City Paper: "Snyder: Hunter, Gatherer, Ruiner"

[abu69]

Still its just a reminder, of what we all know in some way or form, that Snyder at the end of the day is a Carnival Barker and would send us ,the Skins and probaly Vinny down the Potomac River in a heart beat.

Frankly I hope he does sell the team. We'd all be better off.

But he won't because it's the one profitable business he has owned.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Frankly I hope he does sell the team. We'd all be better off.

But he won't because it's the one profitable business he has owned.

he wont, becuase no matter how many games we lose or how many bad moves he makes, hes still gonna make bank off this team because of what joe gibbs accomplished from 1981-1992.

[theTruthTeller]

While I find the article amusing, a don't think Snyder has ever presented himself as a super genius who can do no wrong. Some people, like Buffet, buy companies that have lost their luster and tweak the company to recapture value. Other people drill holes in the ground and hope oil comes shooting out. Snyder's somewhere in between - he doesn't need to hit on everything because he's already hit a few home runs.

[Larry Brown #43]

frankly, the articles only point you guys are complaining about is the ES part. thats one sentence in the whole article of a lot of substance. it seems as though you guys are writing everything off as a dan bash piece because the guy got a part about an internet message board wrong.

You obviously haven't read the past articles from the City Paper and other sources that claim that the ES mods suppress dissent...or the comments from many ES posters who claim the same thing. We're speaking to this trend, not just the one line in this article. But it is ironic that a City Paper article, of all things, would unwittingly debunk this long-held but inaccurate notion that the mods supress dissent. I'm sure it wasn't the authors intent to debunk that popular notion, but OOPSY-DAISIES, that's exactly what he did.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think it should be noted that when most media members talk about moderators here, what they really mean is "Art." ES gets attacked in print - at least it seems to me - generally because of Art's interactions with media members. JLC and McKenna have both personally called him out in recent months.

[Thinking Skins]

frankly, the articles only point you guys are complaining about is the ES part. thats one sentence in the whole article of a lot of substance. it seems as though you guys are writing everything off as a dan bash piece because the guy got a part about an internet message board wrong.

Nah, my problem with the article is they didn't do any work. They have the line "You can look it up", but why didn't they look it up. If they did, then they may have realized that the messageboard he merged with in 2005 has more than 60000 members many of which were added after he acquired the team. But I guess in their definition, thats making the business fail. Like the other replies have been discussing, the writer doesn't even define what it means for a business to 'fail'. Does it mean that the business goes bankrupt? Does it mean that it doesn't make as much money as projected? Does it mean that the first days production are not good, even if the next day improves? They need to do a better job on this article.

[Thinking Skins]

I think it should be noted that when most media members talk about moderators here' date=' what they really mean is "Art." ES gets attacked in print - at least it seems to me - generally because of Art's interactions with media members. JLC and McKenna have both personally called him out in recent months.[/quote']

But the funny thing is watching (or reading about) how Art destroyed these media members.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

youre treating his movie company like a baby startup company started by two kids in their basement. this is a multi million dollar affair hes engaging in with HUGE name actors and ENORMOUS amounts of money. if hes not successful right off the bat (due to all his resources, connections, business acumen) itll be a failure in my opinion. and lets be honest, do you really see dan as the kind of guy thats willing to "roll with the punches" in order to be successful? i dont, but thats just my opinion.

No offense, but who really cares if YOU see it as a failure? lol :laugh:...What matters is how HOLLYWOOD sees it, because a huge part of the Hollywood game is being able to generate production costs on future movies, and you do that in a multitude of ways. Usually it requires having a record of more hits than misses, as well as an ability to attract big-name stars to your projects. Very few in Hollywood will shy away from partnering financially with Snyder's production company if "Valkyrie" doesn't earn a profit. Wait until their company has put out 7 movies and none of them have made a profit or garnered critical acclaim before deciding it's a failure...because I got-damn guarantee you, that's whats 99% of Hollywood will do.

youre getting way too deep into this. fine he can recoup his money selling dvds to china. it will be a failure if a 100 million dollar movie flops off the bat for the reasons i listed above. and maybe in 10 years we can bump this thread to see how it really turned out.

