Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/09/08/mail/index.html I THINK HE HAS THAT RIGHT. From Leif Trana of Rykkinn, Norway: "Peter, great work. Any comment on Dan Snyder's Redskins suing their own fans? Makes me proud to root for the Packers!''A reader from Norway! Hooray! Leif, the way I look at that one is pretty simple: If you sign a contract to buy anything, and for whatever reason you renege on the deal, the people you signed the contract with have every right to come after their money. It's often hard to defend Dan Snyder, buy I can't kill him on this one. He has massive debt service on his stadium, and he relies on X amount of dollars coming in every year from people who have signed contracts to buy seats and pay down that debt service. And, yes, this viewpoint is being delivered through the "national media" lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 It was a terrible decision for many reasons, but from a straight business decision, it was epic fail. The amount of money actually recovered from those season ticket holders is so small in relation to the damage caused. It makes zero sense to defend such stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3CardMonte Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 It was a terrible decision for many reasons, but from a straight business decision, it was epic fail.The amount of money actually recovered from those season ticket holders is so small in relation to the damage caused. It makes zero sense to defend such stupidity. Wrong. When the economy turns around and If the team wins Those tickets will be sold again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenic Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 It was a terrible decision for many reasons, but from a straight business decision, it was epic fail.The amount of money actually recovered from those season ticket holders is so small in relation to the damage caused. It makes zero sense to defend such stupidity. What damage was caused? Washington Post would've found something to write about, regardless. Its not Dan Snyder's job to collect debt's. If you look at this situation underneath any different light, it may be easier for you to understand. As I said before: Let me try calling VW and explaining to them how I'm a huge fan of their cars and then ask if I can get out of my current contract with them. The tow-truck will be in my driveway before I can hangup the phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Peter King? The voice of reason? I better check the calendar because this feels like 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 As I said before: Let me try calling VW and explaining to them how I'm a huge fan of their cars and then ask if I can get out of my current contract with them. The tow-truck will be in my driveway before I can hangup the phone. Shhhhhh, that's not the same thing and you know it. Oh wait, yes it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie4Skins Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/09/08/mail/index.htmlAnd, yes, this viewpoint is being delivered through the "national media" lol... The fact that you equate an obscure sports writer with S.I. as being on an equal par as a front page headline on MSN in terms of the audience reached just proves once again that you don't understand. As McD5 said, it is insane to try and defend this as a good, sound business descision. And we've just blackened our own eye in the face of national press coverage. I guess you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him THINK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 The fact that you equate an obscure sports writer with S.I. as being on an equal par as a front page headline on MSN in terms of the audience reached just proves once again that you don't understand. As McD5 said, it is insane to try and defend this as a good, sound business descision. And we've just blackened our own eye in the face of national press coverage. I guess you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him THINK. "Obscure sports writer" lol :rotflmao:...More of the public will read Peter King's column than will visit MSN's financial page, believe it or not...as well as MSN changes its "headlines" for different stories a few times an hour (as does Yahoo and most other sites like it). Not to mention that my point was that there are freakin' NUMEROUS ways for this story to get told "nationally"...crying a river over what MSN reports while blowing off all other nationally available media as irrelevant is a pretty pathetic attempt to get everyone to see this in the worst light possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 As I said before: Let me try calling VW and explaining to them how I'm a huge fan of their cars and then ask if I can get out of my current contract with them. The tow-truck will be in my driveway before I can hangup the phone. They'll tow away the car, and THEN demand you pay them a certain amount that they've "lost" by you defaulting on your loan agreement. The fact that they have the car back will NOT stop them from doing so. Nobody's gonna say "oh well, we'll just resell it" lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 Another viewpoint that I tend to agree with: You'll make few friends beating up on unemployed people, but here's the problem: If your financial situation is precarious enough that losing a job will impact your ability to afford football tickets, you shouldn't have bought football tickets in the first place. (Club Seat) tickets are such a luxury item that there's really no excuse for buying them unless you have not a financial care in the world.Sports teams use season ticket sales figures to make financial projections that impact their own personnel decisions -- and in this economy, it won't be so easy to find replacement buyers for those (Club Seat) ticket holders who are trying to duck out. Why should the Redskins put themselves in a position where they might have to lay off their own innocent employees to provide a bailout to people who entered into a contract and then reneged? Of course, people who bought Club Seat tickets can always try to negotiate settlements with the Redskins -- and I'm sure that they'd be open to reasonable offers that can save the team the expense of litigation. But either way, I don't think it's fair to get mad at the Redskins for trying to enforce its contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Isn't their a waiting line for season tickets or something? Couldn't they just find another person who wants them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 Isn't their a waiting line for season tickets or something? Couldn't they just find another person who wants them? Not for the types of seats these articles are about...there's a waiting list for the general admission type of seats, but these contracts cover Club Seats, which are much more expensive...they don't have a waiting list for Club Seats for that very reason, I believe. People who enter into Club Seat agreements are telling the Skins that they can afford $70,000 over the next 7 years (or whatever the terms are) and to reserve those Club Seats for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 ah, gotcha. