If You Owned the Redskins what would you do?

bertoskins · 03-01-2006, 05:01 PM

I will sacrifice this year and then
bring an NFC pro bowl team next year
and buy some super bowls

JET · 03-01-2006, 06:36 PM

What would I do if I owned the Redskins? I'll tell you what I'd do. Two cheerleaders at the same time.

Master4Caster · 03-02-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JET

What would I do if I owned the Redskins? I'll tell you what I'd do. Two cheerleaders at the same time.

The question was what would you do ..., not who?

btw, which two cheerleaders???

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-02-2006, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JET

What would I do if I owned the Redskins? I'll tell you what I'd do. Two cheerleaders at the same time.

So you think if you were a millionaire you'd be able to hook that up? I DO know that chicks dig dudes with money.

irish · 03-01-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I wouldn't call Danny greedy. Ambitious maybe, but greedy, probably not. You should read in one of the articles about the CBA in how Dan is willing to basically forego a BILLION dollars over the next 25 years to get a deal done and save the team for NOW. I mean that SERIOUSLY is loving your team and fan base.

Again thats assuming DS is the owner for the next 25 years.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-01-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irish

Again thats assuming DS is the owner for the next 25 years.

Let's assume he's not. He'll be out TWENTY-FIVE MILLION DOLLARS next year just so that he can have team stability. I mean I don't think we can wrap our brains around what a loyal thing that is.

irish · 03-01-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Let's assume he's not. He'll be out TWENTY-FIVE MILLION DOLLARS next year just so that he can have team stability. I mean I don't think we can wrap our brains around what a loyal thing that is.

I guess what I'm saying is DS and all owners need to look beyond their own teams and work for league stability. If the league is stable and strong then the individual teams will also be stable and strong. Its a big picture thing.

skin4Life28 · 03-01-2006, 10:39 AM

I think Danny boy has had some rough season at the beginning, but is finally starting to get it as owner. I don't think there is anything that I would change with what he is doing. And on a side note, if there happens to be a lockout I may as well reserve my room in the nut house.

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-01-2006, 10:57 AM

I think that Dan is willing to do that right now even at the risk of losing a fortune in the process. I'm sure the primary motive is to keep the team together, but I'm also sure he has some benevolent agenda in there.

irish · 03-01-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I think that Dan is willing to do that right now even at the risk of losing a fortune in the process. I'm sure the primary motive is to keep the team together, but I'm also sure he has some benevolent agenda in there.

He wont lose a fortune, he'll just make that fortune in a different way.

FRPLG · 03-01-2006, 11:23 AM

Edit: I should probably read the entire thread before posting. TMC already noted the article about Snyder backing off on the revenue sharing issues to get a CBA done.

RedskinPete · 03-01-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Edit: I should probably read the entire thread before posting. TMC already noted the article about Snyder backing off on the revenue sharing issues to get a CBA done.

I think there is more to this. The PA wants 60% of the gross of every team makes. What they get now is a percent of tv,gate and so on. Not what teams make on the side raido,sales of some things and other things. Also teams that own there on fields and have to pay the bill each month has not been factored in as well!

Monksdown · 03-01-2006, 12:02 PM

There is a reason some have money and others do not. If I was Dan Snyder, and the PA was coming after 50-60% of my revenue. Attornies would be the first and probably final attack. But professional hitmen and harassing players families illegally would definitely be part of my game plan. Billion of dollars people, billions.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 03-01-2006, 01:00 PM

If I were the owner, I'd probably kill myself.

Master4Caster · 03-01-2006, 02:10 PM

Before saying what I would do, here's what I think I understand about this mess:

The salary cap imposed an even playing field for talent. Big market teams cannot leverage their potential to handle a larger payroll. Smart talent decisions count. Throwing big dollars around is mostly a waste. That parity has been good for the league.
The entire payroll is 100% covered by TV revenue for every team.
Compared to other pro athletes in other sports, pro football players are way underpaid, especially considering their short careers and risk to health.
As a result of the above, NFLPA is demanding a much higher percentage of the TV revenue and a percentage of a team's local revenue. As much as anyone, it's the player's association forcing the revenue sharing discussion! (The player's also want to cut agent commissions to 2%. That could be very shortsighted on their part) I don't blame NFLPA for advocating for players. It's their job. The issue is that small markets generate less local revenue to tap, so players on a small market team are at a financial disadvantage to players in a big market. Thus, the socialistic revenue sharing idea. (socialism bad; capitalism good; in capitalism man exploits man, but in socialism it's the other way around)

So, if I'm Mr. Snyder:

I'd approach any discussion with the welfare of my franchise #1 and of the league #2. If another team is truly in a bad financial structure, I would consider some formula to tap into some revenue to correct it. The players should get a higher percentage of TV revenue, although not 60%, expecially if it includes local revenue.
BUT, I'd remind everybody that most other teams play in tax-payer subsidized stadiums funded by local government. They may not like their lease deals, but they didnt shell out what old Jack did to build Cooke/Fedex Field, or what the Danny does to maintain it. Unless another franchise or the NFLPA helped fund construction of Fedex, they don't get a piece of the local action. (Of course, if they did help finance it, I would share something in a private deal!)
The Redskins are a wealthy franchise because they own their stadium. If other teams want to gain, they should build and own their own stadium. Applies to the greedy major league baseball monopoly, too.
Fedex is the largest stadium in the league and always sells out. Visiting teams get 40% of the gate, so it's a big payday when they come -- and everybody wants to come! To get my vote for sharing local revenue, I want to cut the visitors share of the gate to 30% to make up for the loss. (or some such formula)
If the CBA is not renewed, I'd take my hits in 2006 and go to heaven in 2007. Yes, I'd lose core players, but I -- make that my Joe Gibbs led football professionals -- would be scouring the waiver wires for all the other salary cap casualties that would surely occur. Betcha there'll be a lot of good receivers and pass rushers available on March 4!!!
With no salary cap in 2007, the advantage falls to the Redskins and other big market franchises, which would include all the NFC/AFC East teams. I, the Danny, am what everyone is afraid of -- a free spending owner building a dynasty unburdened by salary caps; and that's why I think this thing gets settled in the next few days.

