planter Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Absolutely, it's about PC and black UN helicopters. How about this scenario; Unwanted attention to many NFL teams causes the issue to be placed on the agenda at an upcoming Owners meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Absolutely, it's about PC and black UN helicopters. How about this scenario; Unwanted attention to many NFL teams causes the issue to be placed on the agenda at an upcoming Owners meeting. Money talks. You know what walks. Who has the money? who has the power? Unwanted attention,, the NFl has the clout and power to tell any ,and i mean ANY advertiser to go F themselves if they get out of line. Coors Light? lol.. look, they have the nerve to call themselves "beer". think they'd be worried over offending anyone? Their target market is not going to give a crap. and when it comes to the league itself, like i said in a post above in response to your concern over sponsors.. the Washington Redskins are one of the single most profitable sports entities in the world. Period. NFL revenue sharing means Snyder holds the cards. I asked this before, got no answer,, so tell me. When push comes to shove and Snyder (and Jones who will certainly follow) tells the NFL that if they don't support him then they can go screw with their revenue sharing, which forces roughly a third of the league to make up the money through ticket and merch sales that they already cannot do... who do you think they will support? Which is the advertiser who will break the NFL by leaving for fear of offending .09% of the entire population of the United States? Do you think Peter King will stop covering the NFL in his indignation? You think a single person posting in this thread will stop watching the NFL? 95% of the newly offended will forget all about it once the game starts. They won't turn it off. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 Jones already did that with his NIKE deal. Hmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 The Devils are named after a local mythical creature, not the religious devil Not a creature. It was 'rumored' to be a cursed child that later 'became' a devil. The myth is steeped in religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 The logo that SkinsGoldPants posted is awesome! Wouldn't mind TOO much if we went that route. I still vote for Washington F.C. so that way we could continue to support the name on our own accord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I agree, The Washington Football Club would be the coolest and most unique. I was just trying to present how to handle a worst case scenario where every team must have a nickname. WFC would be original......unique in the NFL. If the worst happens and a name change is forced. That is what I'd like to see with the number of the player on their helmet. If you need a name, then I want the Warriors and something like that logo I posted. So, to review. 1. Don't change the name 2. If its forced, go with the Washington Football club. Fans will still use Redskins daily 3. If forced to choose a new name. Then Warriors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I feel you SkinsGoldPants, That scenario would work well in my opinion, and as much as I detest the name "Warrior" your marketing strategy would work. On top of that, RG3 overtime would be a good catalyst considering his family being military veterans, especially when he wins his 3rd Superbowl, first time under the name Warriors. ( gotta put that out there if we want it to happen, I have high expectations for the Skins ) Paying tribute to his father and other men/women serving our country. WFC would be bada** and really vintage. In a way it's sort of a stalemate for both ends of the argument. The name changed to something so neutral, both parties could be somewhat satisfied. Noticed I said "somewhat".lol Name changes, PC Nazi's and self-righteous radicals can finally stfu, Skins fans can/will continue to support and honor their tradition. Fight song and all. Only problem is marketing wise as far as WFC is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 WFC = Soccer I have a hard enough time defending this team most years without having them associated with a soccer themed name. I support no name change, but this suggestion is weak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Washington Football Club=what reporters like Peter King and UnWise Mike call the team because they refuse to use the word "Redskins". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins0721 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Washington Football Club=what reporters like Peter King and UnWise Mike call the team because they refuse to use the word "Redskins". Therefore, on this day, they are hereby christened: Dick Queen I.M. NotSoSmart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 How about we just stay the Washington Redskins with our current logo? Until the Redskins start hemorrhaging money for themselves and the league, a name change will never happen. I don't see a great loss to revenues coming. Eventually, the faux offended will get tired of hearing themselves whine and this will die down. Will there always be a few protestors in the back ground? Yes. Will there always be a snide remark here and there from rival fans? Yes. Over the last couple of months, we took their best shot. The Redskins are still here. There are no loss of sponsors. There won't be any loss of sponsors. If a company does something moronic and pulls their sponsorship, the NFL will probably black list them and easily find another company to replace them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Trust me, I'm down with keeping the Redskins name for life and don't want it changed at all. However, never say never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Damn,, you know, the other fan of the show is supposed to remind me of that kind of stuff. Anyway, some have mentioned sponsors pulling out, and of course that would absolutely cause the other shoe to drop, provided no one else wanted to step up. Given the massive popularity of the NFL, the fact it is the top television show in the country, i do not think they will be hurting for sponsors. and if Fedex wants to pull it's name off the stadium, wouldn't bother me any, they can take their stupid circus fence at the top with them. as i recall they paid snyder something like 25 million for the rights. to not sound crass about such sums, it's peanuts to the overall revenue stream of the team. I can't recall many other national sponsors of the NFL that exclusively sponsor the Redskins, i don't