You guys probably do not keep up with the Redskins, but if you did, you would know they SUCKED ASS at home last year. If I was broke, I would not spend my last dollar to watch my team go (4-4) and lose 3 straight at home like they did last year in a four week period.
i agree with this with every conservative bone in my body. the bottom line is greed, greed in agreeing to something you KNOW you cant really afford... greed in them selling you something you really cant afford, hey once the first payment is made they get their commission. greed in doing whatever they can to get every single damn penny out of the people who support them. there should be more articles like this written every time something like this happens. this article should be posted across this site as a warning to those who are thinking with their fandom rather than their head. i think i will copy/paste this into the 17a thread.
The only problem I see is likely the Redskins did very background checking to see if these fans could afford the contracts they were signing. When you borrow money from a bank they typically only lend you the money if they believe you can pay it back. The first story from the washington post has a 73 yr old woman who makes $5k a year have to pay $5k a year for her tickets.
Of course. The PSL, if it works like all of the other PSLs, only gives you the first right to buy the tickets. If you choose not to then they can sell them to anybody they want.
this is totally different then banks. banks were running out of money too. Last time i checked snyder just gave a $100 million contract to a dt whos not worth it. i think he can take a little hit and give these people a break.
And he will never honor that either..he should be forced to honor the contracts he signs when he expects the fans to honor contracts they have signed with him.
That's just a silly statement. The Redskins, along with every other NFL team, DO honor the contracts they sign. Just because there are clauses in the contract that allow the team to cut a guy and not pay him the salary specified in the contract does not mean it is a breach of contract. It IS honoring the contract, albeit not in the way the player would wish. Perhaps the problem is in the simplified way the public looks at these contracts. People tend to look at a player's multi-year contract as a set in stone piece of paper (One page that says, "We will pay you $5 million for the next 5 years"), when in reality what the contract really says is, "If we choose to keep you on our team, we will pay you $5 million for every year we decide to keep you for up to the next 5 years". Of course there are always bonuses, other extraneous clauses, and certain rules in place to determine severance pay, a percentage based on when you were cut, etc. It seems your problem is with the way our legal system works, rather than with the integrity of the ownership.
This one gave me a good laugh. The idea that banks actually determine if their loans can be repaid. That's a good one.
Bingo. Who needs the money more, especially right now -- Snyder or these fans? Th fan who had to dish out $20,000 in a lawsuit, which he probably can't even afford; to Dan Snyder, that $20,000 is like walking down the street, spotting a penny, and ignoring it. So, in my opinion, it is relevant. Maybe Snyder's next big investment should be in a heart.
You are being far too generous with someone else's money. You are entitled to your opinion that its a pretty cold-blooded thing to do, and I might even be inclined to agree, but Snyder is not a charity and these tickets are not gifts. Snyder has rights to enforce these agreements and he's totally entitled to do so. Some day if we can't acquire anything of any value without paying for it in full up front with certified funds you'll understand how wrongheaded your opinion is
So you're saying that poor people shouldn't have to keep their word? ...and by corollary that rich people shouldn't trust poor people because everyone knows that poor people shouldn't have to keep their word? That's a terrible precedent for both rich and poor alike. I am much more inclined to a world where people have integrity regardless of personal circumstances.
This guy is the epitome of a grade A certified douchebag. It isn't like he couldn't resell their seats to someone else on the waiting list. I guess he needs to find more creative ways to pay Haynesworth's contract... What a classless scumbag
At least the banks check if you are in the ball park of repaying a loan. Granted the banks totally messed up the sub-prime mortgages, but they are supposed to safely bet whether you are able to pay a loan or not. That's supposed to be why people keep money in a bank.
Banks haven't done that for over a decade. Look into NINJA or Liar loans and how they dominated many markets for an example.
Nope. Don't try to generalize. I'm saying, in this specific instance, given the state of the economy, Dan Snyder did not HAVE TO sue these people; he chose to. And how badly does he need that money vs how badly the person who he chose to sue needs it?
these people have lost alot of things. if we werent in a recession, i could understand a little that these people should have known better if they can afford tickets or not. I think people are tryin to say is that these rare times and snyder should show some compassion and not sue them. he doesnt need the money, and even if he did suing should be the last resort.
Sorry sir, but you're the one generalizing, or rather, doing the opposite. By casting Redskins, Inc. as Daniel Snyder, you have made a grave economic and moral judgment error. Daniel Snyder happens to be majority owner of the Skins, however the corporation has more employees, and owners I'm guessing, than just him. The organization is made up of hundreds of people that rely on it for their survival. From Big D himself down to the janitor, they all rely on that income to maintain their lifestyle and/or feed their families. This includes the accountants, who have made up the budgets for the coming year and although their books look straight, money is missing in the form of ticket fees that were promised but never remitted. It is up to them to notify the lawyers that a contract has been broken. And it is up to those lawyers to recoup those monies as best they can. This is all done for the purposes of maintaining the books and making sure all those people that work for the organization are paid on time, and more importantly, keep their jobs. Because guess what? if those books are not balanced, it won't be little Danny eating those salaries, it'll be time for some layoffs because that's what a good businessman does, and the team is a business. Now I ask you again, who is being unfair?
it still snyder. Snyder doesnt have to fire anyone. he can be the one to take the hit. He doesnt have to but he should. Snyder doesnt have to worry about losing his house but the people he is suing does especially after all the fees they will have after this case (lawyers). i understand what your saying and the people who should be sued are the people who can still aford but decide they dont want to go to games anymore, not lifelong fans who have been by this hard time and would still be going if this recession didnt hit them like a ton of bricks.
This is a ridiculous statement. Nobody HAS to sue anybody for anything, its always the plaintiff's choice to do so. Who the fuck are you to decide who needs the money more, as if that has any bearing at all on whether or not its owed? I am honestly shocked that heedless deadbeats who voluntarily choose to grossly overpay for an entertainment commodity widely available FOR FREE get this kind of sympathy. Do you feel equally badly for people who can't make their yacht payments? Because you are talking about the same exact thing.
