jpage520 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Since we're at that fun point in another down year, the board is filled with its usual blend of outrage, anger, dispair, depression, and the hottest feeling of the season...pure apathy towards the play of our beloved franchise. I thought I would pose a question that has been running through my mind recently. In the years since Dan Snyder has taken over this team and we've watched losing season after losing season we often hear our team get lumped in with the likes of Cleveland, Oakland, and a few other franchises that have been synonymous with annual failure over the past few decades. One recurring source of blame for the downfall of the organization is its leader, Dan Snyder. From outrageous lawsuits, to PR fiascos, to an all around terrible game day experience that never seems to get any better. The man has a lot of strikes on his record that have him often described in terms far from endearing from his team's fanbase. My question to you all is, if you had to choose. Which notoriously bad owner do you think could do better or would you rather have running the team? And why? For the sake of this discussion let's ressurect Al Davis. I'm not talking about 1960s league innovator and AFL pioneer "Just win baby!" Al Davis either. I'm talking about mid 90s to early 2000s can you find a more screwed up organization than Oakland? Al Davis. I'm also compelled to throw in a few more choices among the list of notoriously terrible owners of past and present. Whether it be for on field and organizational performance, or mistreatment of the fans etc... Matt Millen Art Modell Robert Irsay Mike Brown Randy Lerner Hugh Culverhouse If you can think of any others to throw in as a Wild Card of sorts feel free. Retaining Snyder is also an option here, although I highly doubt it would be a very popular one. Only real conditions to this game are... 1. It has to be a past or present NFL owner with a notoriously bad rep. 2. No transplants from other sports with no NFL team running experience. This is based solely on already tarnished NFL reputations. 3. Sending the team somewhere else and bringing a new one back is not an option.\ 4. You have to give a reason why you chose one over the other. 5. Your reasoning must be more than just "Anyone would be better than Snyder." Winner gets 1,437,829 free imaginary gold stars. Have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerryMason Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Matt Millen was never an owner, just fyi. He was CEO and GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balki1867 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I don't think Art Modell was a bad football guy, just financially inept, and that's how he earned his stigma. He originally built the luxury boxes at Cleveland Stadium and had full ownership of them in terms of revenue for leasing them out. When the Indians moved out, he assumed people would still pay the same amount for 10 Browns home dates as they did for 91 Browns/Indians home dates. When that didn't happen he started losing money and the city couldn't move fast enough to bail him out. Football-wise, the Browns actually made the playoffs 17 of the 35 years he owned them in Cleveland. People forget that because they were so bad in the playoffs, but most of us who've been watching the Redskins for the past 20 years would take that in a heartbeat. Believe it or not, the Browns/Ravens actually had a winning record under Modell's ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpage520 Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 Matt Millen was never an owner, just fyi. He was CEO and GM. You're right. I feel like he might still qualify here just because of his sheer ineptitude though. I don't think Art Modell was a bad football guy, just financially inept, and that's how he earned his stigma. He originally built the luxury boxes at Cleveland Stadium and had full ownership of them in terms of revenue for leasing them out. When the Indians moved out, he assumed people would still pay the same amount for 10 Browns home dates as they did for 91 Browns/Indians home dates. When that didn't happen he started losing money and the city couldn't move fast enough to bail him out. Football-wise, the Browns actually made the playoffs 17 of the 35 years he owned them in Cleveland. People forget that because they were so bad in the playoffs, but most of us who've been watching the Redskins for the past 20 years would take that in a heartbeat. Believe it or not, the Browns/Ravens actually had a winning record under Modell's ownership. I was actually hesitant about putting him on the list for the winning records alone. I put him on the list more for the fan feelings about him really. I would find it hard to believe his name doesn't leave a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of Browns fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balki1867 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I was actually hesitant about putting him on the list for the winning records alone. I put him on the list more for the fan feelings about him really. I would find it hard to believe his name doesn't leave a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of Browns fans. You're totally right there. Browns fans despise him, and rightfully so-- he was the one who created the conditions that forced the team to leave. Part of his business model was that the Indians would continue paying him rent forever, which is ridiculous. That said, finances have never been an issue for the Redskins, even before Snyder started trying to squeeze every penny possible out of the franchise. I'd take Modell in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I would definitely take that drunken jackass Irsay over Snyderman. He hired Bill Polian, Tony Dungy, and Chuck Pagano. Snyder hired Cerrato, Zorn, and Bruce Allen. A drunk can run a football team better than Snyder. Think about that. Even the Browns have a brighter future than we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpage520 Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 I would definitely take that drunken jackass Irsay over Snyderman. He hired Bill Polian, Tony Dungy, and Chuck Pagano. Snyder hired Cerrato, Zorn, and Bruce Allen. A drunk can run a football team better than Snyder. Think about that. Even the Browns have a brighter future than we. I said Robert Irsay. Not Jim. The bread truck guy lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerryMason Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 I would definitely take that drunken jackass Irsay over Snyderman. He hired Bill Polian, Tony Dungy, and Chuck Pagano. Snyder hired Cerrato, Zorn, and Bruce Allen. A drunk can run a football team better than Snyder. Think about that. Even the Browns have a brighter future than we. I think Snyder