Snyder's greed

[KazooSkinsFan]

Kaz, if someone is free to act then they are free to act greedily, yes? I don't see a problem with making a moral assessment of Snyder—and concluding that he's greedy—even if it is his business or there happen to be people willing to pay for what he's offering. These aren't mutually exclusive ideas. . .

Agreed, but accepting this only says he "could" be greedy. All I've argued is that charging market prices doesn't make him greedy and that was the only evidence that was offered. "Fairness" of pricing is charging the value of goods. The value is set by the market. Whether he is or isn't greedy, since he is not government backed by the power of guns he can't charge more then his customers are willing to pay. Overcharge, they don't buy. They could switch to other NFL teams, other leagues, not go to games, etc. Therefore he can't price for "greed" without LOSING money.

But maybe you can take a stab at my question that's being ignored. Why is the "greed" only on his side? Isn't it greed to demand goods BELOW market value? Why is that desired, to KEEP MONEY. How is the expectation of below market goods (or accusations of greed) acceptable and charging market prices isn't?

[DEHog]

How does having 50 million unspent under the cap help their team at all?

Conversely, How does having managed to top up the cap EVERY year help the Skins?

Hint: Perhaps because it is REALLY not about buying a championship but having the wisdom to make the RIGHT mix of personnel from top to bottom for the RIGHT money? Just a thought.

I'll add that it means players are playing "for" a contract. When was the last time we drafted and developed a pro bowl player that was coveted by the rest of the league and we resigned him?? Samuels? That’s why we don't win consistently, haven't we been down the road before...RIC is right the AH signing has already served it's purpose...Redskins fans are now excited about "Next Year" once again!

[Irn-Bru]

Agreed, but accepting this only says he "could" be greedy. All I've argued is that charging market prices doesn't make him greedy and that was the only evidence that was offered.

The evidence RiC offered were references. If you don't know what they are referring to that's not his fault. The incidents he mentioned included, among other things, Snyder stripping fans of their water outside of the stadium and then selling bottles inside the stadium for 10x what they normally cost. . .on a 90+ degree, humid afternoon. . .on fan appreciation day. It's an irony that I can't explain any further, if you aren't wiling to assent to it.

And same with the other examples. If you aren't willing to call something greedy just because Snyder is free to do it, or because the entire fanbase doesn't just walk away when faced with it, I can't help you any further.

And that was just one example of the ones he mentioned, AND RiC pointed out that there are others besides. I'm not sure how you missed it, and thought his "only evidence" was that Snyder changes prices from time to time.

"Fairness" of pricing is charging the value of goods. The value is set by the market. Whether he is or isn't greedy, since he is not government backed by the power of guns he can't charge more then his customers are willing to pay. Overcharge, they don't buy. They could switch to other NFL teams, other leagues, not go to games, etc. Therefore he can't price for "greed" without LOSING money.

Why should I think that if someone is willing to agree to arrangement X that I can't be immoral in offering it? Why is Snyder no longer greedy as long as enough people are paying for it? You make it sound like being greedy (or NOT being greedy) requires other people; but this is clearly absurd, since greed is a personal failing. Since Snyder doesn't need a fanbase to prove that he's greedy, then neither can a fanbase vindicate him on this account.

Besides, the Redskins have a very affluent and loyal fan base. Snyder can get away with quite a bit of personal failings and still run a financially profitable franchise. And even then, demand on the part of Redskins fans has fallen since he took over; even on your terms I'm not sure the argument works.

But maybe you can take a stab at my question that's being ignored. Why is the "greed" only on his side?

Snyder is not the only greedy man in the universe. But it's possible to talk about his specific problems without making mention of everyone else's. And especially so in Snyder's case (with respect to greed), as his actions are egregious.

[PulpExposure]

How does having 50 million unspent under the cap help their team at all?

Conversely, How does having managed to top up the cap EVERY year help the Skins?

Hint: Perhaps because it is REALLY not about buying a championship but having the wisdom to make the RIGHT mix of personnel from top to bottom for the RIGHT money? Just a thought.

I'll add that it means players are playing "for" a contract. When was the last time we drafted and developed a pro bowl player that was coveted by the rest of the league and we resigned him??

Chris ey in April 2008. Also, Dockery left the Skins for huge money with Buffalo two years ago.