Hmm...I'm getting "too deep" when stating my facts, but the City Paper is fine and dandy in your eyes for doing the same. Do you see the hypocrisy?

And again, you are dead wrong about whether or not a production company is a "failure". You don't know it, but you're showing an extremely limited knowledge and naive viewpoint towards the reality of movie making. I'm guessing the desire to make sure all the Snyder bashes in this article are considered legitimate is just too much for you.

im well aware of the risks dealing with starting a business. most are failures, which again, it seems as though all of dans have been sans his original ventures and the redskins (which financially havent been, but w-l wise, has been a failure). you really think a 40 year old billionare wants to "weather the failures"?? dude is trying to make bank, and make it quick. he isnt in this for the long run. again, my opinion, but oh well.

OMG lol :laugh:...weathering the failures is what entreprenuers LIVE for. It's the excitement of hitting it big, whether right off the bat or after years of supposed failure, that drives them. It's the freedom of not having to answer to anyone that motivates them. They aren't made of weak constitutions, and their arrogance and previous success drives them even further than you obviously realize.

You can NEVER believe that guys worth hundreds of millions, if not billions, are of the same mindset of guys making $40,000 grand a year. The guy making 40 grand a year freaks out if he loses $5,000 in stocks. The guy worth $500 million craves the excitement of hitting it big in the stock market and realizes taking a chance with $40 million is necessary for that excitement to exist. Not to mention he has a horde of accountants and tax attorneys to help guide him through financial losses if necessary.

losing 100 million isnt a success regardless of how much money you have. again, i dont feel like getting into "what makes a successful movie company" debates cause frankly i dont care.

It's literally impossible for "Valkyrie" to lose $100 million. From star power alone they're most likely guaranteed to bring in at least $50 million from the movie when all is said and done. See, that's how movies get made. People with lots of money (or a simple desire to see their names attached to a film) do a basic cost analysis before agreeing to help produce a movie. Trust me, everyone involved already knows how much Tom Cruise's name guarantees them in revenue from around the globe (nobody gives a **** if your local theatre stops showing the movie after two weeks...this has been a global economy for decades now). Everyone involved knows already how marketable Bryan Singer's movies will most likely be. Everyone knows how much (or how little) a movie with this storyline will be anticipated long before even one frame of film is shot.

Again, you know zilch about movies, and it shows. Trust me there.

you dont think snyder acts immature when hes one of the few owners who wont give interviews and hides like a recluse even though hes the owner of one of the biggest sports franchises in the world?

It doesn't matter if he is or not. You hold journalism to a different standard than you do owners of corporations or sports franchises. The media has a literal duty to the public...owners do not. That's why there's a mention about the press in the Constitution, and no mention about Football owners in there. The press is supposed to be far, FAR more sacred...so their actions are held to a MUCH higher standard.

id say thats pretty unprofessional and immature, but again, thats my opinion. if i owned a sports franchise id be speaking with the public and projecting an image of a guy who cares about that image, not a shrewd midget business man that wont give interviews and comes off as cold, and incites articles like the one in discussion.

But if you chose not to, that should NOT give the media a free pass to be childish right back. I can't believe you blame articles like this one on SNYDER! (actually, I can...)

[MWCREDSKINS]

What is WOL's Sports Groove, never heard of it

[ntotoro]

There are plenty of reasons over the last decade to dislike Dan Snyder, but that article is just plain catty.

[theTruthTeller]

I don't know anything about City Paper, but maybe if they write enough articles criticizing DS, he'll buy them for too much money, too.

[Shilsu]

I also like the fact that the origional article points out that 6 flags is headed towards bankrupsy - Six flags has been heading that way since back in 2005 before Snyder took over ...and it does take time to turn something as debt ridden and enterainment based as 6 flags around ...

Concerning Six Flags, I never understood the logic that it's "OK cause Six Flags was already headed that way and it takes time to turn a company around". Any investment is only as good as its return, and I'm not talking about total return, I'm talking about the return over opportunity cost.

Let's take Six Flag's low point in 2005 (and not overexaggerate the drop in stock price, as the reason the price went up as high as $11.51 was due to the hype about Snyder taking over in the first place).

