Page 3 of 11
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 8:17 pm
by DEHog
PulpExposure wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:PulpExposure wrote: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?
To keep butts in the seats at FedEx after what happened last year there is no denying that the Skins (season ticket) fan base is thinning. I think DS feels like he's in a race to win a SB to stop the bleeding at FedEx. His wetdream would be to win a SB and build a new stadium with PSL's!!
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:11 pm
by Redskin in Canada
PulpExposure wrote: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?
Hmmmmmmmmmhhh
... let me take a wild guess:
PROFIT???
Maybe increase the value of its franchise? Attract more wealthy visitors and corporations to the Stadium who are willing to pay ever rising costs of "Club" seats??? Attract sales of clothing with the names of the expensive players??? Endorsements?
Call me crazy.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:50 am
by Irn-Bru
KazooSkinsFan wrote: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.
This kind of comment is why I'm left with my dilemma. No one mentioned giving away water but you. . .
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:01 am
by Deadskins
KazooSkinsFan wrote:I buy bottled water whenever I can because tap water just too often sucks and with bottled it's consistently OK.
Take a close look at the label after your next purchase. Bottled water usually
is tap water.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:07 am
by Irn-Bru
KazooSkinsFan wrote: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.
Yes, you are still missing the point, since there is a difference between the topic and the argument. I didn't say "people paying for stuff? That's wrong! GREED!", but that's about the level of sophistication you give in your summaries. . .consistently. . .so I'm not sure what else to do. Certainly if I try to elaborate it will only come out of that filter looking even worse.
So it's better for me to abandon this project right now, if you aren't willing to deal with the substance of what people write, then to try this 10 different ways to no avail.
Kaz wrote:Not what I meant. I actually meant more specifically in this argument. Why do people accusing Danny of being "greedy" want to pay less.
Do you see why I can't figure out how to respond to your posts? When did I say "I want to pay less"? When was this
ever about my wallet?
More importantly, what are you seeing that I am not which would make you write something so irrelevant? I am experiencing layers of confusion here, Kaz.
How about you stick to what I wrote earlier and address the substance (hint: it isn't about 'having to pay for something', or that 'Snyder doesn't give things away', or that 'I want to pay less') of what I wrote?
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:09 am
by Deadskins
KazooSkinsFan wrote: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.-
A business is not all they are. They are a source of civic, and in some cases, ethnic pride. RiC didn't say overcharging, he said
overpriced, as in, "they don't perform up to their billing." I'm not taking either side here, BTW, I'm just trying to clear things up for you.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:21 am
by Irn-Bru
Here's one way I can put this, Kazoo. When you are debating someone, the only way to make a convincing case is to carefully understand and represent your opponent's idea, and then smash it. It's even better if you can make your opponent's argument
stronger than they are able to make it, and then smash it.
But the worst thing you can do is present something that looks 'close enough' to the argument, and then attack that. That just wastes everyone's time and confuses things.
Here's about how far I thought we got before things got off track:
Irn-Bru wrote: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. . .
KazooSkinsFan wrote: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.
Irn-Bru wrote:The evidence RiC offered were references. The incidents he mentioned included, among other things. . .And that was just one example of the ones he mentioned, AND RiC pointed out that there are others besides.
KazooSkinsFan wrote: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. 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. [etc]
That last response is clearly where things went completely off track, IMO. My argument had nothing to do with what you cite as "all you're doing."
So, instead, do you have something else to offer?
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:23 am
by Deadskins
Irn-Bru wrote:So it's better..., then to...
Are you writing it this way so Kaz will understand?
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:45 am
by PulpExposure
Redskin in Canada wrote:PROFIT???
Maybe increase the value of its franchise? Attract more wealthy visitors and corporations to the Stadium who are willing to pay ever rising costs of "Club" seats??? Attract sales of clothing with the names of the expensive players??? Endorsements?
Call me crazy.
Isn't the stadium already sold out every game, with a season ticket waiting list that's the longest in the NFL (and that includes the club seats)? Hint...wealthy visitors and corporations are already paying the costs of the Club seats (and ever rising? Ticket prices have been raised TWICE by Snyder in his 10 year ownership; most teams raise prices every other year).
What endorsements? FedEx already has the naming rights to the stadium, and it's not like Nike will be making an Air Snyder anytime soon.