RIC is right the AH signing has already served it's purpose...Redskins fans are now excited about "Next Year" once again!

What I don't understand with this argument is if this was purely to increase fan interest and is a move based on greed, how does this increase revenue for the Redskins more than the 12 million per year due to Haynesworth? More season ticket sales (uh...no...)? More TV money (no). 12 million a year in jersey sales (at 80 bucks a pop, they'd need to move an additional 150k jerseys each year...and I somehow don't think that's going to happen) ?

As far as I can tell, the Redskins (under Snyder) have already pretty much nearly maximized revenue from their fanbase. This is already a fanatical fanbase, and it's not like these signings will make a big splash and attract Washingtonians who may be ambivalent about the team (we're not the Houston Texans, for instance).

While I'm sure there will be additional Haynesworth jersey sales, etc., I can't see how this 12 million a year (plus the cost for the Hall and Dockery contracts) actually won't end up costing Snyder's bottom line.

Or am I missing something here?

[DEHog]

Don't forget the way he markets season tickets. He would rather make a few dollars more than give veteran season ticket holders the opportunity to upgrade.

[Irn-Bru]

Jersey sales are divided evenly among the league, Pulp. I think at the end of the day it comes down to tickets being sold. Every game at FedEx is "sold out", but how full the stadium gets varies quite a bit, as anyone who attends games can tell you.

[Redskin in Canada]

Sarcasm aside, there are all sorts of products.

Yes, there are. And the Redskins have proven to have become a mediocre product over the entire ownership of the Danny.

So, if the NFL market, as a whole, provides good entertainment value, it elevates the value of the individual teams as a whole, e;g;, the Detroit Lions. Sure, you are right. And for that reason alone, ANY Team in the NFL will never go bankrupt. True.

How does that help the Skins to depart from a comparison with the Detroit Lions? The NFL is valuable entertainment and the balance sheet of the Washington Redskins is wonderful and VERY PROFITABLE. There is no disagreement here.

I am truly conceding that, as a BUSINESS and ONLY as a BUSINESS, the Skins are one of the top three most successful franchises in the entire World. So, there you have it.

The only problem is: PROFIT is not proportional to victories on the field and fan satisfaction. A highly hyped marketed product is not necessarily the best buy for the money.

So that you understand me in terms you can understand in accordance with your values, please read carefully:

The Redskins are an OVERPRICED product of mediocre quality skillfully marketed in a league that provides great entertainment (for other teams) to a loyal captive base of costumers, i.e., the poor Redskins fans.

Think GM. Think Ford. Think Chrysler. Think mediocrity. The ONLY difference is that the Big Three compete internationally. The Skins compete in a captive market called the NFL. Got it?

Ah! and on the concept of GREED, who else but the Great Gordon Gekko can put it together better than you and I can:

CLICK the text to watch it and hear it.

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

Thank you very much

It is over a couple of decades late and we even know how that movie story ended. Please read the analysis: Is Greed Ever Good?


Forgive me (truly) for saying this but if the Skins were ONLY entertainment to me, I would have ABANDONED the Team long time ago. I am not a masochist. The story of this Team from Lombardi to Gibbs served to me as a Paradigma for life: work, sacrifice, preparation, unselfishness, courage, vision, winning mentality, generosity and spirit.

The kinds of words that a corporation as a BUSINESS alone can hardly inspire if the human factor is not taken first and foremost as the greatest asset in terms of coaches, players, fans and even Front Office.

For as long as the Danny does not understand that this BUSINESS is about PEOPLE first and foremost, we are doomed to failure on the field even if he still reaps enrmous profits every year.

[DEHog]

Jersey sales are divided evenly among the league, Pulp. I think at the end of the day it comes down to tickets being sold. Every game at FedEx is "sold out", but how full the stadium gets varies quite a bit, as anyone who attends games can tell you.

Pulp I said that we "resigned" I'll give you ey although I don't see the intrest and we did draft another TE last year.

As for the rest...All I can say is look at the amount of other teams fans in our stadium. Why did I get contacted 3 times in the offseason to upgrade and I know of at least 17 (in my little world) sets of season tickets that went unrenewed...The 10 year club seat contracts were up in 07 and you can see alot of yellow there now so no the Skins don't sell out...
I beleive DS see the writing on the wall and it just trying (toohard IMO) to win now at all cost.

