FedEx to Install Party Decks; Remove Seats

It's not a flat 60-40 split between the home and away team. Redskins aren't the first and won't be the last team to do this. This is really about Fed Ex Field and all its potential events, not just Redskins games. It's not like Snyder is going to put the money in his pocket and go buy a yacht. I think he's shown that he invests the money the Redskins generate back into the team. You'd also have to see what the cost of the ticket is and how does that compare to what the cost is for the seats that were there. If they get 60% of a ticket that was say $75, but now they get 100% of a ticket that's $30...

It's not a flat 60-40 split between the home and away team. Redskins aren't the first and won't be the last team to do this. This is really about Fed Ex Field and all its potential events, not just Redskins games. It's not like Snyder is going to put the money in his pocket and go buy a yacht. I think he's shown that he invests the money the Redskins generate back into the team. You'd also have to see what the cost of the ticket is and how does that compare to what the cost is for the seats that were there. If they get 60% of a ticket that was say $75, but now they get 100% of a ticket that's $30...

I didn't say it was a flat 60-40 split. It was an approximation, but it's still pretty close to 60-40. No, they're not the first. Nor did I say that they were the first. Dallas riddled their new stadium with leisure suites and party decks. He's investing this money back into the stadium, but as you said not necessarily back into the team. It's being used to facilitate "all it's potential events". I don't think we know the prices of the new party deck tickets yet, but if you do please tell me. I would be pretty surpised if Snyder shorts himself in that regard though.

i think ss's point is in the grand scheme of things this difference in money isn't really a factor in the addition of party decks. it seems like a fair attempt to try and make a pretty crappy stadium just a little bit better. the ironic thing is how they keep saying that they are trying to make redskins games a more family friendly atmosphere, but i don't see how adding super cheap party deck seats are going to fix that problem.

the only really discouraging thing i take away from this is that with the new screens and now new party decks, it seems like the redskins might be staying in the dump that is Raljon MD for a while to come.

I didn't say it was a flat 60-40 split. It was an approximation, but it's still pretty close to 60-40. No, they're not the first. Nor did I say that they were the first. Dallas riddled their new stadium with leisure suites and party decks. He's investing this money back into the stadium, but as you said not necessarily back into the team. It's being used to facilitate "all it's potential events". I don't think we know the prices of the new party deck tickets yet, but if you do please tell me. I would be pretty surpised if Snyder shorts himself in that regard though.

You read SS's post differently than I do. I think your inclusion of the words "not necessarily" misrepresents SS's arguments that Snyder does invest in the team (just ask Al Haynesworth).

A fair point. At the most, it'll probably only generate an extra 100k per season which isn't really a hefty sum of money when juxtaposed with a multi-million dollar company. So maybe it's not a huge factor, but I'm sure it's a factor. So what exactly is the grand scheme? A upper deck boxing ring for the melting pot to brew. Simply aesthetics. I just don't see how it makes the stadium better. It may make the experience more reasonably priced for people looking for a good time on a Sunday, but could care less about the Redskins or the outcome of their games. I do think it's cool for the gentrified 5k that, "According to the team, fans with seats in the impacted areas who chose not to move to higher-priced seats will be moved closer to the field or closer to the 50-yard line at no additional charge."

You read SS's post differently than I do. I think your inclusion of the words "not necessarily" misrepresents SS's arguments that Snyder does invest in the team (just ask Al Haynesworth).

and the sentence after that I go on to quote him saying it's also about potential events that are not affiliated with football. "Because FedExField is privately held, all of the expenses associated with the installation of the Party Decks will be borne by the Redskins. No public funding will be involved." That would mean the money is coming out of the organizations pocket but not all of it is going back to the team.

I would be stunned if the price of a party deck ticket is the same as the seats that were once there.

And the ticket revenue split is 66% to the home team, 34% to the other 31 teams. Plus the money the home team makes from premium seat fees (which I don't even know these count as, premium seats that is) is what they really keep. The cost of the ticket, if I recall correctly, is subject to be "taken away" from the home team. The home team keeps their share of the club seat ticket and the away team's share is subject to be given out as a "loan" for new stadium financing. As was the case with Gilette Stadium and the New Meadowlands.

Bottom line-there's a lot more to it than just Snyder is screwing the fans to put money in his pocket

You're splitting hairs man. The split is basically 60-40. The extra 6% that your adding on goes to deductibles which can't really be calculated into revenue. I don't doubt that there is more to it than "Snyder is screwing the fans to put money in his pocket". But I believe it's still a portion of it. Didn't intend to take it to the tin hat conspiracy level, but I don't see any other real benefit to the addition.

^12% difference actually but who's splitting hairs? :D



Why are you so angry, man? No NFL owner is going to make big financial decisions based on "what would the fans smile about"? You have to remember the the NFL is a business first, and a game at a distant second. There's no point demonizing Daniel Snyder so much for making decisions based on the profitability and long-term outlook of his COMPANY (notice I did not say "team"). Every owner must act that way or they'll fail miserably. Even an owner who hangs out with fans and tries to appear to be an owner and fan at the same time like Mark Cuban or the bird-flippin' Bud Adams will really be driven by his finances first. Welcome to reality.

^12% difference actually but who's splitting hairs? :D



Why are you so angry, man? No NFL owner is going to make big financial decisions based on "what would the fans smile about"? You have to remember the the NFL is a business first, and a game at a distant second. There's no point demonizing Daniel Snyder so much for making decisions based on the profitability and long-term outlook of his COMPANY (notice I did not say "team"). Every owner must act that way or they'll fail miserably. Even an owner who hangs out with fans and tries to appear to be an owner and fan at the same time like Mark Cuban or the bird-flippin' Bud Adams will really be driven by his finances first. Welcome to reality.

I'm not angry. I'm doing the exact same thing that you're doing, which is attempting to bring the real motivation behind this move to the foreground. I realize the NFL is a business first which is why I brought this topic up to begin with. And if you refer to my previous post you'll see I too called it a COMPAMY. Just because the realization exists doesn't mean I should have to compromise the way I feel about misorly, unscrupulous megalomaniacs who force the masses to submit to their will. Thanks for your insight though, it was very constructive.