Thursday, September 03, 2009

Dan Snyder Is Pond-Scum

Give the guy credit, though: in a league in which Al Davis and Jerry Jones are both owners, Dan Snyder still manages to be the most hated owner in the league, and by his team's own fans. It's not that the Redskins have stunk up the place under his ownership, though they have. It's not the revolving door in the Head Coach's office, though there's been that, too. It's not even charging $8 for one beer even though a case of it should cost less than that.

It's things like this, which convince me he works at it.

And that, while I'll attend an occasional game, I will never be a season ticketholder.

5 comments:

Sailorcurt said...

I'm not sure I get where you're coming from here.

If it were, say, USBank, who was "bankrupting" this lady by requiring her to fulfill her contractual obligations to them and pay her mortgage...would you condemn them for it?

Contracts are legally binding. If you don't want to be bound by the terms of the contract...don't sign it.

Agreeing to a contractual obligation and then crying about being expected to fulfill it is hardly grounds for sympathy as far as I'm concerned.

So...this lady signs a contract, refuses to fulfill the terms that she freely legally bound herself to fulfill, and we're supposed to feel sorry for her?

I'm not getting it.

The way I was raised...just TELLING someone that I would do something binds me to fulfill that obligation...that's called "honor". Something sorely lacking in our society these days.

This lady is a deadbeat who has no honor. She chose to enter into an obligation without considering the potential ramifications should her business decline. When she decides it is inconvenient for her to live up to her word, she cries about the injustice of it all and employs the media to garner sympathy and support.

Disgusting.

And the fact that this is viewed as acceptable behavior in our society, is repugnant to me.

James Young said...

Thanks for commenting.

I can't say I disagree with anything you've said. And I think you've misunderstood me: I don't feel sorry for this lady because she can't keep what is, at its essence, a luxury item. These articles say much more about Dan Snyder than they do about the people against whom he has taken action.

However, the relationship between a sports team and its fans (short for "fanatics") is, or should be, somewhat different.

An article like this demonstrates that Snyder --- billed at the beginning of his tenure as a "lifelong Redskins fan" --- is a poseur, and a money-grubbing SOB. When USBank forecloses on a mortgageholder, it sues for the difference between the contract price and the price that it gets for the home when it sells it. There is a setoff in favor of the "foreclosee" for the money recovered by the mortgage-holder. Snyder is suing for the entire amount, and then reselling the tickets for the full amount.

Honor goes two ways. Snyder owes it to the fans to give them a good product, a task at which he has failed miserably for his entire tenure.

And I say that as someone who cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a Redskins "fan."

I root for the Steelers.

Sailorcurt said...

When USBank forecloses on a mortgageholder, it sues for the difference between the contract price and the price that it gets for the home when it sells it. There is a setoff in favor of the "foreclosee" for the money recovered by the mortgage-holder. Snyder is suing for the entire amount, and then reselling the tickets for the full amount.

That's an excellent point that I hadn't considered.

Although that doesn't cause me to view the position of Ms. Hill any more favorably, I now better understand your vilification of Dan Snyder with respect to the issue.

I'm not a Redskins fan either (my wife is a huge Steelers fan, BTW) and I'm no fan of Snyder...I always got the impression that he bought the team as a business opportunity, not as a fan of the sport...but regardless of my feelings about the Redskins or their owner, I am greatly disturbed by our society's penchant for dismissing contractual obligations, or even simple promises, as trivial inconveniences which we shouldn't be expected to honor.

Where I come from, a person's word is their bond, whether in the form of a signature on a contract, a handshake, or a simple verbal agreement.

We treat these things with such triviality, and then wonder why our society is seemingly so lost.

James Young said...

Again, it's not that I disagree, but the United States has adopted the law of the efficient breach, i.e., if it is more efficient for you to breach your contract than honor it, then you should do so. I know; I know: I was aghast at the concept when presented early on in Contracts class in law school, as I agree with your notions of honor. However, once the lawyers and the economists got involved....

mark said...

Business is business and it is the capitalist way.

She signed a contract - tough a contract is a contract

They are bastards for enforcing it - totally.

Business is business - and football is a business first - sport second.