[Redskin in Canada]

Or am I missing something here?

Of course, you are!!! The MOST important of ALL !!!

The PRICE of the Franchise itself !!!

Do you remember the cost of the purchase and do you know the current estimated cost of the Washington Redskins???

How about OVER a half a BILLION green US dollars profit in the difference??? Add to that TV, parking, food and drink concessions, tickets and coprporate seats, team clothing, endorsements , etc, etc

And after dishing out a contract like this one to FatAlbert, he STILL has the audacity to tell LONG TERM employees that they had to be laid off as a "cost saving measure in a tough business year". What tough year?? Certainly not for the Redskins bottom line!

Look people, this world needs all kinds of people and I believe that there is room even for GREEEDY bastards like Daniel Snyder. I do not need to like him as a person or even as the owner of my favourite team. ALL he needs to do is appoint a TRUE EXPERT in the NFL to run the Team as a General Manager with total control. If this was the case, his personal failures would not trickle down all the way from the Front Office through the stands and down to the field and the locker room.

My problem with him is his desire to be an NFL expert when his true expertise lies in marketing.

[KazooSkinsFan]

The evidence RiC offered were references. If you don't know what they are referring to that's not his fault. The incidents he mentioned included, among other things, Snyder stripping fans of their water outside of the stadium and then selling bottles inside the stadium for 10x what they normally cost. . .on a 90+ degree, humid afternoon. . .on fan appreciation day. It's an irony that I can't explain any further, if you aren't wiling to assent to it.

And same with the other examples. If you aren't willing to call something greedy just because Snyder is free to do it, or because the entire fanbase doesn't just walk away when faced with it, I can't help you any further.

And that was just one example of the ones he mentioned, AND RiC pointed out that there are others besides. I'm not sure how you missed it, and thought his "only evidence" was that Snyder changes prices from time to time.

That I don't agree with an argument doesn't mean that I "missed" it. I'd like a Lexus for the price of a Ford. I'd like Plymouth Gin for the price of Seagrams. I see Snyder spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a team and then a hundred million plus a year more and that he turns around and CHARGES premium prices and uses his market power to MAKE MONEY on it. Oh, how evil.

All you're doing is repeating the lame accusations that the premium product should be sold for layman prices and when I don't buy that crap you say I must have missed it. I pay it, I have NO problem with it BECAUSE I want the football team with the leather seats, the electronic control panel, that parks itself. You guys need to CHOSE. Your arguments you want the best and don't like paying for it are lame. You don't want to pay it, fine, don't. Find a team or a sport in your price range, don't go to the games, don't eat there. Just don't call people greedy because you don't WANT to pay it. There are plenty of us who do, which is why Snyder spends like a banche and charges big bucks for everything. Frankly the Skins aren't that expensive of a vice when you add it up through the year and compare it to the cost of other vices. It's totally worth it. Being charged what's completely worth it being called "greed" is just lame, and so is saying because I don't think it's greedy, I'm just not aware and missing things.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Or am I missing something here?

Of course, you are!!! The MOST important of ALL !!!

The PRICE of the Franchise itself !!!

Well, since Pulp's question was how the signing of AH made Danny money and this was the reply, how exactly does it increase the price of the franchise if to Pulp's question revenue was not increased?

[KazooSkinsFan]

I am truly conceding that, as a BUSINESS and ONLY as a BUSINESS, the Skins are one of the top three most successful franchises in the entire World. So, there you have it.

The Redskins are an OVERPRICED product of mediocre quality skillfully marketed in a league that provides great entertainment (for other teams) to a loyal captive base of costumers, i.e., the poor Redskins fans.

Forgive me (truly) for saying this but if the Skins were ONLY entertainment to me, I would have ABANDONED the Team long time ago.

I guess we will never understand each other RIC. We are just different animals. Your use of the words "business," "overpriced," and "entertainment." being examples. I read these and it's like saying up is down.

Business - I don't understand what "just" a business means. Businesses have customers and provide some sort of product/service. I don't understand what it means to be "just" a business. A bar owner may love his job, but he's serving drinks and making money. He may love the banter with is customers, but it's still a business and the economics have to add up. A cigar bar owner may LOVE cigars but the cigar bar just is a business. I don't grasp the difference between being JUST a business and being a business. Snyder loves the Skins, he also sunk most of his net worth in them. He runs it for what it is, a business.

