SkinsHokieFan Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 For once, I agree with Sally Absolutely disgusting that Snyder gurantees 41 million for AH, yet has to layoff people who probably make no more then 1 million combined per year http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=278011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Microsoft did lay off people a month or two back. First layoff in their history. After some people looked at thier financials, there really wansn't a need to layoff people, so microsoft said they did it because they were forecasting that things "would get bad" in the future. They took a tremendous hit in the publics eye because of this. A "tremendous hit in the public's eye" only matters if it causes the stock to drop. People investing in Microsoft won't be caring too much about layoffs, they'll be caring about the numbers and figures and the direction of the corporation. A temporary "black eye" in terms of PR ultimately means zilch. As far as the new CEO thing goes, if a guy was brought in and announced he was going to throw some money in a new area of development , MS would have to some more hiring to advance their tech line. It would be a reorganization if you will. Something the public can swallow. Not necessarily. More hirings aren't necessary in order to spend more resources on research and development. It merely could mean that the budget has increased and things the current level of employees couldn't do before they can now do. I'm not naive enough to say I don't understand how the world works. Haynesworth puts butts in seats, and people who work in offices don't. But the fact remains, if Snyder had to pay him 42 million to get him under contract, instead of the 41 million, he would have done it. Simple as that. Now lets take that "extra" million, and divide it amongst the 20 employees that were let go. Thats 50 grand each. I'd guess that was probably the average salary of those 20 people give or take. Or, FAR more realistically, let's take that extra 1 million, and use it for either signing the rookies, going towards another FA that helps fill an area of need, or keeping it on standby in case of mid-season injuries and we have to sign someone. The idea that paying Haynesworth less money means being able to keep those 20 people that were laid off is missing some links in the chain of logic. As someone else already said, these two areas don't overlap when it comes to expenses, and they shouldn't. So instead of 20 people making 50 grand, now you have 20 people who are probably in the unemployment line. More people who will possibly not have enough to pay their car payments or their mortgage, thereby contributing to the current economic crisis.CERTAINLY not Snyders fault, by no means am I blaming him, nor should he feel guilty and keep people on because they have a car payment. I'm just saying its a cycle, and it sucks. At the very least, to terminate 20 people and then hand out 180 million, certainly looks bad, and has a horrible smell to it. It only looks bad to the part of the public who look at economics on a superficial and simplistic level (which, unfortunately, is the majority of the public). And it doesn't have a bad smell to it at all. It's life. The Redskins aren't in business to guarantee jobs for anyone. They're in business to make money and entertain people. The more they're able to do the latter, the more success they have at the former. Sometimes pruning the branches is necessary for the overall health of the tree. It happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins:Victory_or_Death Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I don't think it was meant that way...Imagine Microsoft laying off people. Bill Gates is worth, what...eleventy billion dollars or something? lol...Now imagine after laying off the number of people that Microsoft lays off, a week later it's announced that a new CEO has been hired for $30 million a year, $10 million more a year than the old CEO...and that his first priority is to put more financial resources into their tech development department to start cranking out products to compete with the iPods and iPhones out there. Would we really feel that paying one guy $30 million a year is a wise move after laying off people making much, much less? Would we be pissed off that Microsoft is gonna invest even more money into their tech department instead of keeping their tech department budget as-is and using that money to help those laid-off workers keep their jobs? Because to equate signing Albert Haynesworth to a company buying "big, shiney new private jets with bells and whistles" is a false comparison. One is a move made to improve the company's product, the other is a luxury that doesn't do one thing to help improve the company's health. One of the best ways to make sure the Skins remain profitable is to field a winning team. Investing into players that can realistically help the Skins do that is a smart move, and should not be shelved because 20 people in an unrelated department got laid off. Motto. :applause:The last time I checked, the office staff wasn't scoring touchdowns or making tackles. And that's the bottom line. It may seem heartless, but that IS life. It is the Redskins responsibility to win games and put a class product on the field. You want a charity? Call the Red Cross. And if I guarantee that if the Redskins had put out a presser saying they hadn't signed Hall and Haynesworth because they wanted to save the jobs of some people in the office, 99% of Redskins fans would be screaming on a 100 threads about how the FO doesn't "get it". :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 They come from the exact same account, Snyder. Snyder makes money to pay for stuff within the stadium/and employees within the organization... The money he makes from the above is NOT for player salaries... Baseball is a different story due to the fact that there is NO SALARY CAP. See baseball can spend accordingly and willingly and have no limit so the owner uses that money from every aspect of stadium profits... Snyder still has CAP money to use every year...he can move the stadium to a high school field and still have that "CAP" space to sign whoever he