Seriously, is there any evidence, whatsoever, that signing Haynesworth and Hall and Dockery will garner the Redskins the money back in any form? Do you have any solid information,
at all (that excludes the prior provided groundless speculation), to reinforce your point that these signings were done primarily for marketing purposes?
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:53 am
by DEHog
PulpExposure wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:PROFIT???
Maybe increase the value of its franchise? Attract more wealthy visitors and corporations to the Stadium who are willing to pay ever rising costs of "Club" seats??? Attract sales of clothing with the names of the expensive players??? Endorsements?
Call me crazy.
Isn't the stadium already sold out every game, with a season ticket waiting list that's the longest in the NFL (and that includes the club seats)? Hint...wealthy visitors and corporations are already paying the costs of the Club seats (and ever rising? Ticket prices have been raised TWICE by Snyder in his 10 year ownership; most teams raise prices every other year).
What endorsements? FedEx already has the naming rights to the stadium, and it's not like Nike will be making an Air Snyder anytime soon.
Seriously, is there any evidence, whatsoever, that signing Haynesworth and Hall and Dockery will garner the Redskins the money back in any form? Do you have any solid information,
at all (that excludes the prior provided groundless speculation), to reinforce your point that these signings were done primarily for marketing purposes?
No club seat are not sold out...and Snyder does hold back a few LL seats for those will to pay a premium price and to reward those who will agree to buy Club Seats for a few years in order to upgrede to the LL.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:11 am
by PulpExposure
DEHog wrote:PulpExposure wrote:Redskin in Canada wrote:PROFIT???
Maybe increase the value of its franchise? Attract more wealthy visitors and corporations to the Stadium who are willing to pay ever rising costs of "Club" seats??? Attract sales of clothing with the names of the expensive players??? Endorsements?
Call me crazy.
Isn't the stadium already sold out every game, with a season ticket waiting list that's the longest in the NFL (and that includes the club seats)? Hint...wealthy visitors and corporations are already paying the costs of the Club seats (and ever rising? Ticket prices have been raised TWICE by Snyder in his 10 year ownership; most teams raise prices every other year).
What endorsements? FedEx already has the naming rights to the stadium, and it's not like Nike will be making an Air Snyder anytime soon.
Seriously, is there any evidence, whatsoever, that signing Haynesworth and Hall and Dockery will garner the Redskins the money back in any form? Do you have any solid information,
at all (that excludes the prior provided groundless speculation), to reinforce your point that these signings were done primarily for marketing purposes?
No club seat are not sold out...and Snyder does hold back a few LL seats for those will to pay a premium price and to reward those who will agree to buy Club Seats for a few years in order to upgrede to the LL.
Didn't know about the club seats (thanks for the information), but I'm not sure that there's enough revenue in the club seats per year to justify Haynesworth, Hall, and Dockery. I mean are the Redskins going to fill enough (and are there enough empty) Club Seats to recoup the 30 million per year in those guy's compensation? I'd highly doubt it.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:22 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
DEHog wrote:It would be interesting to see how DS would operate in places like N.O Cincy, Detroit??
I agree with you on that Snyder is a uniquely DC owner. As Irn-Bru said it's an affluent area, it's also recession proof. Look at the government spending going on now, WOW! In a smaller market, he could not survive. His generic approach is spending money. I just don't see money, business or profit as inherently equivalent to greed.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:39 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Irn-Bru wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote: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.
This kind of comment is why I'm left with my dilemma. No one mentioned giving away water but you. . .
You take it too literally. You're hung up on that they take the water, as by the way EVERY stadium I go to now does. The complaint was then they charge you 10 times some base cost. But you keep focusing on that narrow wording rather then the underlying point that money is being asked to be left on the table by Danny who's not leaving money on the table when it comes to spending it. To me leaving money on the table is providing water. There is direct cost and opportunity cost.
OK, so let me put it this way on water. If someone doesn't know that water bottles aren't allowed going into sports stadiums they aren't paying attention. If someone doesn't know water bottles cost like a dime at home if bought in bulk and several dollars at stadiums they aren't paying attention. If someone didn't account for that in spending hundreds of dollars to go to a game, tens more parking and that it was going to be in the 90s, they are clueless. And if it's a financial burden to them they shouldn't be spending that much money for a luxury in the first place.