03-01-2006, 10:39 AM	#8
skin4Life28 Special Teams Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Raleigh, NC Age: 39 Posts: 447	Re: If You Owned the Redskins what would you do? I think Danny boy has had some rough season at the beginning, but is finally starting to get it as owner. I don't think there is anything that I would change with what he is doing. And on a side note, if there happens to be a lockout I may as well reserve my room in the nut house.

03-01-2006, 10:57 AM	#9
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Re: If You Owned the Redskins what would you do? I think that Dan is willing to do that right now even at the risk of losing a fortune in the process. I'm sure the primary motive is to keep the team together, but I'm also sure he has some benevolent agenda in there. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

03-01-2006, 11:23 AM	#11
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 47 Posts: 10,164	Re: If You Owned the Redskins what would you do? Edit: I should probably read the entire thread before posting. TMC already noted the article about Snyder backing off on the revenue sharing issues to get a CBA done.

03-01-2006, 12:02 PM	#13
Monksdown The Starter Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Warrenton, Virginia Age: 45 Posts: 1,515	Re: If You Owned the Redskins what would you do? There is a reason some have money and others do not. If I was Dan Snyder, and the PA was coming after 50-60% of my revenue. Attornies would be the first and probably final attack. But professional hitmen and harassing players families illegally would definitely be part of my game plan. Billion of dollars people, billions.

03-01-2006, 01:00 PM	#14
Sheriff Gonna Getcha Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 47 Posts: 8,317	Re: If You Owned the Redskins what would you do? If I were the owner, I'd probably kill myself.

03-01-2006, 05:01 PM	#1
bertoskins Special Teams Join Date: May 2004 Location: philippines Age: 52 Posts: 184	Re: If You Owned the Redskins what would you do? I will sacrifice this year and then bring an NFC pro bowl team next year and buy some super bowls

03-01-2006, 06:36 PM	#2
JET Camp Scrub Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Md Age: 52 Posts: 81	Re: If You Owned the Redskins what would you do? What would I do if I owned the Redskins? I'll tell you what I'd do. Two cheerleaders at the same time.

03-01-2006, 02:10 PM	#15
Master4Caster Special Teams Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: DC area Posts: 374	Re: If You Owned the Redskins what would you do? Before saying what I would do, here's what I think I understand about this mess: The salary cap imposed an even playing field for talent. Big market teams cannot leverage their potential to handle a larger payroll. Smart talent decisions count. Throwing big dollars around is mostly a waste. That parity has been good for the league. The entire payroll is 100% covered by TV revenue for every team. Compared to other pro athletes in other sports, pro football players are way underpaid, especially considering their short careers and risk to health. As a result of the above, NFLPA is demanding a much higher percentage of the TV revenue and a percentage of a team's local revenue. As much as anyone, it's the player's association forcing the revenue sharing discussion! (The player's also want to cut agent commissions to 2%. That could be very shortsighted on their part) I don't blame NFLPA for advocating for players. It's their job. The issue is that small markets generate less local revenue to tap, so players on a small market team are at a financial disadvantage to players in a big market. Thus, the socialistic revenue sharing idea. (socialism bad; capitalism good; in capitalism man exploits man, but in socialism it's the other way around) So, if I'm Mr. Snyder: I'd approach any discussion with the welfare of my franchise #1 and of the league #2. If another team is truly in a bad financial structure, I would consider some formula to tap into some revenue to correct it. The players should get a higher percentage of TV revenue, although not 60%, expecially if it includes local revenue. BUT, I'd remind everybody that most other teams play in tax-payer subsidized stadiums funded by local government. They may not like their lease deals, but they didnt shell out what old Jack did to build Cooke/Fedex Field, or what the Danny does to maintain it. Unless another franchise or the NFLPA helped fund construction of Fedex, they don't get a piece of the local action. (Of course, if they did help finance it, I would share something in a private deal!) The Redskins are a wealthy franchise because they own their stadium. If other teams want to gain, they should build and own their own stadium. Applies to the greedy major league baseball monopoly, too. Fedex is the largest stadium in the league and always sells out. Visiting teams get 40% of the gate, so it's a big payday when they come -- and everybody wants to come! To get my vote for sharing local revenue, I want to cut the visitors share of the gate to 30% to make up for the loss. (or some such formula) If the CBA is not renewed, I'd take my hits in 2006 and go to heaven in 2007. Yes, I'd lose core players, but I -- make that my Joe Gibbs led football professionals -- would be scouring the waiver wires for all the other salary cap casualties that would surely occur. Betcha there'll be a lot of good receivers and pass rushers available on March 4!!! With no salary cap in 2007, the advantage falls to the Redskins and other big market franchises, which would include all the NFC/AFC East teams. I, the Danny, am what everyone is afraid of -- a free spending owner building a dynasty unburdened by salary caps; and that's why I think this thing gets settled in the next few days. __________________ Master4Caster http://runningredskins.blogspot.com http://mvn.com/nfl-redskins

If You Owned the Redskins what would you do?

Locker Room Main Forum