Overpriced - You SAY they are overpriced, yet you are here. Overpriced is what customers (in this case fans) think it is, and to everyone a different price is "overpriced." If you REALLY thought they were overpriced to the only person you can truly speak for, you, you wouldn't be here. That you are not leaving says with where it counts they are NOT overpriced. If they were, you wouldn't pay the price of remaining a fan. If you don't buy the overpriced water, then your opinion is worth the air of speaking it, the value of the water being "overpriced" is the domain of the people who do or don't actually pay it.

Entertainment - You lost me the most here. Entertainment doens't mean glee. The Skins do not feed you, you don't drive them to work, they don't mow your lawn. You may love to hate them or hate loving them, but they are purely only entertainment. They serve no other purpose at all.

I know I like to goad you, but if you read any of this in that way then I want to say it was completely unintended. You and I just really are completely and utterly different. Business is just not a bad word to me. I don't buy what is overpriced by definition and when I am gaining no product or service from something, I view it as entertainment. Just is that way.

[Irn-Bru]

That I don't agree with an argument doesn't mean that I "missed" it.

That's not what I said. The summary of RiC's argument that you gave wasn't sufficient as a restatement. So either you missed his point or you attacked a straw man. The latter is dishonest, so I assumed you had merely missed it.

I'd like a Lexus for the price of a Ford. I'd like Plymouth Gin for the price of Seagrams. I see Snyder spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a team and then a hundred million plus a year more and that he turns around and CHARGES premium prices and uses his market power to MAKE MONEY on it. Oh, how evil.

Completely irrelevant to my point.

All you're doing is repeating the lame accusations that the premium product should be sold for layman prices and when I don't buy that crap you say I must have missed it.

That's not a sufficient restatement of my argument—in fact, what I just quoted is irrelevant to my argument. So either yes, you have missed it, or you are attacking a straw man. Take your pick; I don't really care at this point which it is.


The substance of my response is done, but to beat the dead horse a bit let me cite the rest of the misstatements of what both RiC and I have argued:

Your arguments you want the best and don't like paying for it are lame. You don't want to pay it, fine, don't. Just don't call people greedy because you don't WANT to pay it. Being charged what's completely worth it being called "greed" is just lame, and so is saying because I don't think it's greedy, I'm just not aware and missing things.

[Irn-Bru]

I don't grasp the difference between being JUST a business and being a business.

Not all exchanges are / can be monetized. Something is 'just a business' when it fails to recognize or account for this principle. That's the difference. . .

[Redskin in Canada]

Or am I missing something here?

Of course, you are!!! The MOST important of ALL !!!

The PRICE of the Franchise itself !!!

Well, since Pulp's question was how the signing of AH made Danny money and this was the reply, how exactly does it increase the price of the franchise if to Pulp's question revenue was not increased?

The same way old over-priced acquisitions, such as Bruce Smith, Neon, and Archuleta to give only three names:

Hyping the expectations of fans as marketing stunts.

[DEHog]

It’s not that I’m asking for a Lexus for a Ford price. DS can charge what the market will bare I get that…My contention, as I have stated many times on this board is I can’t buy a Lexus without buying a Mercedes first. I’m a loyal season ticket holder who has tickets in the upper level. I would like to buy lower level seats…but DS wants me to sit in the club level seat for three year before he gives me the right to buy lower level seats. I will never do that and as a season ticket holder am offended by even asking me to do so. Your right in that he has a great product in the Skins, but to me this is taking advantage of that…some might even call it greed?? I wonder how many of you that defend him in this area…are season ticket holder and if you would feel differently if you walk in the season ticket holder shoes.

[Redskin in Canada]

I guess we will never understand each other RIC. We are just different animals.

No, we won't. And I would rather leave the animal thing alone because it can lead to smack and that is not my intention.

Let me put it to you, again, in ways you can understand within your own perspective:

There are GREAT corporations to work for. These organizations put their premium human assets ahead of anything else BECAUSE profit follows from the work of the very best people working as a good team.

Even somebody from a narrow business perspective like yours should be able to follow the principle that the BEST CEO for the job is critical to the operations of the corporation. The BEST CEO is not necessarily the owner.

