JBR: If your last post is indicative of your opinion that is well reasoned. However, it puts you on the side of myself and others completely against Ketch and the other liberals who like to tell people what they can do. Ketch and others are precisely suggesting that they should be bulllied into it. On the other side, no one is suggesting that if it makes economic sense to change the name that he should not. That is the owner's decision and analysis.Originally posted by JBR2009:
I am not suggesting they get bullied into it. What I am saying is that if the decision were mine (it very clearly is not) I would change the name and stem the tide before it becomes a forced issue and frame it as a PR success. An unforced correction that is sensitive to but not mandated by a "vocal minority".Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
JBR,
Absolutely it would hurt. The Redskins are worth over 1.5 billion dollars. This isn't a minor deal. They're one of the most valuable franchises in professional sports.
To put it in perspective, can you imagine the Cowboys overnight changing their name and waking up tomorrow a Dallas Outlaws fan?
How much would it hurt? I don't know. Maybe a lot. Maybe hardly at all. But undoubtedly it would have a at least some negative impact on Redskin fans and franchise value. I don't think the owner and fans should be bullied by a vocal minority on such a subjective matter into taking the risk.
This post was edited on 5/6 2:18 PM by Ignatius J Reilly
Like MLK said it is "Almost always the creative deidicated minority that make the world a better place."
It is my belief that the value of the redskins has little or nothing to with the redskins name. I would disagree that it would have a negative impact at all. The opportunity to rebrand creates a terrific opportunity to connect to the community. It would also undoubtedly create a bump in jersey/memorabilia sales of both the new stuff and the old. I would imagine that this would more than make up for the cost of any design changes.
This is all my opinion though. I understand your point I think we just differ which is fine. I appreciate the debate over it. Very interesting stuff to see both sides.
That said, while you make some good points about economic advantages to changing the name, you do not address some HUGE disadvantages that are hard to quantify. There is a LOT to a name. Just ask the Houston Oiler fans who so desperately wanted to keep the Oiler name. I can tell you that I was a huge Oiler fan. I have watched exactly two Texans games! If they still had the Oiler name/logo etc I would probably still be a big fan. You will say that is completely irrational and you will be right. Guess what? All following of professional sports is irrational. Why do any of us spend any money to follow a bunch of millionaires play a game to profit billionaires?
If the Redskins owner just had a 1% drop (I am sure he fears more like a 10% drop or much more) in value that is $15 million. I suggest those who think they can dictate the name start donating to such a cause to offset the value.
I suggest Ketch jumpstart this cause by donating $50k. Ketch, if you do it, then you will show your sincerity. I will consider matching it. (Check your e-mail lest you think I am not serious.)