think it works that way. So losing sponsors would seem to me to be unlikely. The moment Sponsor X hung up the phone cancelling his deal, Sponsor Y will call to take it up. The way i can see sponsors being effective is if RG3 loses some Addidas deals, but i don't know that the team would be concerned over that unless it starts causing players to leave... which IS a possibility. ~Bang As I recall, the FedEx deal for the naming rights was in the area of 200 million over 27 years. Snyder basically got them to pay for the mortage that he assumed from Cooke's estate. Anybody read Norm Chad's column in the Post today. The last Q & A was classic Q. Should the tens of millions of non-Native Americans with credit card debt find the San Diego Chargers’ nickname disparaging? (Steve DeShazo; Fredericksburg, Va.) A. Pay the man, Shirley. The whole article is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/stat-geeks-are-taking-all-the-fun-out-of-sports/2014/06/29/98604b7a-ffa7-11e3-8fd0-3a663dfa68ac_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 As I recall, the FedEx deal for the naming rights was in the area of 200 million over 27 years. Snyder basically got them to pay for the mortage that he assumed from Cooke's estate. I seem to recall that the deal was for $225 million, which at the time seemed unbelievable (and still does). One note on the sponsorship agreement, the public simply does not know what the agreement entails. There may be language in the agreement that makes withdrawal difficult or costly, or there may be a provision that gives FedEx the right to withdrawal without penalty under certain circumstances, etc. There's no way to tell what is in the agreement until we actually see the agreement, so there could be a couple of interesting little items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I feel you SkinsGoldPants, That scenario would work well in my opinion, and as much as I detest the name "Warrior" your marketing strategy would work. On top of that, RG3 overtime would be a good catalyst considering his family being military veterans, especially when he wins his 3rd Superbowl, first time under the name Warriors. ( gotta put that out there if we want it to happen, I have high expectations for the Skins ) Paying tribute to his father and other men/women serving our country. WFC would be bada** and really vintage. In a way it's sort of a stalemate for both ends of the argument. The name changed to something so neutral, both parties could be somewhat satisfied. Noticed I said "somewhat".lol Name changes, PC Nazi's and self-righteous radicals can finally stfu, Skins fans can/will continue to support and honor their tradition. Fight song and all. Only problem is marketing wise as far as WFC is concerned. What we could also do is replace a logo with a coat of arms of sorts. Imagine the vintage feel of t-shirts with something similar to what Gold Pants has as his avatar? On a completely separate path, I was also toying with a t-shirt/hat design of a coat of arms of the top 4 Skins logos of the past. The current logo, the spear, maybe the feathers, and the Lombardi or script R. I just think it would be a cool way to pull together the imagery and tradition from our past. Maybe it's dumb... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Thanks for setting me straight on the FedEx sum. I had it way wrong. But, i still stand by the bottom line. If one sponsor leaves, another would take it's place. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 If we are forced to change the name, I want our helmet logo replaced with Andrew Jackson's face. It would honor Snyder's tradition of throwing money away, and when the NAs get indignant (as they should), let the patent office and the senate try and explain why it's only insensitive when it's not currency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 If we are forced to change the name, I want our helmet logo replaced with Andrew Jackson's face. It would honor Snyder's tradition of throwing money away, and when the NAs get indignant (as they should), let the patent office and the senate try and explain why it's only insensitive when it's not currency. Change the name to The Greenbacks? (But, would that make us look like Philly?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 There isn't a name change idea in existence that makes me say "I could live with that"... So I say eff it, if forced let's name the team the Washington Extremeskins lol...put the big "X" with the feather as the helmet emblem. If Native Americans don't feel they're being honored, then screw it, honor the loyal and rabid fan base instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 TD_washingtonredskins, I like that idea a lot actually, and I've been starring at SkinsGoldPants's avy for a while now.lol As a designer this topic becomes interesting to me because of all of the different avenues they could go design wise...if said name was changed. I know most in here that don't want to hear it, and are head strong about the Redskins name and current logo though.lol I've been toying around with Tomahawk, F.C, and Warhawk designs myself. Again I'm 100% support of Redskins, don't get it twisted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 There isn't a name change idea in existence that makes me say "I could live with that"... How long have you had these suicidal tendencies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 How long have you had these suicidal tendencies? When was this thread started? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Absolutely, it's about PC and black UN helicopters. I pilot one of those helicopters part-time so I know they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Bill Rohland @BillRohland 45m "@radioinsight: Redskins Trademark Battle Spreads To Radio Holdings - http://wp.me/pc2mR-ndV " this is getting nutty! Don't piss off the FCC The FCC should consider whether Mr. Snyder is fit to own radio station licenses given that he uses radio stations to broadcast an ethnic slur,” he said. “These licenses are owned by the public and they are given to individuals for the purpose of serving the public interest. The FCC does not give radio station licenses to felons; it doesn’t give radio station licenses to people of bad character. Historically, the FCC has been reluctant to give broadcast licenses to people who advocate racially intolerant positions.Read more at: http://radioinsight.com/blog/headlines/89275/redskins-trademark-battle-spreads-to-radio-holdings/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 ^ Wow, SMH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.