The same goes for the staff. The HIGHEST paid staff in the industry will not deliver automatically the best product. The best chemistry and balance in a team is akin to the best result and products in an organization. You could conceivably end up with a few bright and over-priced stars and end up with an overall poor or mediocre corporate effort and product. Does it sound familiar now?

Why is that so difficult to understand?

But it is worse than this: The corporation turns into a dysfunctional organization very quickly when PROFIT is put ahead of its human capital. In this case, it leads to the paradoxical situation where there is plenty of PROFIT (at least for now) and very mediocre results and product.

In other words, a mediocre product eventually leads to bad bisinesss. Happy now?

For some of us, the Skins are a lot more than business but that is another story beyond your perspective.

[Redskin in Canada]

Don't feed the trolls Kaz...

So, can we make fun of the rules too?

Just asking ...

[KazooSkinsFan]

OK, Irn-Bru, I'll go back and try again.

Agreed, but accepting this only says he "could" be greedy. All I've argued is that charging market prices doesn't make him greedy and that was the only evidence that was offered.

The evidence RiC offered were references. If you don't know what they are referring to that's not his fault. The incidents he mentioned included, among other things, Snyder stripping fans of their water outside of the stadium and then selling bottles inside the stadium for 10x what they normally cost. . .on a 90+ degree, humid afternoon. . .on fan appreciation day. It's an irony that I can't explain any further, if you aren't wiling to assent to it.

And same with the other examples. If you aren't willing to call something greedy just because Snyder is free to do it, or because the entire fanbase doesn't just walk away when faced with it, I can't help you any further.

And that was just one example of the ones he mentioned, AND RiC pointed out that there are others besides. I'm not sure how you missed it, and thought his "only evidence" was that Snyder changes prices from time to time.

So this is the part I quoted. EVERYTHING here is referring to paying for STUFF. I don't get how you say my talking about not wanting to pay for stuff in a section that's ALL about paying for stuff is just completely missing the point. Tickets to Skins games cost boku bucks. We're talking about high end sports customers. Paying $5 for a water bottle or whatever is nothing compared to the cost of the game. The rest of the stuff he said was about pure luxury, reserved parking, jerseys, STUFF. You want water, buy it. Bring some cash. I spend hundreds on tickets and then I'm going to complain it's hot and I wanted FREE water? You want Jersey, buy it, you don't want to pay $100 or whatever it costs, don't. But how in a section about buying STUFF am I missing the point by talking about buying STUFF?

"Fairness" of pricing is charging the value of goods...

Why should I think that if someone is willing to agree to arrangement X that I can't be immoral in offering it? Why is Snyder no longer greedy as long as enough people are paying for it? You make it sound like being greedy (or NOT being greedy) requires other people; but this is clearly absurd, since greed is a personal failing. Since Snyder doesn't need a fanbase to prove that he's greedy, then neither can a fanbase vindicate him on this account.

Actually, my point was that "accepting this only says he "could" be greedy. All I've argued is that charging market prices doesn't make him greedy." Right, find anywhere I say he's "not" greedy, I don't, I say that charging market prices is in itself not greedy.

Besides, the Redskins have a very affluent and loyal fan base. Snyder can get away with quite a bit of personal failings and still run a financially profitable franchise. And even then, demand on the part of Redskins fans has fallen since he took over; even on your terms I'm not sure the argument works.

Affluent maybe is the key word here. The irony at the same time we're talking about his signing AH and DH to mega contracts. Maybe this is the gist of it, I don't think Skins prices are high, I have no issue with what they charge at games. I don't tend to buy much at games more because of the quality of the food and the beer then the price of it. I have no issue paying for water. In fact, I buy bottled water whenever I can because tap water just too often sucks and with bottled it's consistently OK.

But maybe you can take a stab at my question that's being ignored. Why is the "greed" only on his side?

Snyder is not the only greedy man in the universe. But it's possible to talk about his specific problems without making mention of everyone else's. And especially so in Snyder's case (with respect to greed), as his actions are egregious.

Not what I meant. I actually meant more specifically in this argument. Why do people accusing Danny of being "greedy" want to pay less. To KEEP the money. They WANT money. They also want "authentic" jerseys, reserved parking. Danny HAS stuff and is SELLING it. I see the greed as wanting Danny's stuff and not wanting to pay what other people, like me, will pay.

