visiting. Lotsa boredom across the pond apparently

They're just pissy we kicked their ass

Yes, because England didn't have a hand in instigating the genocide of the people of the First Nations or anything.

Wahpeton (North Dakota) Wops.
http://www.11points.com/images/highs...hpetonwops.jpg

She needs someone to PIIHB.

would not

http://i2.wp.com/footballscoop.com/w...4/pocadots.jpg
http://unleashyourspirit.us/wp-conte...7/PocaDots.jpg

I'm 88% certain the reason why any version of Rock and Roll Pt. 2 was taken off the Playlist at Arrowhead was because of the London game. Yeah, the NFL probably didn't like the idea of paying royalties to a kiddie diddler but notice it only was stopped was announced before the team played in the country were people actually associated the song with a child molester.

For the last time, the NFL doesn't pay "royalties" for each song broadcast in their stadium.

It's a called a "Blanket Licensing" system and it is an annual fee paid to either ASCAP or BMI for the rights to play any song in the stadium.

Compensation for Glitter writing the song is still due to him, is it not?

Interesting since the English create the name "redskin"

Limey Brits should boycott the game then.

**** em.

Stay home.

If he still owns the publishing, sure.

heh ... two members of the labor party = all brits, I guess.

I saw a German guy...in Germany playing Madden on twitch last week. Lol he happened to be using the Vikings.
I stuck around and chatted since my family history is German

Stadiums, bars, restaurants, concert venues, etc. and so on all pay a Yearly Blanket License fee that's determined by the size of the venue and approximate attendance.

Those fees are dumped into the Allocated Funds fee (which last year was over $900 million for ASCAP alone), then those funds are distributed based on complex algorithms that include a once a quarter survey, TV Cue Sheets, Radio Play, Top Charting songs, etc. and so on.

If a Gary Glitter or Rolling Stones or Metallica, et al, is played on the day of the Survey (which happens once a month), a royalty would be distributed but the amount for playing a song even five times during a 3 hour period for 8 games a year would be pennies on the dollar.

In other words, we're talking peanuts.

My publishing BMI was like $27 last qtr.

My writer's share??

$7 and some change

This is untrue as well.

Gary Glitter never owned his publishing. His publishing is own by Universal Music Publishing (when he signed, it was MCA).

Glitter is entitled to 100% of his writer's share of performance and mechanicals but not publishing. IIRC, he didn't sign a Co-Publishing deal, which would have given him 50% of the Publishing revenues but a standard publishing deal, which is 50/50 or technically, 100/100.

There ya go.

That doesn't make sense, unless you're acting as the Publisher for songs that you didn't compose.

I'm not the only songwriter in my band, that is correct.

I'm co-writer on roughly 60% of Driving Wheel's tunes and there's a project that a buddy and I co-wrote some tunes on and some that he is sole writer on that are ran through my publishing company.

Brits Don't Want the Redskins?

Yeah, and toothbrushes, too.

And the Greeks don't want no Freaks

First time I heard that song, I thought the record had skipped coming out of 'Teenage Jail'.

And AC/DC 'Big Balls>Rocker" - my cousin recorded Who Made Who and Dirty Deeds for me on a TDK C-90 cassette, and I thought there was a tape glitch.

Ahhh...I loved listening to music when I was a kid. No point...just wanted to share.

Yep, the irony of this is immeasurable.

Weren't the English the Red Coats?

They can go pound some fish and chips up their stove pipe

Bloody well right, those limey bastards can go flog a cod!!

"The London Hooker Rippers"

"The London Jack the Rippers"

"The London can't keep their bridges from falling down"

"The London Commodores"

The London Tossers. Lots of passing...

The London Dentists

The Old England Patriotcheaters the 2nd.

The Soho Cholera

Just have college programs play there instead:

http://gluten-freeprincess.com/wp-co...ting-Irish.jpg

Meh, college is rigged, too.

:drool:

Wow, I really thought I would be able to ignore you manually long enough to get past your BS. Ah well, welcome to the Ignore list. Enjoy your trolling...

Jeremy walks warily down the street, with his brim pulled way down low...

All the more reason why waiting nearly a decade to declare the Tube Tops 2000 cover verboten at Arrowhead doesn't make all that much sense unless you factor in it was going to be played at Wembley considering the Chiefs were the "home" team and thus had most of the gameday environment transplanted from Kansas City to London.

Further, why is it a problem to play a cover version when just a few nights ago I heard the original played over the PA during a South Carolina basketball game? Also, wiki claims the original has earned $250,000 through usage at NHL games, for whatever that is worth to you.

I know you're friends with the group or dude that won the TD song contest but taking out Rock and Roll Part 2 in favor of the new song.. well.. It's suboptimal to put it nicely. Doesn't at all sound like the Arrowhead of the pre-Herm era anymore, which is probably the intent of the NFL Marketing Wizards or what have you; I'd hazard a guess it's because of the recent spats of fan-on-fan violence getting highlighted by our awesomely alarmist newsmedia and the team / league doesn't want it to appear that they are encouraging people to "beat the hell out of" others.

"warily"

The Kansas City Chiefs aren't the only team ever to use that song. It was first used by the Bronco's in the 70's and has been used at countless sporting events. It's not an "original" idea to use this at Arrowhead.

I don't even understand this question. But to be clear, whether it's the original or a cover, the songwriter is still paid performance income. Stadiums and other venues aren't required to pay a Master Recording fee.

Let's say it was played once in every NHL game over the past 20 years. That's close to 25,000 plays, not including post season. So for the sake of argument, we'll say 30,000 games. That comes to about $8 dollars per play but that's likely the entire publishing sum, not just the Writer's Share.

So, with that being the case, he's earned about $4 dollars per play, which makes complete sense. Also, keep in mind, since it's played over the Public Address system, there are no synchronization royalties or Master Recording fees paid to the publisher.

It's still peanuts and it doesn't come from the NFL's coffers.

Oh, like as in cautiously, nice. Makes it even cooler.

Thankee-sai!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NpAYBsWcLuM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Point of rhetorically asking why the original is still getting play isn't related to royalties or what have you (because if I were on the spot I'd guess an "amateur" sporting event is exempt because it's technically not for profit, but your explanation seems like gospel and I'm not arguing it's incorrect) but pointing out that it's a bit odd that an NFL team that has used the song as a TD celebration for at least 20 years total and, in light of what your explanation of writer's royalties, that the money-to-an-ephebophile isn't the reason either. Seems to me KC made the switch from the cover version due to the Chiefs being the designated 'home' team in the London game because of Glitter's recent indictment. If the Hunt family or some big swinging dick involved with the league's marketing and PR wanted it changed, it would have been done logically with Glitter's first few spats of legal troubles in 1997 and 2006 or when the Chiefs' got Patriot Way'd in 2009.

And yeah. I get it. Rock and Roll Pt. 2 wasn't only played for TDs at Arrowhead.

Yeah! Take that Ruth SMEEEETH

Well we don't want the Brits!

This one is easy, just name it Washington FC, Washington United, Washington Villa, or Washington City and the issue is resolved.

Insert London sillynannies reference lolz