January 31, 2005
Priceless
We all know the Redskins have gone a little corporate, but the latest venture verges on alarming. Mr. Tony and the Washington Post itself detail a new plan in which Redskins season ticket holders may purchase their tickets via cash, check or credit card. However, should one choose to use credit card, the "Redskins Extra Points MasterCard" must be used. The 'Skins line on this move is that it "helps process our tickets and get them out faster." First of all, the deadline for paying for tickets seems to be in March, while the season doesn't start until September. So I guess 6+ months isn't enough time. According to the article, one season ticket holder has already applied to the credit card & been declined, leaving the person to find other means to pay the $1340 for a pair of tickets. Any notion that this new policy is anything besides a blatant money grab is ludicrous in my opinion. I am not even sure how this is acceptable. As I understand it, if you accept one type of Mastercard, you must accept all incarnations of Mastercard. There is even a guideline for merchants that says "each Acquirer and Merchant must accept cards equally and without discrimination." But I guess it doesn't matter. There is a prodigious waiting list for Redskins season tickets. So for every fan who discards their obstructed view seats, there is another to step right in, drink beer and stare at concrete. And every fan who must forfeit their season tickets because they can't scrape together the money or get approval for the credit card, there is another who will happily take their place. But perhaps I should save this venom for when a team I root for does it. Not that I'll ever be so fortunate to have season tickets. But even so, I am part of a collective fan-base. For the time being I am spared, though I suspect the moment when the fan base that I am a part of gets screwed is close at hand.
Posted by John at January 31, 2005 07:04 PMGo Dolphins
Posted by: Nate at February 1, 2005 06:17 AMI don't blame Danny-Boy for getting whatever he can -- its good business if you don't have to worry about pissing off your customer base (or, if you do piss them off - there are more to step in).
I can see the uproar though, I mean - what if the Raven's owner started requiring his season ticket base to use toothbrushes, or look in a mirror before they left their houses/trailers.... Chaos...
Posted by: Chad at February 1, 2005 09:15 AMThe above comments represent the sole thoughts of the mentioned poster.
However, I think these are some of the people he is talking about. "Mooooooooo!!!":
Or maybe these guys:
But at least the Hogettes don't have purple camoflauge. Seriously, what the fuck is that!?!?
As to The Danny - I would get cranky about it, but seriously, who didn't expect this? I am surprised you don't have to buy Redskins Bucks when you go the games, and can only use them to buy merchandise and food. Something like 2 "Skins Bucks" for $3. Mark my words, it is coming. They already have Redskins debit cards for the stadium where you load up and use them at concession stands, probably attached with a service charge (ala ESPN Zone). But until Redskins fans stop paying for the tickets, or the waiting list dries up - neither of which will happen in the next 10 years - I don't know what can be done. Just look for more stuffed shirts and fruity corporate people around the stadium. Oh wait, they have that already.
Posted by: Pat at February 1, 2005 09:30 AMChad's comments about Raven's fans made me think of good ol' Pasadena..the man speaks the truth! (this time)
Posted by: Nate at February 1, 2005 10:01 AMSo just because you're not surprised it happened, I guess that makes it nothing to be upset about. I believe pissing off your customer base is bad business. Your team not mine. And give me Ravens fans anyday over Redskins fans. At least the Hogettes wear dresses and not camouflage? Ok, I'll take that criticism I guess. And give me Ravens stadium over the Redskins stadium. And Lord, I know we haven't talked in awhile, but if I still mean anything to you, give me sweet, sweet Josephine.
Why get upset? What am I supposed to do? I won't become a Redskins season ticket holder if you think it makes it better. But, let's be honest - it wasn't going to happen anyway. No matter how you have to pay, I'm not effected by it. Let the people who are inconvenienced by it get upset. Like Mr. Tony or Wilbon - who admitted they pay by check anyway. Even the people in the article who were perturbed by the move - none of them said they weren't going to renew.
I'll give you the stadium, if only for the parking situation and I think beer is cheaper at M&T. Dresses vs. Camo? Yeah, they both suck. As long as there are no camo dresses or Zubaz, than I think we can agree that they all look like idiots, some effeminately dressed idiots. But I'll take Gibbs over Billick, burgundy over purple, and I think we can all share in the glory that is Tony Banks - as long as you can sprinkle in some of these "playoff games" we Redskins fans have heard so much about.
I will not dispute anything about Josephine however, you two were meant to be together, from the moment of the first pseduo-stalking.
Posted by: Pat at February 1, 2005 10:59 AMCan I jump into another divise city v. city battle?
Location:
M&T: In the only good part of Balmer, near restaurants, bars, other beautiful stadium, has lots of tailgating
FedEx: Landover. Near...a Shell station.
Point: Balmer
Money:
Balmer: Beer, tickets, transportation cheaper here.
Washington: highest priced ticket in the game.
Point: Balmer
People
M&T: Have a beer, my purple brother.
FedEx: Give me you wallet, cracker.
Point: Balmer
History:
Balmer: Johnny U, Artie Donovan, 2 champoinship franchises
Washington: Only black Super Bowl champ. QB, Johmn Riggins, big fat linemen
Point: Draw, but leaning to Balmer
Fans:
Balmer: Purple camo, hardhats, cowbells, Mardi Gras beads, buses
Washington: Internationally known transvestites, those guys that dance in the endzone.