wants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyvo23 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 the thing is, these people were laid off before the stimulus was passed. Obama saved the economy and the Redskins with one stroke of the pen. Nice work Barack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins:Victory_or_Death Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 the thing is, these people were laid off before the stimulus was passed. Obama saved the economy and the Redskins with one stroke of the pen.Nice work Barack! Tailgate is thataway ======>(for the politics) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Snyder makes money to pay for stuff within the stadium/and employees within the organization...The money he makes from the above is NOT for player salaries... Baseball is a different story due to the fact that there is NO SALARY CAP. See baseball can spend accordingly and willingly and have no limit so the owner uses that money from every aspect of stadium profits... Snyder still has CAP money to use every year...he can move the stadium to a high school field and still have that "CAP" space to sign whoever he wants My God people argue about the stupidest things here. Not referring to you, personally. Secretaries and employees don't count against the salary cap. Great. Everyone understands that. Snyder signs the player's checks. He also signs the secretary's check in the front office. I have no qualms with him laying off those people, nor any qualms with him allocating assets in other areas, like on players. No problem at all. But to act like some magic tooth fairy pays for the employees, and Snyder pays the players is beyond retarded. It is as stupid as the bank ceo that testified in Washington yesterday. He took tarp money, then threw a huge company party. Congressman: Did you use the tarp money for the party? Scumbag ceo: No, we used other funds for that. Congressman: Okay, so you used other funds for the party, then replenished those funds with the tarp money. And best wishes to those employees finding new jobs. This economy sucks violently right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSkinzFan Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 i refuse to read any article written by her :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrew1223 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Haha if only you knew how the front office people acted.... You'd actually not be able to believe they lasted as long as they did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 something tells me from this person's name that i shouldn't care the least bit about what she has to say Yep, anyone who's followed the Skins has know this for a very long time. I cannot recall ever reading anything of positive substance from that mudraker. Boo Hoo cry me a river beotch. It's all about the product on the field, supposedly. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoneButNotForgotten Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Secretaries and employees don't count against the salary cap. Great. Everyone understands that. Snyder signs the player's checks. He also signs the secretary's check in the front office. I have no qualms with him laying off those people, nor any qualms with him allocating assets in other areas, like on players. No problem at all. But to act like some magic tooth fairy pays for the employees, and Snyder pays the players is beyond retarded. . Apples and oranges folks. Players are paid with money from television contracts and revenue sharing funds. Others in the organization are paid with money raised through sales and marketing efforts. One does not support the other. In fact, at the Redskins each is part of a separate, individual company. The magic tooth fairy -- revenue sharing -- pays for the players. Fans and marketing deals pay for the non-football employees. So, if you feel bad for those laid off (and they were not ALL laid off) buy more Skins stuff or tell Skins marketing partners that it is important to you that they do business with the team. That's how you help them....and I was once one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Well, Sally is a day late and a dollar short. Old news here. A couple things. One, teams know where their revenue streams come from and that's the product on the field. It all starts there. It shouldn't be a shock that they take priority to FO worker bees. Two, I do think some of this is posturing for the CBA fight next year. It is a bit easier to cry poverty if you can point to the fact that you had to cut jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedingB&G Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 It is simple, the people laid off don't generate revenue. The players do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Man I'm a Skins fan but damn yall. I can't knock Ms. Jenkins because the same thought crossed my mind after seeing the Skins signed Haynesworth. All those folks got laid off but they then sign a guy for a 41 million dollars. Seems like they could find a lil money, for those folks to keep their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I think all the NFL layoff's are mainly to position themselves for the upcoming labor negotiations. They can point and claim look at all the layoffs we had to do, you have to take a lower percentage for the salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSunday Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303270.htmlA Question of Layoffs vs. Payoffs As long as the Washington Redskins go by the motto "why pay less?" it will be difficult to defend them. Spreadsheets to them apparently mean table linens. Obviously, my own bookkeeping is not to be trusted, because just a few weeks ago, I assumed the team was distressed. Otherwise, why would it have laid off so many people? Turns out I made an accounting error. It's baffling: One day a team lays off dozens of employees in the legal, marketing, information technology, public relations, game-day operations, television and even the cheerleading staffs. Then, suddenly, it shells out huge sums for free agents. In one 24-hour spending binge, the Redskins extended $182 million in contracts to just three players, including that whopping $100 million over seven years to defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth, while offering a bust like Jason Taylor a $500,000 bonus just to work out. Can someone help me with the math? What to make of this combination of layoffs and big spending? Is it a question of lousy addition -- or just an outrage? Click link for rest of article. She's 100% right ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Man I'm a Skins fan but damn yall. I can't knock Ms. Jenkins because the same thought crossed my mind after seeing the Skins signed Haynesworth. All those folks got laid off but they then sign a guy for a 41 million dollars. Seems like they could find a lil money, for those folks to keep their jobs. Kind of my thoughts, too. Ultimately, the same guy is signing the checks and I doubt he keeps separate checking accounts for FO employees versus players. Bottom line is I'm quite sure Dan Snyder didn't need to layoff any of those people to keep afloat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSunday Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 It is simple, the people laid off don't generate revenue. The players do. wrong!!!!They are part of a team from the front office to the Players on the field! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Kind of my thoughts, too. Ultimately, the same guy is signing the checks and I doubt he keeps separate checking accounts for FO employees versus players. Bottom line is I'm quite sure Dan Snyder didn't need to layoff any of those people to keep afloat. Exactly. I mean c'mon man. Its kinda a sign of the times. Bottom line is this country in particular has enough money to do what it wants but people lose jobs, people don't are choosing between medicine and food, people are homeless etc. Its crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngoma Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 For all of those who hate Sally Jenkins, keep in mind she is not responsible for the Redskin's FO numerous failures. I have loved the Redskins since 1965 and I remember JKC and how that guy was kind of a jerk in his private life but damn if he wasn't a great owner - 3 Superbowls...How many will Snyder and Cerrato get? This is just another example of Snyder overpaying a couple of players when we need many players ... Bottom Line: look at the accounting anyway you want - there are a number of people and their families who are now in crisis while Dan overpays big name FA's once again....don't shoot the messenger. A fish and an organization rots from the head down...The Skins need to fire Cerrato and get a real GM and Snyder needs to learn how to be a great owner, until then we will continue to reminisce about the "good old days". I don't which bothers me more, snarky journalists or homers who refuse to see the reality of their team's situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Apples and oranges folks. Players are paid with money from television contracts and revenue sharing funds. Others in the organization are paid with money raised through sales and marketing efforts. One does not support the other. In fact, at the Redskins each is part of a separate, individual company. The magic tooth fairy -- revenue sharing -- pays for the players. Fans and marketing deals pay for the non-football employees. So, if you feel bad for those laid off (and they were not ALL laid off) buy more Skins stuff or tell Skins marketing partners that it is important to you that they do business with the team. That's how you help them....and I was once one of them. Enlightening and informative post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Apples and oranges folks. Players are paid with money from television contracts and revenue sharing funds. Others in the organization are paid with money raised through sales and marketing efforts. One does not support the other. In fact, at the Redskins each is part of a separate, individual company. The magic tooth fairy -- revenue sharing -- pays for the players. Fans and marketing deals pay for the non-football employees. So, if you feel bad for those laid off (and they were not ALL laid off) buy more Skins stuff or tell Skins marketing partners that it is important to you that they do business with the team. That's how you help them....and I was once one of them. :applause::applause: atleast someone understands what I am saying and how it works Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKM311 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 wrong!!!!They are part of a team from the front office to the Players on the field! You are wrong. My company I work for is investing a lot into Sales people and revenue driving positions, but laid off a lot of IT workers and administrative workers. Why? Because that adds to overhead! Without sales people/players (revenue building positions), no company will exist. People need to understand, when Snyder is paying the players, they don't get bi-weekly checks like us. They get a check for each game of the season they are part of the team. Where as office workers get bi-weekly checks. Snyder prob cut around $150k - $200k in expenses per month by cutting the employees he did. Maybe more with expenses, benefits, etc. That equates to $2.4M in savings he is putting on the books. Haynesworth, Hall, etc. all get paid per game as we collect from the revenues during that game. It is a balanced sheet that way. For the people complaining on what has happened, I have a simple question for you: Have you ever owned a business? If not, then maybe that is why you do not understand what happened here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siven Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 maybe he fired people who sucked at their job? what's wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKM311 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 maybe he fired people who sucked at their job?what's wrong with that? That is not what happened. He fired a guy who was with him during the Snyder Communications day. Long time friend and employee for Snyder. Bottom line is, those guys were not in revenue generating positions where he could assign a return value on that person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.