There is ENDLESS money in DC and THAT is Danny's target audience. That is what he spends 41 mil guaranteed for. People who sweat water bottles (har, har), are NOT Danny's target audience. If they want to dig deep in the budget and go anyway, fine, but they need to stop WHINING about it. One shouldn't buy what they can't afford, and if having water bottles confiscated at the gate is more then a momentary aggravation, they can't AFFORD going to Skins games and shouldn't be going because they have things they should be spending their money on. The Skins are on every week for FREE in DC. That's their price range.
So did I address your point now (address, agreement is your choice) or am I still missing it?
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:47 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Deadskins wrote:KazooSkinsFan wrote:I buy bottled water whenever I can because tap water just too often sucks and with bottled it's consistently OK.
Take a close look at the label after your next purchase. Bottled water usually
is tap water.
I know that. But it's filtered. I don't think I'm buying some sort of mineral spring water, I think I'm buying water that doesn't taste bad and doesn't have whatever is in the pipes that lead to the tap/fountain. The worst I get is sometimes it's kept too long and tastes plasticy, in which case I'm there to demand my money back. That hasn't been such an issue for awhile though since so many people buy water now and it tends not to sit.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:57 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
Irn-Bru wrote:Here's one way I can put this, Kazoo. When you are debating someone, the only way to make a convincing case is to carefully understand and represent your opponent's idea, and then smash it. It's even better if you can make your opponent's argument
stronger than they are able to make it, and then smash it.
But the worst thing you can do is present something that looks 'close enough' to the argument, and then attack that. That just wastes everyone's time and confuses things.
Here's about how far I thought we got before things got off track:
Irn-Bru wrote: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. . .
KazooSkinsFan wrote: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.
Irn-Bru wrote:The evidence RiC offered were references. The incidents he mentioned included, among other things. . .And that was just one example of the ones he mentioned, AND RiC pointed out that there are others besides.
KazooSkinsFan wrote: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. 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. [etc]
That last response is clearly where things went completely off track, IMO. My argument had nothing to do with what you cite as "all you're doing."
So, instead, do you have something else to offer?
So if you look at the third quote in your chain, all it says is there is other unnamed stuff. I'm not seeing how I unreasonably ignore unnamed issues in the fourth quote. And re-reading the thread several times I'm not seeing the greed discussion as boiling down to anything but money. At which time I point to my post before the filtered water one above where I addressed that pretty clearly.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:03 pm
by KazooSkinsFan
BTW, I'm online this morning because I was enjoying the discussion and wanted to address people's responses from my posts yesterday. I'm in the middle of a biz deal though I need to get back to, buying two businesses. we have a deal in place except my accountant's working on going through the financials now to help me do the due diligence. Aside, recessions are OPPORTUNITIES. I'm tired of making other people money!
Anyway, if I don't address any further comments for a few weeks, don't take it as ignoring the points. Don't want to scare you there RIC, I'll be back!
Seriously though RIC and others, thanks for the good discussion.
Kaz
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:13 pm
by SkinsFreak
And the fact still remains that the prices charged for a bottle of water, a hot dog and beer at FedEx and directly comparable to other NFL markets and stadiums around the country, even in cities where the home team hasn't won a championship in the past decade, or ever. It's fair market value.
But would a championship justify higher prices?
Look at what Pat's fans have to endure. The Pat's won a few championships and now they're the only team in the league with an average ticket price over $100, and it's well over $100. So for some that want a premier product but cheaper prices, if Snyder wins a championship, those ticket prices could escalate quickly.
But I also agree with Trey. Explain how selling some club seats and some jerseys will even come close to recouping the money spent of AH, DH and DD?
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:05 pm
by 1niksder
SkinsFreak wrote:Look at what Pat's fans have to endure. The Pat's won a few championships and now they're the only team in the league with an average ticket price over $100, and it's well over $100. So for some that want a premier product but cheaper prices, if Snyder wins a championship, those ticket prices could escalate quickly.
The
NFL average for ticket price is $72.20 and $396.36 for Fan Cost Index.
Expect the Giants, Jets and TtiT's average ticket price to go up dramatically next season once they move into their new stadiums.
The Chiefs are absolutely ripping off their loyal fans. Top 10 in league for average ticket price and bottom 5 in league for performance.
