If You Owned the Redskins what would you do?

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.

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.

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.

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.

#56fanatic · 03-01-2006, 12:07 PM

For me : The players what 60%, owners have offers 56.2% or something of that nature. There is a middle ground, the owners and players know it. The NFL is what it is because of the cap and the current CBA. If I was Danny I would try and say "look at my Franchise, lets give the players 58.5 %, see if that does it. we have to admit without a CBA, the NFL will become the MLB. And I am here to tell you, I will be George Steinbrenner, I will buy every legitament player that will put me in the superbowl year after year and your teams will suffer. And also, dont try to take my local revenue. thats my community, my money, keep your hands off. If you would run your teams with the money we give you instead of keeping it in your pocket, you would see some profits.

For the current players : Brunell if he doesn't want to rework the contract, SEE YA!!! Campbell, put your helmet on, you are playing. Deal Ramsey to the highest bidder. Bowen,harris,clark,royal,cartright,holdman,raymer, wynn,noble,maybe daniels, we'll see ya later. good luck in the future. Cutting LaVar isn't saving you too anything, keep him because I doubt we find anyone will his upside for less than 1 million. Patten see ya, trash see ya.(unless patten is cheap this year).
I think we could be competative with Campbell , Portis, moss and our Oline and Cooley and a decent # 2 wr. Our D w/ Griffin, Washington, Arrington, Taylor, Springs, and Rogers. Then 2007, watch out, spend spend spend.

That Guy · 03-01-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

For the current players : Brunell if he doesn't want to rework the contract, SEE YA!!! Campbell, put your helmet on, you are playing. Deal Ramsey to the highest bidder. Bowen,harris,clark,royal,cartright,holdman,raymer, wynn,noble,maybe daniels, we'll see ya later. good luck in the future. Cutting LaVar isn't saving you too anything, keep him because I doubt we find anyone will his upside for less than 1 million. Patten see ya, trash see ya.(unless patten is cheap this year).
I think we could be competative with Campbell , Portis, moss and our Oline and Cooley and a decent # 2 wr. Our D w/ Griffin, Washington, Arrington, Taylor, Springs, and Rogers. Then 2007, watch out, spend spend spend.

seventeenth time, we can't cut brunell without a new cba, and only thomas would remain on our oline without a new cba.

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

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

#56fanatic · 03-01-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

seventeenth time, we can't cut brunell without a new cba, and only thomas would remain on our oline without a new cba.

Hey buddy, I just read about it costing us more to cut him than keep him, so back off. And I seriously doubt you will see us cut all of our O-Line. no way jansen, samuels, thomas get cut. plus Rabach just signed last year so his cap figure shouldn't be too hight. Make sure you are referring to right person when saying you have said this 16 times. I haven't heard it from you once!

MTK · 03-01-2006, 02:07 PM

I think we should cut Brunell and save some cap.

#56fanatic · 03-01-2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

seventeenth time, we can't cut brunell without a new cba, and only thomas would remain on our oline without a new cba.

Wait a second, you jump on my ass for one person out of the 10 or so I mentioned. someone wound a little tight?

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.

Oakland Red · 03-01-2006, 02:35 PM

I would be co-operative about revenue sharing, let the players have a bigger piece of the pie, turn in my gang of 9 membership card and do my part to save the NFL from self-destruction.

That Guy · 03-01-2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Wait a second, you jump on my ass for one person out of the 10 or so I mentioned. someone wound a little tight?

jump on your ass? i just answered your question, i'm sorry, but i think you may be wound a bit tight :P I've answered the exact same question multiple times in nearly every thread the last three days. It was humor cause it was asked so often i started numbering them. I'm sorry if you weren't paying attention or reading the other threads and missed it. no need to get touchy.

That Guy · 03-01-2006, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Hey buddy, I just read about it costing us more to cut him than keep him, so back off. And I seriously doubt you will see us cut all of our O-Line. no way jansen, samuels, thomas get cut. plus Rabach just signed last year so his cap figure shouldn't be too hight. Make sure you are referring to right person when saying you have said this 16 times. I haven't heard it from you once!

if we cut everybody that save us any money on the roster and replaced them with a 235k rookie at vet min (thats 40 1st year rookies and 13 people we can't cut cause it'd cost more than keeping them), we'd still be 1.4mill over the cap. no cba = everyone is leaving. and do you really think the same person asked me the same question 16 times? sometimes two different people asked the same thing on the same page right after it had been answered. I'm sorry you're late on the party

.

03-01-2006, 10:57 AM	#16
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	#17
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 46 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	#20
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, 12:07 PM	#21
#56fanatic The Starter Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Charlotte NC Age: 51 Posts: 1,801	Re: If You Owned the Redskins what would you do? For me : The players what 60%, owners have offers 56.2% or something of that nature. There is a middle ground, the owners and players know it. The NFL is what it is because of the cap and the current CBA. If I was Danny I would try and say "look at my Franchise, lets give the players 58.5 %, see if that does it. we have to admit without a CBA, the NFL will become the MLB. And I am here to tell you, I will be George Steinbrenner, I will buy every legitament player that will put me in the superbowl year after year and your teams will suffer. And also, dont try to take my local revenue. thats my community, my money, keep your hands off. If you would run your teams with the money we give you instead of keeping it in your pocket, you would see some profits. For the current players : Brunell if he doesn't want to rework the contract, SEE YA!!! Campbell, put your helmet on, you are playing. Deal Ramsey to the highest bidder. Bowen,harris,clark,royal,cartright,holdman,raymer, wynn,noble,maybe daniels, we'll see ya later. good luck in the future. Cutting LaVar isn't saving you too anything, keep him because I doubt we find anyone will his upside for less than 1 million. Patten see ya, trash see ya.(unless patten is cheap this year). I think we could be competative with Campbell , Portis, moss and our Oline and Cooley and a decent # 2 wr. Our D w/ Griffin, Washington, Arrington, Taylor, Springs, and Rogers. Then 2007, watch out, spend spend spend.

03-01-2006, 01:00 PM	#23
Sheriff Gonna Getcha Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 46 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, 02:07 PM	#25
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 52 Posts: 99,837	Re: If You Owned the Redskins what would you do? I think we should cut Brunell and save some cap. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

03-01-2006, 02:10 PM	#27
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

03-01-2006, 02:35 PM	#28
Oakland Red Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Oakland, Calif. Posts: 268	Re: If You Owned the Redskins what would you do? I would be co-operative about revenue sharing, let the players have a bigger piece of the pie, turn in my gang of 9 membership card and do my part to save the NFL from self-destruction.

If You Owned the Redskins what would you do?

Locker Room Main Forum