PDA

View Full Version : This is what happened...



PurplePharaoh
02-24-2005, 01:07 PM
I THINK WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IS THAT RED AND FOWLER GOT TOGETHER AND DECIDED TO TRADE RANDY MOSS TO SAVE FACE FOR FOWLER. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN. IF FOWLER REALLY CANT AFFORD TO BUY THE VIKINGS, THEN HE CAN NOW BACK OUT CLAIMING HE WONT NOW BUY THEM BECAUSE RANDY ISNT PART OF THE TEAM ANY LONGER. THAT WILL SAVE FACE FOR FOWLER.

Next anyone else that will buy the vikes already is aware that Moss wont be on the team, and thus cant back out at the last minute, well not because of the Randy Moss trade they cant. And if Folwer still buys the Vikings then we would and can only assume Folwer was aware ofcourse and approved of the trade, thus making him a liar when he said he would never trade his best player.

This is my tribute to Randy Moss and the whole trade as has been reported. :bootyshake: .....I sure hope there is more to the trade then what has been reported, cause only a idiot would have a throw in 7th round pick.

ultravikingfan
02-24-2005, 01:15 PM
But, now the team is worth less to another buyer.

ADubya26
02-24-2005, 01:18 PM
Yeah, some other people have been saying that as well. The only thing I dont understand about that logic, is say Fowler does not get the team. He saves face, but now Red is looking at a lower price for the Vikes because the most exciting WR in football is gone. I dont think Red would do anything that would have him losing money, unless he is that hateful towards Minny.

PurplePharaoh
02-24-2005, 01:44 PM
I mean how in the world can you trade Moss unless you are saying F U Viking fans im going to take away your favorite player as I dont let the door him me on my ass on the way out of Minnesota. I dont think I would buy the team without Moss on it.....But then who knows perhaps Red wont want to lose money and Folwer can tell Red to go to hell and demand Moss not be traded...Its not a official trade yet.

PAvikesfan
02-24-2005, 02:05 PM
conspiracy...huh?

Red is trying to save more money.period.

Fowler might be an optimist. he might want to start anew.
Him saying Moss will not be traded under his watch is not a lie because he will not be the owner when the deal is done. besides, who knows if the NFl will even approve Fowler. Reports of his shady business practices are all over the place.

Tayler will not buy this team now unless the price is back down to 550 mil because let's face it, how many people own and buy Moss merchandise? even douchebags who don't even like the Vikes. Red will not sell for that and we are stuck with another lousy season of "I'm Red, I don't need approval from the fans"...

Vikadelic
02-24-2005, 02:19 PM
"ultravikingfan" wrote:

But, now the team is worth less to another buyer.

I disagree. As a business, the team is worth the same with or without Moss. Red just saved Fowler several million dollars. And, we the fans will still be here. We will still buy the tickets and jerseys etc. We are the ones who are emotionally attached to OUR team. For Fowler, it is business. We will continue to bleed purple whether Moss is here or not.

The only way that this type of a thing wouldn't make good business sense for a new owner were to be if there was a possibility that they would lose a large chunk of the fan base. Seeing that we know this won't happen due to the fact that Vikings fans are extremely loyal, it doesn't hurt the teams value one bit. It just hurts our psyche.

I have faith that things will be better with a new owner and quite possibly better without Moss. After the initial shock of this trade is over, look across the league and see what has made other franchises into champions. Like so many of you have pointed out, it is much more than one player that makes the difference.

Vikings will win the SB in the near future if they fill a few holes. The core is there and they now have an opportunity to show us. Our offense will still give other teams fits. If we can put a top 10 defense together we will win it hands down.

jackyl
02-24-2005, 02:23 PM
"Vikadelic" wrote:



I disagree. As a business, the team is worth the same with or without Moss.

Wrong. It's worth less, do to the drop there will be in merchandising or all the Moss products. And the fact that at this point they've messed with one of the keys to why the dome is selling out. They've made for a less revenue possibility, and that lowers the value to a prospective owner.

ultravikingfan
02-24-2005, 02:26 PM
"Vikadelic" wrote:

"ultravikingfan" wrote:

But, now the team is worth less to another buyer.

I disagree. As a business, the team is worth the same with or without Moss. Red just saved Fowler several million dollars. And, we the fans will still be here. We will still buy the tickets and jerseys etc. We are the ones who are emotionally attached to OUR team. For Fowler, it is business. We will continue to bleed purple whether Moss is here or not.

The only way that this type of a thing wouldn't make good business sense for a new owner were to be if there was a possibility that they would lose a large chunk of the fan base. Seeing that we know this won't happen due to the fact that Vikings fans are extremely loyal, it doesn't hurt the teams value one bit. It just hurts our psyche.

I have faith that things will be better with a new owner and quite possibly better without Moss. After the initial shock of this trade is over, look across the league and see what has made other franchises into champions. Like so many of you have pointed out, it is much more than one player that makes the difference.

Vikings will win the SB in the near future if they fill a few holes. The core is there and they now have an opportunity to show us. Our offense will still give other teams fits. If we can put a top 10 defense together we will win it hands down.

I get what you are saying, good post.

