Started By
Message
re: FCC Considering Banning Broadcasters From Saying "Redskins"
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:39 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:39 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
It's pretty hard for me to see, especially given that the majority of the offense is being taken by affluent white people
I'm offended that they think I should be offended.
0
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:40 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
It's pretty hard for me to see, especially given that the majority of the offense is being taken by affluent white people.
It's a slur according the dictionary. It's a straight reference to color of someone's skin. It would never past muster today because it's in poor taste.
I'm not offended by it personally, because it has zero baring on my life. If I were the owner I'd change the name and bank in on all the new merch sales and the media goodwill. What are the fans going to do? Root for a new team?
I understand Skins fans who have an attachment to the franchise not wanting to change it. I'm a bit perplexed by those with no ties feeling so strongly the name should stay as is. As perplexed as I am the faux outrage from white folk with no ties to the team either.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:41 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
For real though I like that snyder is standing his ground against the pussy pc crowd.
I really think he's waiting for the right time to maximize profits. He's a business man first and foremost. Fighting the PC crowd is winning points with his fanbase but he'll turn once the timing is right.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:42 pm to Duke
What's the economic implications of changing the brand of one of the most valuable sports teams in the world?
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:43 pm to Duke
quote:
understand Skins fans who have an attachment to the franchise not wanting to change it. I'm a bit perplexed by those with no ties feeling so strongly the name should stay as is. As perplexed as I am the faux outrage from white folk with no ties to the team either.
I'm perplexed by white folk who think I, and other red (ish) folk should be offended, the whole thing is perplexing.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:45 pm to Duke
quote:
I really think he's waiting for the right time to maximize profits.
I think he is by trying to exploit:
quote:
the faux outrage from white folk with no ties to the team either.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:49 pm to the808bass
quote:
What's the economic implications of changing the brand of one of the most valuable sports teams in the world?
Good question?
Do you really think it'll make any difference to the value by calling them the Warriors instead? It's an NFL franchise, not coca cola. Are fans not going to watch because the name changed? Will they get less of a share of revenue from the TV deals because their name changed?
Outline a scenario where it significantly hurts the bottom line and I'll listen. I just don't see much downside.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:50 pm to Duke
quote:
What are the fans going to do? Root for a new team?
The Redskins' front office has estimated they would lose 10-15% of their fanbase if they change the name and would drop the value of the franchise by a couple hundred million.
This post was edited on 9/30/14 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:51 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Would you support a team called the Oakland *******?
If you're saying what I think you're saying..........YES!
frick the FCC. frick you. frick me for having to agree with multiple CatFan posts in the same thread. AND I'M A frickING DALLAS COWBOYS FAN! frick!
Not a single native American I know is offended by the team name of the NFL franchise in Washington, DC. But hey, frick them, right?
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:51 pm to Duke
quote:
Outline a scenario where it significantly hurts the bottom line and I'll listen. I just don't see much downside.
Their valuation is based in large part on their brand. I'd guess a name change could cost Snyder a couple hundred million in the organization's valuation in the short term.
LINK
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:52 pm to TbirdSpur2010
If people are offended by it, what's the problem with changing it?
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:53 pm to Duke
quote:
Do you really think it'll make any difference to the value by calling them the Warriors instead? It's an NFL franchise, not coca cola. Are fans not going to watch because the name changed? Will they get less of a share of revenue from the TV deals because their name changed?
I honestly don't know, but people get attached to brand names, change is painful. Why take the chance?
Should the Saints change their name because it might offend atheists or Catholics?
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:53 pm to Stonehog
Because you can't name anything that someone, somewhere isn't offended by.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:54 pm to Stonehog
quote:
If people are offended by it, what's the problem with changing it?
Because only lily white pussies are offended by it.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:58 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
I find it funny catfans liberal vote
I sat the last election out.
quote:
her number 1 bandwagon team to lose its name
I'm from there. Went to RFK as a kid. I'm hardly bandwagon. Besides, do the 'Skins even have any bandwagon fans left?
Posted on 9/30/14 at 7:01 pm to Duke
quote:
Will they get less of a share of revenue from the TV deals because their name changed?
Are the Jacksonville Jags valued the same as the Dallas Cowboys?
Would the Cowboys' value be impacted if they changed the name to the Dallas Bed-ridden Jews?
Posted on 9/30/14 at 7:01 pm to Stonehog
quote:
If people are offended by it, what's the problem with changing it?
Plenty of people, myself included, are offended by lazy lard asses. Should we have them put on their own island?
Plenty of people are offended by the American flag. Should we ban it?
Plenty of people are offended when they hear someone speak a language other than English in the United States. Should those who speak other languages be banned from entering the US because they may offend a few people?
Everyone is offended by something. That doesn't mean that we can go around banning any and everything that may offend someone.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 7:02 pm to CatFan81
quote:
do the 'Skins even have any bandwagon fans left?
Forrealdoe
Posted on 9/30/14 at 7:03 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
10-15% of their fanbase if they change the name and would drop the value of the franchise by a couple hundred million.
10-15% will change fanbases or stop watching football because of the name change? That's an extreme reaction.
quote:
The Redskins' front office has estimated
Oh...I assume they have no stake in presenting the most extreme case possible. I don't doubt there would be a short term negative reaction, but five years down the road if you don't think the vast majority of fans won't be behind the team you're out of your mind.
It is why I don't change the name until I get that stadium I've mentioned and get some new energy around the franchise. It's again an NFL franchise in the NFC East. It isn't like Coke changing their name and brand tomorrow because the Skins have the short term net of the NFL money to help deal with any short term drops in revenue and the eventual merchandise sells as the vast majority continue to support the franchise.
Posted on 9/30/14 at 7:03 pm to CatFan81
quote:
Plenty of people, myself included, are offended by lazy lard asses. Should we have them put on their own island?
If Washington changed their name to the Lazy Lardasses, and used your face as their logo, would that offend you?
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News