Jump to content

Jay Gruden fired; Bill Calahan to be named interim HC


evilpimp972

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, The LBC said:

I keep wondering if and when there's ever going to be enough of a divide among the owners that a majority make the "better business interest" argument to try and force out certain members of their club who are thorns in the sides of their respective franchises (and by effect unrealized earning potential of the league) with no sign that their deaths (morbid I know) might change that pattern like Snyder, Spanos, and so forth.  That's the sort of thing that I would advocate would be paramount to execute before any sort of expansion was ever considered.  Sadly, it's not going to happen anytime soon, especially this close to another round of CBA Negotiations, wherein the owners will have to put forward the facade of a united front.

Having the redskins be bad is good for the other 31 teams. its a dog eat dog world out there. One less competitive team out there makes it easier for other teams to win games. They would never do what you are talking about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

It's crazy how Snyder can be the owner of the Redskins for 20 years, largely be a complete, and utter failure due to getting too involved, and not think to take a step back. 

Not that crazy considering we've had other like Davis, Jerry, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Not that crazy considering we've had other like Davis, Jerry, etc. 

True with AL. He was getting old and senile though. At least he made the Raiders a quality team for 40 years. As for Jerry, he has largely handed team responsibility to his son now. Synder is 50 something, and has owned the team during the prime of his life, but still doesn't have a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:
19 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

It's crazy how Snyder can be the owner of the Redskins for 20 years, largely be a complete, and utter failure due to getting too involved, and not think to take a step back. 

Not that crazy considering we've had other like Davis, Jerry, etc. 

Pretty sure most of the other 29 owners have learned from their mistakes and are at least Attempting to do the opposite of those 3 when it comes to meddling rather then delegating. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

Fans do not show up to Redskins games though, and their tv ratings have been abysmal lately.  

At some point, don't the rest of the owners have to start pressuring Snyder to start doing things differently?  When an organization is run so poorly that it affects ticket sales and tv ratings, that hits the bottom line for the whole league and that's what it's all about for the rest of them.  I wonder if there is any scenario where the rest of the owners can force an incompetent owner to sell the team?  I'm sure there are a lot of Redskins fans who would be behind a move like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Uncle Buck said:

At some point, don't the rest of the owners have to start pressuring Snyder to start doing things differently? 

No, they don't.  They're all separate entities...the only thing they have truly in common is that they want to win the Super Bowl, other than that, everyone runs their organization their way.  The fact that Mr. Snyder chooses not to take the examples set by other winning organizations is on him.  The other owners aren't going to force an incompetent owner to sell the team...remember this is a league that has kept around Mike Brown and the recently departed Bill Bidwill for many, many years.   

Edited by swede700
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2019 at 6:49 AM, PapaShogun said:

I think Jay Gruden will have a much better time with a different organization. It's just seems like an impossible task to do well working under Snyder and Allen. This is actually good for Jay. I don't know if he'll be a head coach again, but he can be a decent OC. 

I bet if he has a decent run as an OC I bet he could get a 2nd shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swede700 said:

No, they don't.  They're all separate entities...the only thing they have truly in common is that they want to win the Super Bowl, other than that, everyone runs their organization their way.  The fact that Mr. Snyder chooses not to take the examples set by other winning organizations is on him.  The other owners aren't going to force an incompetent owner to sell the team...remember this is a league that has kept around Mike Brown and the recently departed Bill Bidwill for many, many years.   

 

I think there is one other thing they have in common that trumps winning the Super Bowl - making money.  Maybe it doesn't matter if one team is tanking and losing games, but if it gets to the point that he is running his organization so badly that the fans quit supporting the team by buying tickets and even watching the games on tv, will the low ratings start eating into the tv revenue?  It probably hasn't gotten bad enough to do that yet, but it sure seems like a lot of Redskins fans on this site are getting fed up.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, N4L said:

Having the redskins be bad is good for the other 31 teams. its a dog eat dog world out there. One less competitive team out there makes it easier for other teams to win games. They would never do what you are talking about. 

Sorry, but that's myopic thinking.  They share the revenue and by-and-large "winning" in the league is cyclical.  Having a perennial loser that outlasts a 20-year-cycle doesn't help the league's earning potential particularly when said perennial loser is in a Top 10 Sports media market.  Do owners like winning?  Of course they do because it increases the value of their product, but while there's the rose-colored-glasses narrative that these owners bought these teams as passion projects (you might have been ale to make that argument in the Lamar Hunt, Leonard Tose, Clint Murchison days, but those are long past), they principal reason they're in it is because an NFL team is a cash cow that puts out a huge ROI due to revenue sharing.  If one or several members of the club aren't pulling their weight, don't think for a minute, with as cutthroat of businessmen as most of these guys are, they won't kneecap one of their own to benefit themselves.

Article VII, specifically Section 8.13 of the NFL's Constitution and Bylaws gives the NFL's Executive Committee the power to compel "cancellation or forfeiture of the franchise in the League," with a directive to sell.  The process exists, it just hasn't been brought about, rather used as a cudgel/threat in the past to soft-compel owners like Jerry Richardson to sell, and was likely not formally used out of courtesy to him to not undercut his ability to at least make as much money in the sale of the franchise as possible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...