On May 2, 2005, Six Flags (SIX) was worth $4.10. Yesterday (June 11, 2008), Six Flags closed at $1.81. That's an annualized return of approximately -23.18% or a total return of -55.85%.

Now let's ignore that an investor could've shorted/sold whatever to avoid the economic slowdown in the last year. Yesterday, the S&P500 closed at $1335.49. On May 2, 2005, the S&P500 closed at $1171.35. That's an annualized return of approximately 4.32% or a 14.01% total return.

That's a whopping difference of 27.5% in annualized returns and 69.86% total return. That's not good business.

[chow184]

the mods are probably the best part about extremeskins especially when it comes to training camp because they give a ridiculous amount of media that the washington post or that city paper garbage could only dream to give.

and best of all it's agenda free

they're just normal fans, unlike the "unfiltered" Larry Michael who makes it painfully obvious that he's wearing burgandy shades.

and

they don't have an axe to grind like the washington post

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I kind of agree with you but unless I am not mistaken ( and I often am) Snyder has nothing to do with Valkyre, it is a Merrill Lynch backed film and the reason Snyder is credited as an executive producer is because it started life as a Snyder/Cruise/Wagner production .

That wouldn't suprise me one bit, if true...there are literally hundreds of reasons why a person's name ends up being listed as "Producer" on movies...

I also like the fact that the origional article points out that 6 flags is headed towards bankrupsy - Six flags has been heading that way since back in 2005 before Snyder took over ...and it does take time to turn something as debt ridden and enterainment based as 6 flags around ...

...we also know Dan Snyder was behind the writters stirke that made the Golden Globes the flop it was because afterall he is EVIL....

:laugh:...Damn that EEE-vil Snyder!! :mad:

[Redskins:Victory_or_Death]

While I find the article amusing, a don't think Snyder has ever presented himself as a super genius who can do no wrong. Some people, like Buffet, buy companies that have lost their luster and tweak the company to recapture value. Other people drill holes in the ground and hope oil comes shooting out. Snyder's somewhere in between - he doesn't need to hit on everything because he's already hit a few home runs.

They HOPE that it's oil.... EWWW. Crude.

You obviously haven't read the past articles from the City Paper and other sources that claim that the ES mods suppress dissent...or the comments from many ES posters who claim the same thing. We're speaking to this trend, not just the one line in this article. But it is ironic that a City Paper article, of all things, would unwittingly debunk this long-held but inaccurate notion that the mods supress dissent. I'm sure it wasn't the authors intent to debunk that popular notion, but OOPSY-DAISIES, that's exactly what he did.

In the same sentence, no less. :laugh:

[Califan007 The Constipated]

The trademark issue is just a cheapshot. I do trademark work and intent-to-use applications get extended all the time. Sometimes they get abandoned if the product isn't ready for market. It's not like Snyder was going to put an arena team together just to keep a trademark application alive.

Thank you!! :applause: ...See, this is another example of what I mean. If you actually KNOW and experience direct aspects of these businesses you'll see that half of the criticisms in this article are likely unwarranted and just more cheapshots from the same folks who have been taking cheap shots against Snyder for a long time. But apparently Snyder is undeserving of having his business dealings illuminated in a more realistic and objective light...and wanting to do so just classifies as mindless spin.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

the mods are probably the best part about extremeskins especially when it comes to training camp because they give a ridiculous amount of media that the washington post or that city paper garbage could only dream to give.

and best of all it's agenda free

they're just normal fans, unlike the "unfiltered" Larry Michael who makes it painfully obvious that he's wearing burgandy shades.

and

they don't have an axe to grind like the washington post

At times I actually want a Larry Michaels to fill me in on my favorite team...because sometimes I just want to feel the optimism. When it comes to sports teams, I don't need "fair and balanced" 100% of the time. Sometimes, I want a reason to believe good things are about to happen. That's when a Larry Michaels can be a benefit.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Concerning Six Flags, I never understood the logic that it's "OK cause Six Flags was already headed that way and it takes time to turn a company around". Any investment is only as good as its return, and I'm not talking about total return, I'm talking about the return over opportunity cost.

Let's take Six Flag's low point in 2005 (and not overexaggerate the drop in stock price, as the reason the price went up as high as $11.51 was due to the hype about Snyder taking over in the first place).