But, I was putting in terms of Fowler not getting the team. On paper it does not look so attractive now because we got rid of Moss.

Vikadelic
02-24-2005, 02:40 PM
"jackyl" wrote:

"Vikadelic" wrote:



I disagree. As a business, the team is worth the same with or without Moss.

Wrong. It's worth less, do to the drop there will be in merchandising or all the Moss products. And the fact that at this point they've messed with one of the keys to why the dome is selling out. They've made for a less revenue possibility, and that lowers the value to a prospective owner.

The merchandising for jersey's etc goes through NFL properties. That revenue is split amongst the entire league. The merchandise revenue will be there regardless of where Moss plays. This was part of the owners revenue sharing program a few years back. That is also why the NFL can dictate what the players wear as part of their uniform. Because the NFL owns it, not the franchise.

Now that we have gotten that out of the picture, look at an NFL franchise from the standpoint of a business. Players are not assets. Players are not assessed as positive cash flow for the franchise. When the numbers are crunched players are red ink. Especially in the case of a team with a huge national fan base. Owners can slash millions from the payroll and still have a team that is worth exactly the same. The value comes from the fan base and positive revenue brought in by the franchise itself. Not the players.

I understand where you are coming from on this and I'd love to believe that Moss alone made the team worth an extra 100 million but it just isn't so. In some ways, the team is more valuable to Fowler as he just saved several million in cash that he would have been responsible for this year.

jackyl
02-24-2005, 02:48 PM
I'm quite familiar how it works, I deal with it everyday. Try getting someone to pay the same for the Colts with Manning, as they would without him..... wouldn't happen. Also, product liscence... teams make more based off of item. Why do you think that Red made such a big deal in his PC w/ Fowler on all the added products they marketed since he took over, and how that helped improve the financial status of the organization?

VKG4LFE
02-24-2005, 02:55 PM
I guess I don't know what to think. I'm pissed that Moss is gone, but I will still be buying viking products, anything I can get my hands on really (or at least the stuff I can afford, which won't be much anymore unfortunately!). I just want things to get back to normal and I want to get onto the draft!

XTAP59
02-24-2005, 03:13 PM
I still don't understand why Fowler hasn't said anything good or bad about the trade.....
Its his team that is being altered.....
if i were him, I would want to be notified of any changes to the team, especially a revenue reducing one like the Moss trade.
Moss comes in 98, stadium has been sold out since.....
before Moss, no sell outs.......
That affects the bottom line. Why the heck isn't Fowler all over this?

Vikadelic
02-24-2005, 03:13 PM
"jackyl" wrote:

I'm quite familiar how it works, I deal with it everyday. Try getting someone to pay the same for the Colts with Manning, as they would without him..... wouldn't happen. Also, product liscence... teams make more based off of item. Why do you think that Red made such a big deal in his PC w/ Fowler on all the added products they marketed since he took over, and how that helped improve the financial status of the organization?

All licensed merchandise is the property of the NFL. The Viking's name is owned by the NFL. Any team, even the Colts does not count on any specific "Player" for their revenue. The players are taken out of the equation.

If you were trying to buy an NFL franchise and you wanted to attract investors to help finance the whole deal, do you really think that anyone would pony up serious wads of cash relying on Peyton Manning to remain healthy? It might bear some consideration but before you get any smart investor to sign on you had better be able to show them how this franchise can make a go of it even if the whole team gets hurt in an accident. The bottom line is all that matters to people who get into ventures like this. To so because the franchise is worth "x" amount of dollars. They can never bank on a specific player whose career could be ended with one hit to the knees.

Paying 650+ million dollars for the franchise.
Having 50+ million in active players salaries.
Trimming that to 43million in salary liability before you even have the team in your hands.

Not a bad day at the office for Fowler and his investors. Now it will be his job to put a great product on the field.

jackyl
02-24-2005, 03:22 PM
Licensed and owned by the NFL doesn't mean that it's equal revenue. Players make money off of products with their names on them as well. I did 3 deals with Reebok for jerseys alone since Dec.


If you honestly think that a team with NO talent is worth the same price tag as a team with talent then you've never sat through any sort of team deals.

VKG4LFE
02-24-2005, 03:23 PM
That makes sense to me!

NeoVikesTX
02-24-2005, 11:08 PM
What I heard is that the Vikings front office wanted to trade Moss, and that Fowler did NOT want or approve of trading Moss. So, the Vikings organization decided to trade Randy Moss before Fowler became the owner.

Toss2Moss84
02-24-2005, 11:11 PM
Anyone else think Scott Linehan knew all along the Vikes were trading Moss and wanted no part of it?

I mean he took off and bolted for Miami for the same exact job. He knew more than we believe he knew and knows. He knows trading Moss may be the downfall of this offense and this team.

sdvikefan
02-24-2005, 11:18 PM
"XTAP59" wrote:

I still don't understand why Fowler hasn't said anything good or bad about the trade.....
Its his team that is being altered.....
if i were him, I would want to be notified of any changes to the team, especially a revenue reducing one like the Moss trade.
Moss comes in 98, stadium has been sold out since.....
before Moss, no sell outs.......
That affects the bottom line. Why the heck isn't Fowler all over this?