It’s only 450 miles from Boston, Massachusetts to Buffalo, New York, a relatively short distance between NFL cities. But it will still cost you twice as much to attend a Pats game as it will a Bills game.
Patriots fans sure are paying for their team’s success on the field. The Pats average ticket price is 30% higher than the next closest team (Bucs) and their Fan Cost Index is $100 more than the next closest team (Bears).
* Average Ticket Price - weighted average of season ticket prices, not including premium seating.
* Fan Cost Index - TMR’s trademarked stat. Price of 4 adults to attend that includes 4 tickets, 2 beers, 4 soft drinks, 4 hot dogs, 2 baseball caps, 2 programs and parking.
The Redskins might not be in the top ten this year
These are the 2008 prices by team
Code: Select all
Rank NFL Team Average Ticket Price Fan Cost Index
1 New England Patriots $117.84 $596.25
2 Tamba Bay Buccaneers $90.13 $483.02
3 Chicago Bears $88.33 $484.31
4 New York Giants $88.06 $480.74
5 New York Jets $86.99 $476.26
6 Dallas Cowboys $84.12 $435.49
7 San Diego Chargers $81.39 $436.06
8 Indianapolis Colts $81.13 $435.52
9 Kansas City Chiefs $80.69 $422.72
10 Washington Redskins $79.13 $441.43
11 Baltimore Ravens $77.20 $425.81
12 Denver Broncos $76.75 $400.01
13 Minnesota Vikings $73.23 $386.92
14 San Francisco 49ers $70.55 $376.71
15 Cincinnati Bengals $69.85 $387.91
16 Philadelphia Eagles $69.00 $383.50
17 St. Louis Rams $68.28 $387.63
18 Pittsburgh Steelers $67.47 $384.38
19 Houston Texans $66.69 $376.75
20 Detroit Lions $66.39 $383.57
21 Miami Dolphins $66.11 $368.44
22 Arizona Cardinals $65.08 $356.31
23 Atlanta Falcons $63.95 $356.30
24 Green Bay Packers $63.39 $354.45
25 Carolina Panthers $63.32 $330.67
26 Oakland Raiders $62.23 $359.90
27 New Orleans Saints $62.22 $335.89
28 Seattle Seahawks $61.25 $364.49
29 Tennessee Titans $58.55 $347.19
30 Jacksonville Jaguars $55.30 $302.09
31 Cleveland Browns $54.41 $323.66
32 Buffalo Bills $51.24 $298.96
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:34 pm
by SkinsJock
I understand the prices are high at other stadiums but I do not understand why other owner's are not vilified for how they treat their fans like Snyder is? I wonder if the reason is that Snyder has always been scrutinized because whenever he can he will get more than he should - this is not about just maximizing your opportunities - Snyder at every step has tried to charge more and has basically earned this scrutiny by how he has treated the press and the fans.
I am not against signing Fat Albert per se, it's just that, given the choice of spending the same amount on 3 or 4 good players Snyder chose to spend it all on only 1 player - I think he did that because that is how he operates - he likes to make the biggest splash. I submit that a real GM would, most likely, have maximized the amount paid out for players the team needs, not just make a splash.
I am totally glad we signed both Hall and Dockery but would just have preferred a little more bang for the amount spent - most of the media were critical of the amount paid because it sends the wrong message to other players and to NFL fans in general.
We are taking a huge risk on one player that has not got the best rep for health - we just do not seem to ever learn this lesson.
As far as Snyder's greed is concerned - some people make a lot of money maximizing their income in a decent manner, Snyder seems to always be on the defensive because he has a reputation for always trying to end up as being the one who benefitted the most in a deal.
A fair deal in any sense is a deal that both sides walk away from thinking that they both benefitted - In my opinion, Snyder would prefer to not complete a deal, no matter how profitable or how much sense it makes IF the other side involved thought it was a "fair" deal - just my opinion.
that's greedy in my book
While other franchises seem to make an effort to maximize the NFL experience for the fans, Snyder does not
that's greedy in my book
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:39 pm
by tcwest10
I never got the 'greedy' part, either...but I assume that RiC has a compelling argument for it that I'm ill-equipped to participate in. : )
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:41 pm
by Deadskins
SkinsJock wrote:A fair deal in any sense is a deal that both sides walk away from thinking that they both benefitted - In my opinion, Snyder would prefer to not complete a deal, no matter how profitable or how much sense it makes IF the other side involved thought it was a "fair" deal - just my opinion.