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 It was a terrible decision for many reasons, but from a straight business decision, it was epic fail.The amount of money actually recovered from those season ticket holders is so small in relation to the damage caused. It makes zero sense to defend such stupidity. You need to think this through. The money the club recovers from ticket holders who default is pretty much irrelevant. What is much more relevant is the message that would be sent to other contracted season ticket holders if the club did NOT persue these debts. For the sake of clarity that message being "If you have changed your mind or want to spend your dollars you committed to us on the new (insert luxury item here) then thats fine. Just don't pay us and we will do nothing about it." The clubs budget wil be set with the guaranteed income from contracted season tickets holders as a part of the calculation. If those dollars are, in reality, not guaranteed that changes the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 You need to think this through. The money the club recovers from ticket holders who default is pretty much irrelevant. What is much more relevant is the message that would be sent to other contracted season ticket holders if the club did NOT persue these debts. For the sake of clarity that message being "If you have changed your mind or want to spend your dollars you committed to us on the new (insert luxury item here) then thats fine. Just don't pay us and we will do nothing about it." The clubs budget wil be set with the guaranteed income from contracted season tickets holders as a part of the calculation. If those dollars are, in reality, not guaranteed that changes the math. Definitely changes the math :yes:...unfortunately a lot of people have very little understanding or knowledge of how business economics work. They base their conclusions on faulty business "myths" about how companies and coorporations run. And I'm still floored that the Redksins are singled out as being "evil" for doing something that as many as 22 other owners are also doing!! lol :rotflmao:...I swear, that just gets glossed over by way too many people following this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 It was a terrible decision for many reasons, but from a straight business decision, it was epic fail.The amount of money actually recovered from those season ticket holders is so small in relation to the damage caused. It makes zero sense to defend such stupidity. Fair assessment. The other way to view this is that these lawsuits and settlements are about more than just recovering money here and there. That's the best outcome, but a residual affect is that other corporations or individuals who were thinking of defaulting on their payments will see that this will be pursued. It serves as a deterrent to those parties. It's not like these seats were "flying off the shelves" so you might as well make sure that the parties who will buy them will be paying you the money you're owed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbsisgod2006 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Honestly I’m sick of people saying that the Redskins shouldn’t sue their fans this is a business if u sign a contract then pay up. Peter King is right in his blurb about the contract situations. This is why America is in an Economic down swing because of financial idiots like these people. Then a person like Chad Dukes defends these people for getting sued on the radio. I’m so fed up with this garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probos Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 It was a terrible decision for many reasons, but from a straight business decision, it was epic fail.The amount of money actually recovered from those season ticket holders is so small in relation to the damage caused. It makes zero sense to defend such stupidity. You make way too much sense sir. Bravo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 As I said before: Let me try calling VW and explaining to them how I'm a huge fan of their cars and then ask if I can get out of my current contract with them. The tow-truck will be in my driveway before I can hangup the phone. To get an actual example, I recently bought a car this year. I had thought I had more time to start payments on it. Chase, who has the loan, started calling me a week after the due date talking to me about paying by bill. They also informed me that after 30 days past due that they would have collections call me. They aren't going to have much patience with me, even with the fact that I have excellent credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 It was a terrible decision for many reasons, but from a straight business decision, it was epic fail.The amount of money actually recovered from those season ticket holders is so small in relation to the damage caused. It makes zero sense to defend such stupidity. I disagree. I also think you are not taking into consideration the prior efforts to collect the debt and the residual effects of being able to opt-out of a legal contract. Banks could lower credit ratings based on a corporations ability to collect and other borrowers could also following suit and default. Don't feel sorry for people who overpaid for a house, a car or season tickets in the club level. It was their poor decision that landed them there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 It sucks that Snyder is suing fans, but at the same time, I can't really blame him. If you sign a contract for those seats, you have to honor the contract. Unless it says in the contract somewhere that you have an escape clause if you lose your job or something, you should have to pay up. We all know that this is a business as well, so stuff like this will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Maybe if they sold some shorter contracts for club level seats. They could make some money now, and resell them in a few years to new suckers. 4?5?10 years? How about 2 year deals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 You need to think this through. The money the club recovers from ticket holders who default is pretty much irrelevant. What is much more relevant is the message that would be sent to other contracted season ticket holders if the club did NOT persue these debts. That's true. However, it also sends a cold dose of reality to any prospective club seat buyer, who will now think long and hard about committing to the required long-term deal for those tickets. If the Redskins thought club seats were a tough sale before, I'll bet the market for them has shrunk even more as a result of these stories. ---- To be fair, the lawsuits were last ditch tactics on club seat holders who didn't communicate with the team to work something out. The Post article pointed this out, but that fact seems to get lost in all the discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 That's true. However, it also sends a cold dose of reality to any prospective club seat buyer, who will now think long and hard about committing to the required long-term deal for those tickets. If the Redskins thought club seats were a tough sale before, I'll bet the market for them has shrunk even more as a result of these stories.---- To be fair, the lawsuits were last ditch tactics on club seat holders who didn't communicate with the team to work something out. The Post article pointed this out, but that fact seems to get lost in all the discussion... True - in a down economy club seats will become a tougher sell which means you may well see shorter term contracts offered at slightly higher per season prices or options for part seasons etc etc. Whatever the Redskins have to make sure that the contracts they sign are worth the paper they are written on and that committed revenue really is comitted revenue. People should think long and hard before they make any long term financial commitment whatever the state of the economy and expect that if they renege on their commitment that some action will be taken against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 That's true. However, it also sends a cold dose of reality to any prospective club seat buyer, who will now think long and hard about committing to the required long-term deal for those tickets. If the Redskins thought club seats were a tough sale before, I'll bet the market for them has shrunk even more as a result of these stories.---- To be fair, the lawsuits were last ditch tactics on club seat holders who didn't communicate with the team to work something out. The Post article pointed this out, but that fact seems to get lost in all the discussion... I think that's going to be their biggest issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.