You're saying I'm not seeing the arguments. I didn't follow the stuff about the Skins being a business but not being one, overcharging and entertainment, which is why I said I didn't get that. Entertainment is getting us to games, buying Jerseys, paying for Sunday Ticket and that sort of thing. We are entertained as part of a team pursuing goals like Super Bowls. But pursuing those things are factors each of us choose in terms of WHETHER to be customers. Super Bowls are not the product of the business, selling the pursuit of Super Bowls is.

Anyway, I re-read this whole forum like 5 times and I'm not seeing the big gaping holes you're saying I'm missing. So if I'm still missing it maybe you could be more specific and say you're missing THIS!!!

[KazooSkinsFan]

I don't grasp the difference between being JUST a business and being a business.

Not all exchanges are / can be monetized. Something is 'just a business' when it fails to recognize or account for this principle. That's the difference. . .

Not sure I get this, you can tell me. Any business needs to know what it's customers "value." At Wal-Mart, I want "cheap." They sell no services and nothing high end. There is nothing they can provide me except "cheap." At a fast food restaurant, I want OK food, I don't want to be disgusted with cleanliness or the hygiene of the staff and I want the food hot (enough). At a dinner restaurant I want decent service, good food, a polite waitress. A "well run" business knows what it's customers value. Value BTW means PAY FOR. See the airline industry and leg room for example.

So, I haven't argued Danny's a good business man or he's not greedy. I've argued I don't get the assertion that he is greedy. How I understand your point is that he's not a good business man. Frankly I'm not interested in defending him on that, even to say it's not proven. But I don't see how your explanation differentiates between being a business and "just" a business unless you're saying "just" a business is a business that isn't well run. In which case I would just call it a poorly run business.

As an aside I totally do not dispute there are poorly run businesses. If there were not, I would not be able to make a good living as a consultant. But being a bad business man is not equivalent to greed. It could be the cause, but proving bad business does not prove greed.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Or am I missing something here?

Of course, you are!!! The MOST important of ALL !!!

The PRICE of the Franchise itself !!!

Well, since Pulp's question was how the signing of AH made Danny money and this was the reply, how exactly does it increase the price of the franchise if to Pulp's question revenue was not increased?

The same way old over-priced acquisitions, such as Bruce Smith, Neon, and Archuleta to give only three names:

Hyping the expectations of fans as marketing stunts.

This is a more narrow question. Somehow in order to increase the "value" of a business there needs to be cashflow associated with it. The net present value of a business (what it's worth) is equal to discounted future cash flows. You can't create "value" that you can "sell" without revenue. You can disagree with him that there is revenue involved, I'd point to the $5 water bottles for example, but repeating that you don't need revenue to increase the value of the business doesn't make sense.

[KazooSkinsFan]

It’s not that I’m asking for a Lexus for a Ford price. DS can charge what the market will bare I get that…My contention, as I have stated many times on this board is I can’t buy a Lexus without buying a Mercedes first. I’m a loyal season ticket holder who has tickets in the upper level. I would like to buy lower level seats…but DS wants me to sit in the club level seat for three year before he gives me the right to buy lower level seats. I will never do that and as a season ticket holder am offended by even asking me to do so. Your right in that he has a great product in the Skins, but to me this is taking advantage of that…some might even call it greed?? I wonder how many of you that defend him in this area…are season ticket holder and if you would feel differently if you walk in the season ticket holder shoes.

Yes, I do remember that if I missed the reference here. If I remember right, Dan pissed you off and you DIDN'T upgrade. It's only one data point, but if your view was widespread it's bad business.

And BTW, I do think giving people free water bottles is good business, particularly on hot days. But I consider it a perk, it's not an expectation, and I consider it generous to provide, not greedy to not. My 12 year old daughter goes to all sorts of sports with me, we've been going to Terp games the last couple years since we moved to NC. I buy her ANYTHING she wants because I just want her to enjoy the game. I rarely buy anything because it's not worth it to me. OK, so it's another $20, but after the tickets, parking, and using most of a Saturday it's just not a big thing. She's a great cheerer and we have a great time. Why be mad because I don't think the food is cheap enough?

[KazooSkinsFan]

I guess we will never understand each other RIC. We are just different animals.

No, we won't. And I would rather leave the animal thing alone because it can lead to smack and that is not my intention.