You don't think Haynesworth thought he got a fair deal? How about Deion? AA? In fact, The only person I think who ever thought Snyder might have ripped them off is LaVar. I don't see your argument.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:56 pm
by SkinsJock
Deadskins wrote:SkinsJock wrote:A fair deal in any sense is a deal that both sides walk away from thinking that they both benefitted - In my opinion, Snyder would prefer to not complete a deal, no matter how profitable or how much sense it makes IF the other side involved thought it was a "fair" deal - just my opinion.
You don't think Haynesworth thought he got a fair deal? How about Deion? AA? In fact, The only person I think who ever thought Snyder might have ripped them off is LaVar. I don't see your argument.
I am not arguing, but I guess I should have qualified the point.
Snyder would rather spend a fortune acquiring a player than spend the same amount acquiring a bunch of players that would greatly improve the chances for his team being better because by making a splash he can continue to look like he's a big spender - in the end it does not matter because the team will most likely not improve but it's wealth and market value will.
I am just upset that we spent so much for so little return especially considering the health record of Fat Albert.
Why should we have all our eggs in the one basket when we could have spread the money around for more players - are you of the impression that this team at the end of last year was not far away from being a very competitive team again. It is going to take many additions and subtractions to what we had for this team to get to a decent level again.
Acquiring 1 player on the defensive line with a bad record for playing a full season is not a good financial deal in my book or a very sound way to make the many improvements we need here.
How Snyder treats the fans and people who work for him is how he gets his reputation - "buying" players and friends to sit in his owner's box does not make him a benefactor
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:59 pm
by Irn-Bru
SkinsFreak wrote:And the fact still remains that the prices charged for a bottle of water, a hot dog and beer at FedEx and directly comparable to other NFL markets and stadiums around the country, even in cities where the home team hasn't won a championship in the past decade, or ever. It's fair market value.
The specific cases mentioned by RiC and I have nothing to do with the average price Snyder is charging for a ticket or a hot dog. There are some special cases where he has exposed a dark side, some are more anecdotal than others but I think they make a pretty strong case.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:02 pm
by Irn-Bru
KazooSkinsFan wrote:OK, so let me put it this way on water. If someone doesn't know that water bottles aren't allowed going into sports stadiums they aren't paying attention. If someone doesn't know water bottles cost like a dime at home if bought in bulk and several dollars at stadiums they aren't paying attention. If someone didn't account for that in spending hundreds of dollars to go to a game, tens more parking and that it was going to be in the 90s, they are clueless. And if it's a financial burden to them they shouldn't be spending that much money for a luxury in the first place.
The 'water bottle incident' didn't happen at a normal game. It was a scrimmage that was taking place on 'Fan Appreciation Day.'
Kaz wrote:So did I address your point now (address, agreement is your choice) or am I still missing it?
This specific one, no. But it does seem like you aren't familiar with the story (I assumed you were) so I understand why this point didn't register initially, or perhaps even now.
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:10 pm
by Irn-Bru
KazooSkinsFan wrote:So if you look at the third quote in your chain, all it says is there is other unnamed stuff. I'm not seeing how I unreasonably ignore unnamed issues in the fourth quote.
You can ignore the unnamed stuff but it doesn't justify ignoring the
named stuff. Besides, what matters isn't so much the individual instances as the overall trend being presented.
Your strategy—so far—has been to simplify the whole argument into an inane statement like "he's just charging market prices" and then dismissing the problem. But, yeah, I don't see how that really addresses each individual case (which could be judged on its merits) or the overall trend.
Kaz wrote:And re-reading the thread several times I'm not seeing the greed discussion as boiling down to anything but money. At which time I point to my post before the filtered water one above where I addressed that pretty clearly.
It does come down to money but not always in the same way. Look to JSPB's distinction:
Deadskins wrote:A business is not all they are. They are a source of civic, and in some cases, ethnic pride. RiC didn't say overcharging, he said overpriced, as in, "they don't perform up to their billing." I'm not taking either side here, BTW, I'm just trying to clear things up for you.
About money? Yes. But not in the way you're insisting.