On May 2, 2005, Six Flags (SIX) was worth $4.10. Yesterday (June 11, 2008), Six Flags closed at $1.81. That's an annualized return of approximately -23.18% or a total return of -55.85%.

Now let's ignore that an investor could've shorted/sold whatever to avoid the economic slowdown in the last year. Yesterday, the S&P500 closed at $1335.49. On May 2, 2005, the S&P500 closed at $1171.35. That's an annualized return of approximately 4.32% or a 14.01% total return.

That's a whopping difference of 27.5% in annualized returns and 69.86% total return. That's not good business.

It may be something similar to what happened with the airline industry awhile ago...where the CEO of one of the major airlines retired, and received some huge financial package when he did. However, when he retired the airline was worth less than when he first took over, so the conventional wisdom was "Why the hell is he getting financial reward when the airline he oversaw is worse off financially than when he first took over?"...

Apparently, though, the reality was that the entire airline industry was nosediving when he took over...and due to this guy's guidance and stewardship his airline actually started nosediving slower than the rest of the airlines, to the point that even though is was worth less money than when he took over, it would have definitely been MUCH worse without his leadership.

I have no idea if that's the case with Six Flags...but your post made me think of that lol :laugh:...

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I have no idea if that's the case with Six Flags...but your post made me think of that lol :laugh:...

Without Snyder, seven teenagers would have lost their feet and not just one.

Ok...cheap shot...but funny.

[@DCGoldPants]

This article was harsh. No doubt.

But you people who just dwell on this "unnamed sources" thing are out of control. It has been a party of newpapers and journalism since the days of Ben Franklin.

Go watch All The President's Men. People connected to a story which isn't going to be glowing, usually don't want to be connected to it in print.

Its this way in Politics, Business, Sports and Entertainment.....and always has been.

Get over it or stop reading anything.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Without Snyder' date=' seven teenagers would have lost their feet and not just one.

Ok...cheap shot...but funny.[/quote']

I'm not gonna laugh at a teenage girl losing her feet...sorry.

[[[ghost]]]

What upsets me most about this article is that they're trying to tell everyone what we believe. The majority doesn't hate or dislike Snyder. I wouldn't say the majority adore him either, but we hardly hate him.

**** you City Paper. ****ing Liars.

[laxpck]

The Radio signal of Danny stations sucked. Absolutely sucked. Now everyone in the DC will be actually able to HEAR the games. What kind of story is that?

Agenda driven. I like the Danny now. He has taken himself out of the football decision making process and it has started a root system for emerging franchise. I hope he realized this and stays out.

He has earned a heck of a lot of money. In our society people can do what they want with their money. Make no mistake the Danny loves the Redskins, he will never give them up. Profit or not he grew up watching them, he will be the owner as long as he is alive. (I can hear the haters gnashing their teeth right now)

The only time I did get banned though when when we were posting questions for Jim Fassel and my question asked "What does the Danny's p*&6* taste like?"

I probably deserved to get banned and I dont think it was because I said something anti Danny vs. just being plain inappropriate......I was pretty pissed that week though.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

No offense, but who really cares if YOU see it as a failure? lol :laugh:...What matters is how HOLLYWOOD sees it, because a huge part of the Hollywood game is being able to generate production costs on future movies, and you do that in a multitude of ways. Usually it requires having a record of more hits than misses, as well as an ability to attract big-name stars to your projects. Very few in Hollywood will shy away from partnering financially with Snyder's production company if "Valkyrie" doesn't earn a profit. Wait until their company has put out 7 movies and none of them have made a profit or garnered critical acclaim before deciding it's a failure...because I got-damn guarantee you, that's whats 99% of Hollywood will do..

dude, youre making complete speculative statements to support your argument: "Very few in Hollywood will shy away from partnering financially with Snyder's production company if "Valkyrie" doesn't earn a profit." you have no clue whether thats true or not, other than your opinion on what a production company will do, which again is complete speculation. other than you saying thats how it is, theres no proof whatsoever to back this up. i guess you know exactly what companies will do if snyders first big time project is a failure?