I'm sure we'll hear something from him after March 2, when the deal is sealed. I also want to hear something from Red and from Tice on this.

cajunvike
02-24-2005, 11:26 PM
Ultimately, we are the fall guys for this Keystone Cops routine that the Vikings are running...we will be here regardless and take whatever they dish out because we have no control over our team...as far as the door hitting Red in the A$$ on the way out, I think that he wants it to, specifically the doorKNOB because he likes it like that! LOL

Toss2Moss84
02-24-2005, 11:37 PM
DiTrapano, Moss' agent was on KFAN

* When he let Moss know he was going to Oakland, Moss said "well that's good to know"
* Tice and Brez DID NOT want to trade Moss. He doubts that the new owner wanted him traded. Thanks MCCOMBS!!
* Moss thinks the Vikes aren't committed to winning SB because they were $26 mil under the cap and didn't use it.
* He said the Raiders got a great deal, practically a steal.

Also...

Tom Palisario, beat writer on KFAN was interviewed

Paraphrase of the interview follows:

He is talking Mike Williams at #7.

Said Moss wouldn't stretch or work out with team and younger players.

He said most fans 80-90% didn't like the trade.

He stated that he "understands it is a done deal"

Saying must sign a vet receiver in FA.

Said Red pulled the trigger on the trade. Trade wont be approved until March 20th or so when Owners meet. Said deal will be approved.

Chances of trade falling through: Indicated it was a done deal.

RK.
02-24-2005, 11:40 PM
I doubt that Fowler will end up the owner of this team. :( Maybe by trading Moss out Red is dropping the value of the team down to near Taylors offer and pocketing the difference.

SKOL
02-25-2005, 12:14 AM
It's becoming clear that good 'ol Red is trying to get back at Minnesota for not giving him a stadium. He runs the team with no intention of winning, although he made a considerable profit, then trades our best player on the way out. What gives?

Too bad he's not a used car salesman around these parts. We'd all boycot him.

Ya know..., maybe there's another way we can get back at him. If a Green Bay businessman can post a series of anti-Randy billboards, we can sponsor a few Anti-Red billboards around San Antonio...,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v518/SKOL/OurBuddy.jpg

It would be better than spraypainting all his used cars purple.

LosAngelis
02-25-2005, 06:32 PM
"Toss2Moss84" wrote:



* When he let Moss know he was going to Oakland, Moss said "well that's good to know"
* Tice and Brez DID NOT want to trade Moss. He doubts that the new owner wanted him traded. Thanks MCCOMBS!!
* Moss thinks the Vikes aren't committed to winning SB because they were $26 mil under the cap and didn't use it.
* He said the Raiders got a great deal, practically a steal.

.

* I think Moss is the type who needs a lot of ego rubs. With all the trade talk and bad pub at the end of the season, I think he's pretty flippant about the trade. He's gonna make his money and put up his numbers wherever he is.

* Interesting. Of course, what person in his right mind is going to come out and say "I'm the one who wanted to trade Randy Moss" in the present fan climate?

* True dat. He was making the team as attractive as he could to a prospective buyer. Remember when the Marlins won the World Series, then stripped the team down to the bare minimum in order to sell it? I'm not saying yay or nay, but this gives a prospective owner the leeway to use picks and salary cap money to build his own team, without inheriting what McCombs (and 90% of the non-Viking world) perceive as an ongoing headache.

I'll be honest, if I have an extra billion lying around, I'm more likely to buy the Viking franchise right now, because I can mold the team how I want, and have a lot of room to skyrocket, as opposed to worrying if Moss is going to hold the team and coach emotionally hostage.

* I don't know. I certainly thought he would have brought more in trade. But, I think the influx of talented WRs demanding trades or being released into FA agency scared the brass into taking what they could now, for fear that it was the best they would get before March 2.

But, I posed the question to some Packer fans: would we have been willing to trade away our two top draft picks (#24 overall and a second rounder probably equates to the #7 overall) and Nick Barnett for Moss? Not a Packer fan I know jumped at it.

You may have to face that Moss was perhaps worth more as a Viking than he was in trade, because teams aren't willing to part with the future of the franchise to take on an enigmatic and occasionally petulant player.

Case in point: WOuld you now be willing to trade the #7 pick and, say, K-Will for Terrell Owens? You know you aren't just getting the talent, you're getting the whole attitude.

I'm not trying to tick you guys off at all. But I think you have a point in that you're not going to get full value for Moss. But, in the same stroke, I don't think the Raiders got a steal. You got a solid starter (Harris) and possibly Mike Williams or Antrelle Rolle or maybe even Derrick Johnson IN ADDITION to a Marcus Spears or a Shaun Cody.

The Raiders now have two very talented wideouts and Kerry Collins to throw it to them. Did it occur to anyone that Oakland had the 30th ranked defense in the league last year, and they just sold off a starter and a high pick that may have bolstered it? By the way, who had the 32nd ranked rushing offense? Yep, the Raiders.

It's perhaps the most uneven even trades I've seen in a while. But, if you guys can invest wisely, I think you'll come out ahead.