knew Spurrier, Zorn and the like weren't the best available options, but he just really wants to be "The Genius" who gets so much credit when a move that many questioned ends up turning into a amazing success. He's looking for the "legendary gamble". Heck, he was even doing so when he hired Gibbs again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpage520 Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 Lol Although I'm not a big fan of Jim Irsay, I would take him over Snyder any day. For all the reasons you mentioned. Plus Peyton Manning and two SB trips. I think Snyder knew Spurrier, Zorn and the like weren't the best available options, but he just really wants to be "The Genius" who gets so much credit when a move that many questioned ends up turning into a amazing success. He's looking for the "legendary gamble". Heck, he was even doing so when he hired Gibbs again. Sometimes it almost feels like he just wants to hire the wrong guys just to tell us all "I told you so". At this point I don't even see it so much as wanting to be a genius as much as I take it as just spite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balki1867 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 What about this guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpage520 Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 What about this guy? One of the many many things I love about GB. The fans hold a share in the team. So awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balki1867 Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 One of the many many things I love about GB. The fans hold a share in the team. So awesome. LOL, my college roommate was a Packer fan, and while its a romantic story, they're also semi-toolish about it (not in an arrogant way, more in a "dude give it up" way). They get really defensive when you point out that based on their market cap, the Packers are only worth 25% of any other NFL franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 Art Modell. Guy was terrible with money, but he hired Ernie Accorsi as GM and later promoted Ozzie to GM. Snyder has yet to hire a competent GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpage520 Posted November 24, 2014 Author Share Posted November 24, 2014 I think Modell is going to be a very popular choice on the list. He's definitely my first choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 List up until 2012... http://www.footballgeography.com/list-of-nfl-owners-past-and-present/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Ricin? Arsenic? Hemlock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sellersfan Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Victor Kiam and his Patriot missle comments about the female reporter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 One of the many many things I love about GB. The fans hold a share in the team. So awesome. Most teams call them PSLs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpage520 Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 Most teams call them PSLs But is having the PSL in direct correlation with actually owning a piece of the team? I'm not too familiar. Forgive me being naive on the subject. The PSL is the seat license right? I noticed many folks mentioned that in a thread a while back about the possibility of a new stadium. I thought GB was the only team in the league that actually gave the GB residents an actual stock in the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenDavis Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 For the sake of this discussion let's ressurect Al Davis. I'm not talking about 1960s league innovator and AFL pioneer "Just win baby!" Al Davis either. I'm talking about mid 90s to early 2000s can you find a more screwed up organization than Oakland? Al Davis. That Al Davis won an AFC title....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpage520 Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 That Al Davis won an AFC title....... Granted. But it was 19 years removed from his last one in the time that his teams were synonymous with victory and had already gained a terrible reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
master4caster Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 What an odd topic. It serves no purpose except to vent frustration. I prefer Dan Snyder, the local guy who bleeds burgundy and gold because grew up with the team. An out of town owner whose only relationship with Redskins fans would be financial would have caved long ago on the team name. They would not have valued the brand the way WE mean it. They simply would have avoided a contrived controversy. Snyder is the least likely person on this list to move the team. The real answer is for Snyder to become a better owner. It's not that he doesn't want to be. I don't think he knows how to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpage520 Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 What an odd topic. It serves no purpose except to vent frustration. I prefer Dan Snyder, the local guy who bleeds burgundy and gold because grew up with the team. An out of town owner whose only relationship with Redskins fans would be financial would have caved long ago on the team name. They would not have valued the brand the way WE mean it. They simply would have avoided a contrived controversy. Snyder is the least likely person on this list to move the team. The real answer is for Snyder to become a better owner. It's not that he doesn't want to be. I don't think he knows how to be. Wasn't really creating it for any greater good or anything. Just for fun. Thought it was a different concept than the typical "SELL THE TEAM!!!" anger threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balki1867 Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 But is having the PSL in direct correlation with actually owning a piece of the team? I'm not too familiar. Forgive me being naive on the subject. The PSL is the seat license right? I noticed many folks mentioned that in a thread a while back about the possibility of a new stadium. I thought GB was the only team in the league that actually gave the GB residents an actual stock in the team. First off, PSLs are not ownership in the team, but they actually give the license-holder more rights than Packers stock. The PSL-holder typically gets first right of refusal for those seats for any event in the stadium. Packers stock only gives you the right to vote for the Packers Board of Directors. That might seem like a big deal, but 93% of the team is still controlled by the people who invested in 1935/1950. Secondly, the Packers actually sell PSLs too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpage520 Posted November 25, 2014 Author Share Posted November 25, 2014 Got it. Appreciate the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.