Destino Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 According to that article, they cite the "native American mascots are harmful to native youth" argument, which, iirc, didn't deal with the obviously noble, native American designed logo. It did deal with the Cleveland Indians caricature, and I agree with that part. Also, they refer to the name as a slur, and we've been over that a million times. Nice try though. Isn't the point of the article that another tribe is adding their names to the list of opposition and refusing association with the Redskins? Did that not happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Isn't the point of the article that another tribe is adding their names to the list of opposition and refusing association with the Redskins? Did that not happen? Of course. It's the reasoning (or lack thereof) that never fails to disappoint. I'll never get behind lies and half truths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diesel Hog Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Is this still a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Is this still a thing?Only for the unsilent minority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Is this still a thing? They've been at it for 30 years. You think they're going to stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Dan Snyder has 2.85 billion reasons to not change the name. Â Yep. The name "Redskins" is very valuable. Â It is hard to believe that, despite not being a very good team for a while now, the Redskins are the third richest, most profitable team in the NFL (according to Forbes). Â Or that the Cowboys are the richest and most profitable, and they haven't seen a Super Bowl in 20 years, either. Â Loyal, stubborn fans, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Is the name valuable at this point? I don't know how franchises are valued. How much of the skins value is location and stadium ownership versus brand value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Yeah, Redskins, Inc is valuable. How much of that value is in the name, I suspect is much harder to quantify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Liking this South Park episode making fun of the PC movement and changing words and all. While I thought they were balanced in the Redskins episode, I don't recall seeing as much of this view of PC people going out of control as they are portraying now. Â But at least more and more people are starting to acknowledge how out of control it's gotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Yeah, Redskins, Inc is valuable. How much of that value is in the name, I suspect is much harder to quantify.  It's not hard to quantify. Ravens and Texans are in the top 10 of valuable franchises? The washington mennonites (being sarcastic) would destroy jersey sales if we made the change. Anyone trying to pretend it's not true is kidding themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins2victory Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015  It's not hard to quantify. Ravens and Texans are in the top 10 of valuable franchises? The washington mennonites (being sarcastic) would destroy jersey sales if we made the change. Anyone trying to pretend it's not true is kidding themselves.  I totally disagree. As an out of state fan, I am loyal to the name Washington Redskins. I have no ties to the city. I became a fan of the team as a child because I thought native american culture was cool, and they have been my team every since. If the name changes, I would no longer have a favorite team. That would be an extremely sad day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015  It's not hard to quantify. Ravens and Texans are in the top 10 of valuable franchises? The washington mennonites (being sarcastic) would destroy jersey sales if we made the change. Anyone trying to pretend it's not true is kidding themselves.  The potential for a wildly successful rebrand is definitely there. Unfortunately, I'm not confident the current braintrust will ever have the know how to navigate a makeover to it's full potential. There hasn't been much innovation here in the past 16 years.  If Steve Bisciotti owned this team, I'd have confidence in his staff to create an awesome new image w/ the folks at Under Armour. I'd put the folks at Nike on the drafting tables and let them create something new for the B&G. We would kill it in merch sales if it's done right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Oh, god no. I mean, I could grudgingly go along with a name change. But please don't give me tie-dyed uniforms that change color when they switch on the UV lights in the stadium, and some goofball font for the numbers, and we'll change the uniforms every year, and ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Evidente Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 It's not hard to quantify. Ravens and Texans are in the top 10 of valuable franchises? The washington mennonites (being sarcastic) would destroy jersey sales if we made the change. Anyone trying to pretend it's not true is kidding themselves. Do you think if the New York Yankees changed their name they will be able to maintain their current value? I don't think so. The name is the brand. Changing it will erase that brand. Same thing applies to the Washington Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Do you think if the New York Yankees changed their name they will be able to maintain their current value? I don't think so. The name is the brand. Changing it will erase that brand. Same thing applies to the Washington Redskins. It might maintain value. They would just have to keep on winning. But yeah, comparing the Redskins brand to the Yankees brand is borderline crazy anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Evidente Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 It might maintain value. They would just have to keep on winning. But yeah, comparing the Redskins brand to the Yankees brand is borderline crazy anyway. That's true. But the Redskins is Top 3 in the NFL and one of the Top 10 in all sports and they suck! Imagine if they win. They would be right up there with Dallas. They are still very valuable even with all the name controversy and ****ty stadium. The Washington Redskins is a very valuable brand. The Washington Warriors is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Do you think if the New York Yankees changed their name they will be able to maintain their current value? I don't think so. The name is the brand. Changing it will erase that brand. Same thing applies to the Washington Redskins. The value may be affected by the name, but only in the sense of impact to revenue from fans who abandon the franchise. Forbes values the team mainly on revenue and assets I think. Keep buying stuff and going to games and it will have value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 I wonder if Forbes weighs debt, or lack there of when calculating these franchise values. I believe this team has had a very low debt ratio since Snyder arrived. Our facilities and infrastructure are aging today, but it's all paid for. Plus we don't have to share much revenue with any local governments, unlike most teams with newer, publicly financed venues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I'll take my star Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Pretty sure I recall an article about the team eliminating debt very quickly a few years back. Surely, they don't have debt at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Pretty sure I recall an article about the team eliminating debt very quickly a few years back. Surely, they don't have debt at this point. And probably bringing in at least $500 million in revenue annually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Well according to the futuristic TV series Minority Report, in 2040 the team is named RedCloud. The good news is that we win SB 87. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 Well according to the futuristic TV series Minority Report, in 2040 the team is named RedCloud. The good news is that we win SB 87. Â That show was so terrible. I blame this. Clearly, Natives have cursed the show in support of the Redskins name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Fakeman Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 So apparently the Eagles' marketing / media department are opting to not use the word "Redskins".... Â Curious to see how this plays out... Â http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2015/10/why_arent_the_eagles_using_the_name_redskins.html#incart_river_mobileshort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Could this be an act of psychological warfare from Chip Kelly? Or is the Eagles FO simply evolving and adapting to the times? I'd love to know who made this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.