Let me put it to you, again, in ways you can understand within your own perspective:

There are GREAT corporations to work for. These organizations put their premium human assets ahead of anything else BECAUSE profit follows from the work of the very best people working as a good team.

Even somebody from a narrow business perspective like yours should be able to follow the principle that the BEST CEO for the job is critical to the operations of the corporation. The BEST CEO is not necessarily the owner.

The same goes for the staff. The HIGHEST paid staff in the industry will not deliver automatically the best product. The best chemistry and balance in a team is akin to the best result and products in an organization. You could conceivably end up with a few bright and over-priced stars and end up with an overall poor or mediocre corporate effort and product. Does it sound familiar now?

Why is that so difficult to understand?

But it is worse than this: The corporation turns into a dysfunctional organization very quickly when PROFIT is put ahead of its human capital. In this case, it leads to the paradoxical situation where there is plenty of PROFIT (at least for now) and very mediocre results and product.

In other words, a mediocre product eventually leads to bad bisinesss. Happy now?

For some of us, the Skins are a lot more than business but that is another story beyond your perspective.

Well, if you just argued he was a bad business man I'd not have challenged you. I think he's made a lot of mistakes. Maybe you're more damning of him and wider in your views of it then me for it, but I don't disagree. I still don't see it as proof of greed though. I do think he has a monster ego. I think he likes money too. But I don't see his quest specifically as driven by money (greed) so much as the whole thing. And I don't see why the rest of us can be driven by the pursuit of money in our careers and he can't be in his own business.

[PulpExposure]

Or am I missing something here?

Of course, you are!!! The MOST important of ALL !!!

The PRICE of the Franchise itself !!!

Well, since Pulp's question was how the signing of AH made Danny money and this was the reply, how exactly does it increase the price of the franchise if to Pulp's question revenue was not increased?

The same way old over-priced acquisitions, such as Bruce Smith, Neon, and Archuleta to give only three names:

Hyping the expectations of fans as marketing stunts.

This is a more narrow question. Somehow in order to increase the "value" of a business there needs to be cashflow associated with it. The net present value of a business (what it's worth) is equal to discounted future cash flows. You can't create "value" that you can "sell" without revenue. You can disagree with him that there is revenue involved, I'd point to the $5 water bottles for example, but repeating that you don't need revenue to increase the value of the business doesn't make sense.

Right. I mean...RiC's point is that he's using these signings as vehicles for marketing. My point is...for what? I mean...if they were actually marketing driven, what would Snyder's end-point be?

[DEHog]

It’s not that I’m asking for a Lexus for a Ford price. DS can charge what the market will bare I get that…My contention, as I have stated many times on this board is I can’t buy a Lexus without buying a Mercedes first. I’m a loyal season ticket holder who has tickets in the upper level. I would like to buy lower level seats…but DS wants me to sit in the club level seat for three year before he gives me the right to buy lower level seats. I will never do that and as a season ticket holder am offended by even asking me to do so. Your right in that he has a great product in the Skins, but to me this is taking advantage of that…some might even call it greed?? I wonder how many of you that defend him in this area…are season ticket holder and if you would feel differently if you walk in the season ticket holder shoes.

Yes, I do remember that if I missed the reference here. If I remember right, Dan pissed you off and you DIDN'T upgrade. It's only one data point, but if your view was widespread it's bad business.

And BTW, I do think giving people free water bottles is good business, particularly on hot days. But I consider it a perk, it's not an expectation, and I consider it generous to provide, not greedy to not. My 12 year old daughter goes to all sorts of sports with me, we've been going to Terp games the last couple years since we moved to NC. I buy her ANYTHING she wants because I just want her to enjoy the game. I rarely buy anything because it's not worth it to me. OK, so it's another $20, but after the tickets, parking, and using most of a Saturday it's just not a big thing. She's a great cheerer and we have a great time. Why be mad because I don't think the food is cheap enough?

I would think it's widespread..I know alot of fan in my section that are trying to move down and have been told the same thing. I don't think there is a never ending line of fans in the area that are going to line up for tickets. Snyder it betting on winning a SB before the fan base thins out. I believe that's one of the reasons he make soem of the moves he make.

As for the water it get alot of play here because it was on FAP and lot of us from THN were there.

It would be interesting to see how DS would operate in places like N.O Cincy, Detroit??