Hmm...I'm getting "too deep" when stating my facts, but the City Paper is fine and dandy in your eyes for doing the same. Do you see the hypocrisy?

the paper claiming all his projects are failures and stating some numbers is far less "deep" than you going as far as claiming that his movie can be a success with overseas dvd sales and claiming that he'll recoup his money from international sales. agian, complete speculation on your part with nothing to back this up other than your opinion. maybe me saying youre getting too deep was a nice way of saying "stop grasping at ridiculous straws"?

And again, you are dead wrong about whether or not a production company is a "failure". You don't know it, but you're showing an extremely limited knowledge and naive viewpoint towards the reality of movie making. I'm guessing the desire to make sure all the Snyder bashes in this article are considered legitimate is just too much for you.

and again, youre making speculative claims about things that havent happened to support your argument that snyder isnt a failure. and until you prove youre some big time hollywood exec (which you make it sound like youre some authority in hollywood) youre again, speculating. and frankly if you were some up the ladder hollywood type, you wouldnt have as much time to sit here and quibble with 25 year old naive me on an internet message board.

OMG lol :laugh:...weathering the failures is what entreprenuers LIVE for. It's the excitement of hitting it big, whether right off the bat or after years of supposed failure, that drives them. It's the freedom of not having to answer to anyone that motivates them. They aren't made of weak constitutions, and their arrogance and previous success drives them even further than you obviously realize.

right, cause snyder is waiting to hit it big............:doh:

if you really believe that snyder isnt just trying to make bank as quickly as possible youre either delusional or insane.

You can NEVER believe that guys worth hundreds of millions, if not billions, are of the same mindset of guys making $40,000 grand a year. The guy making 40 grand a year freaks out if he loses $5,000 in stocks. The guy worth $500 million craves the excitement of hitting it big in the stock market and realizes taking a chance with $40 million is necessary for that excitement to exist. Not to mention he has a horde of accountants and tax attorneys to help guide him through financial losses if necessary.

well if you think snyder is in that mindset, i just happen to disagree. cant make you think otherwise.

It's literally impossible for "Valkyrie" to lose $100 million. From star power alone they're most likely guaranteed to bring in at least $50 million from the movie when all is said and done. See, that's how movies get made. People with lots of money (or a simple desire to see their names attached to a film) do a basic cost analysis before agreeing to help produce a movie. Trust me, everyone involved already knows how much Tom Cruise's name guarantees them in revenue from around the globe (nobody gives a **** if your local theatre stops showing the movie after two weeks...this has been a global economy for decades now). Everyone involved knows already how marketable Bryan Singer's movies will most likely be. Everyone knows how much (or how little) a movie with this storyline will be anticipated long before even one frame of film is shot.

again, youre speculating that you know exactly what this movie is going to do. the movie could be star wars episode one, the movie could be pluto nash, nobody knows. obviously this writer thinks it currently LOOKS like a failure. you obviously see it in a different way. but you claiming hes flat out wrong based on your speculations is ridiculous.

Again, you know zilch about movies, and it shows. Trust me there.

frankly i dont, but id love to hear about how you do considering youre claiming to be the authority on how this show is run.

It doesn't matter if he is or not. You hold journalism to a different standard than you do owners of corporations or sports franchises. The media has a literal duty to the public...owners do not. That's why there's a mention about the press in the Constitution, and no mention about Football owners in there. The press is supposed to be far, FAR more sacred...so their actions are held to a MUCH higher standard.

But if you chose not to, that should NOT give the media a free pass to be childish right back. I can't believe you blame articles like this one on SNYDER! (actually, I can...)

of course i blame articles like this on snyder. if he didnt act the way he did, no one would care about bashing him. you really think if snyder spoke with the media and gave interviews and was open with teh public hed get lambasted all the time? absolutely not. he gets shafted because hes the hidden reclue shrewd business man. the public eye doesnt enjoy people like that, and neither does the media. until he changes that image (which he obviously doesnt care to) nothing else will change.

and lol at holding the city paper to "higher standards of journalism". youre so worked up over this article youd think it was the cover story on newsweek.

[zoony]

if youre referring to this article, he just said the mods protect snyder but the majority of everyone else dislikes him.

lol

ouch

sad but true

all phrases that can be used to sum up this article.

If that's the way you feel, that would only confirm what most of us have already suspected... you're an idiot.

.....