Point: really, everyone loses here, but you saw I typed Mardi Gras beads, so Balmer it is.
Cheerleaders:
Balmer: not bad
Washington: killer, behind only DAL, PHI, and OAK
Point: Washington
Immediate Prospects:
Balmer: Ed Reed, Ray Lewis, T. Suggs, T. Heap, Billick - playoff chance every year
Washington: Arrington, Portis, Gibbs...on paper a division champ. In real life, not so much.
Point: Balmer
So, yet another completely objective interpretation of football cities yields a victory for Chris' clear favorite. It's amazing how much I am right.
All this aside, for those of you that have seen games in both cities (I know that's at least me, Pat, and John) - do you honestly have a better time with the Skins than the Ravens? I don't.
Oh, yeah, that credit card thing is total crap.
Posted by: Chris at February 1, 2005 01:34 PMHistory a draw, leaning to Balmer!?!? Allow me to overreact!
Super Bowls Victories:
Washington - 3
Baltimore - 2
Hall of Famers:
Ravens - 0 (sure, unfair, but the Colts didn't wear purple camo)
Colts - 11 I'll give you Don Shula since he won a Super Bowl with them. But Eric Dickerson doesn't count
Redskins - 20
And let me remind you one piece of history...THEY MOVED TO INDIANAPOLIS!!!!
People - are we talking about the stadium or the city? Cause I think Baltimore is the crack capital of the country. And hey, murder is down in DC, while up in Baltimore. The internet says so.
2004 Murders:
Balmer: 278
Washington: 193
Inside the stadium, I don't think "Give me you wallet, cracker." is extremely accurate, given that it is ALL crackers (who now have to obtain this special Mastercard).
I'll swing one your way though.
Front Office:
Baltimore: Organized structure
Washington: Bumbling idiots
Of course I have a better time at a Skins game than a Ravens. I like the Redskins. I doubt that is what you meant though. But given the choice of venue for say, a Maryland game next September, M&T Bank Stadium gets the nod over FedEx for the reasons expressred above (parking, cheap beer, easier access, better sightlines, all that).
Posted by: Pat at February 1, 2005 03:02 PMWhat a nice little turn this thread has taken. Also, 20 Redskins HOF is a joke. There are indeed 20 players who are in the Hall, who played on the Redskins. So I guess Deion will count as a Raven & so will Rod Woodson & Shannon Sharpe. Does anyone reading this not think that is a joke as well? There are 10 Redskins in the Hall because of their Redskin career. And there are 9 Colts because of their Baltimore career. 68 years of Washington football, 39 of Baltimore. NFL Championships tied at 5. And unfortunately, Shula never won a Super Bowl in Baltimore.
Posted by: John at February 1, 2005 04:13 PMWell, if you want to get overly technical about it -- the NFL Hall of Fame lists 20 Redskins in the hall -- with 15 listed as making their primary contribution with the Redskins. Yes, I realize this includes coaches and a couple players from the Boston Redskins -- but I see no difference between the Boston Redskins counting for the Redskins and the Baltimore Colts counting for the Ravens.
Posted by: Chad at February 1, 2005 04:30 PMTouche salesman. I just read the number as 20 from the Redskins website (Mastercard propaganda machine). Didn't realize they counted every team they played on. Does the NFL H.O.F. do like the baseball one and pair them with a "helmet"?
Shula took them to a Super Bowl...good enough for me. I would have put Spurrier in the HOF if he could have done that.
Redskins who clearly don't belong in the 20:
- Deacon Jones
- Paul Krause
- Bill Dudley
- Stan Jones
- Curly Lambeau
- Vince Lombardi
The rest were at least with the team in Boston. So, 14 to 10 + Ozzie Newsome, he should count from his Browns/Ravens contribution if we are nitpicking. OK, pretty close.
For the record, I really don't care - I just despise purple camoflauge. And football talk always trumps whatever else shows up on here. Shit talking is glorious, especially as our teams are home this weekend.
Posted by: Pat at February 1, 2005 04:59 PMYou don't see any difference? The Ravens & Colts both play(ed) in the same friggin city and the argument has devolved into an argument between Baltimore & DC sports teams. And I guess the Ravens get all the old Browns players too (not really). And now I give up, I won't comment any further on this thread.
Posted by: John at February 1, 2005 05:00 PMBalmer was a great franchise, Indy stole it, Balmer gets a new one, Balmer wins again. Go Balmer.
If you want to talk HOF, divide HOFs by years of franchise existence for some sort of qulaity-of-player ratio. Balmer wins again.
In all honesty, even if the Skins had the Packers' history I would bag on them, because they are 1) from DC, and I dislike DC, 2) run by idiots, 3) Pat's favorite, so raise your glass to busting your boy's balls.
Posted by: Chris at February 1, 2005 05:15 PMYeah, that's all fine and fair. It is extremely difficult to defend the Redskins these days, no doubt. I am far from a freak fan about it, but I do still enjoy them.
Didn't Balmer just steal the Ravens from Cleveland though? Just saying.
Posted by: Pat at February 1, 2005 05:37 PMNo, they didn't. *waves hand* These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Posted by: Chris at February 1, 2005 09:03 PMAt least the Balmer and DC fanbases speak mostly English. ACHI ACHI!!
Posted by: Nate at February 2, 2005 08:30 AM