The Redskins are Evil

From here
Want to know how a $5300 debt can turn into a $66,364 judgement? Read below. BTW, after the negative publicity, the team backed down.

BTW, she should have just resold the tickets.

Last year, Hill's real estate sales were hit hard by the housing market crash, and she told the team that she could no longer afford her $5,300-a-year contract for two loge seats behind the end zone. Hill said she asked the Redskins to waive her contract for a year or two.
The sales office declined.
On Oct. 8, the Redskins sued Hill in Prince George's County Circuit Court for backing out of a 10-year ticket-renewal agreement after the first year. The team sought payment for every season through 2017, plus interest, attorneys' fees and court costs.



Hill couldn't afford a lawyer. She did not fight the lawsuit or even respond to it because, she said, she believes that the Bible says that it is morally wrong not to pay your debts. The team won a default judgment of $66,364.

If they are altering contracts after they are signed or not reducing judgment amounts after re-selling seats, that would be fucked up, but the article is hardly convincing.

The people who signed contracts though.... why is it evil for the Redskins demand payment on them? That's the whole point of a contract. And this isn't about housing, food, medicine... it's fucking football. Pay your debts or your credit goes in the toilet - because you are a proven risk.

Or maybe we need a government agency to examine people's financial records for them and approve or deny any purchases they want to make based on whether they can actually afford it.:rolleyes:

The Redskins are bad because they refuse to change their disgusting name, that lady is bad for ever wanting to support them.

jinx;592864 wrote:

The people who signed contracts though.... why is it evil for the Redskins demand payment on them? That's the whole point of a contract.

The Redskins didn't just sue her for the $5300 she owed, they sued her for the next 8 years of the contract. Also, the Redskins did not suffer any financial loss. They would have resold her seats within days. One of the first things asked in a suit is if the plaintiff suffered a loss. The Redskins didn't. And I'll bet there was all kinds of language in the contract forbidding her from reselling the seats.

It's as if the bank foreclosed on your house, sold it and made back their 100K, and then sought a judgement for another 100K. The Redskins basically stood to make a $60,000 profit above the revenue from reselling the seats by forcing the lady into bankruptcy.

Evil...fucking....bastards.

Of course the lady was a sucker for not showing up in court. She should also have tried to sell her tickets and forced the Redskins to not allow it.

Oh, and I don't think anyone needs to be upset about the Redskins referencing native Americans. It's obvious that their red skin is the result of their being the spawns of Satan.:angry:

The Redskins didn't just sue her for the $5300 she owed, they sued her for the next 8 years of the contract.

Right, they sued for the full amount she agreed to pay and then reneged on - you seem to be suggesting that they sue her each year instead of all at once. That would just end up costing her more. I agree though, that if they are able to resell the seats, her judgment should be reduced by that amount - she still owes for court costs though.

But yeah, they're evil because they're rich, I get it.:rolleyes:

jinx;592882 wrote:

But yeah, they're evil because they're rich, I get it.:rolleyes:

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I prefer to judge based on actions....

Oh, wait. That was sarcasm. Now I get it.:p

Go Cowboys

lumberjim;592892 wrote:

Go Cowboys

That's a disgusting sexist and bovinist name and anyone who supports them must also be a digusting sexist and bovinist.

And I don't even care if your bovine was sexed on 9/11 :p

p.s. the woman was stupid. And probably the judge was too. Yes, they could have gone easier on her, but they were right, she signed a contract. She's supposed to be a realtor she ought to have known better. Mind, she can't be a very good one if she's still working at that age and the economic downturn affects her this badly.

If you sign a contract that you're not going to be able to afford if you lose your job (like a mortgage), you take out insurance to pay it for you, Why should this be any different?

monster;592900 wrote:

That's a disgusting sexist and bovinist name and anyone who supports them must also be a digusting sexist and bovinist.

And I don't even care if your bovine was sexed on 9/11 :p

that was really weird. I'm all weirded out now

you needed help with that?


...you're welcome... :)

Cowboy and redskin are not even close in connotation. Redskin is a racial slur like nigger, spic, chink, ect. Cowboy is a profession or a job title and was not used to degrade a whole race of people.

morethanpretty;592957 wrote:

Cowboy and redskin are not even close in connotation. Redskin is a racial slur like nigger, spic, chink, ect. Cowboy is a profession or a job title and was not used to degrade a whole race of people.

I thought redskin was a type of peanut....

Redskin was NOT a term used by the team to be negative in any way. In fact it was intended to be just the opposite.

Back on track - They made a deal signed a contract and she reneged - what was done legally was done. What if the team said they didn't want to let her have the seats anymore? That would be a similar breach of contract and the team probably could be sued for it as well. . . plus pain and suffering (from not seeing her team in person)

Well, anybody who would agree to pay that much for football tickets is crazy anyway. She should have been ruled mentally incompetant to engage in the contract in the first place. And the Redskins should have been sued for taking advantage of somebody with such diminished capacity.

classicman;592984 wrote:

Redskin was NOT a term used by the team to be negative in any way. In fact it was intended to be just the opposite.

That may have been their original intent, but once it becomes clear that a not insignificant portion of the population finds the name offensive, you would think that a modern company would change their name for the good PR. The Redskins organization doesn't seem to care about good PR. Not with the name issue, and not with this front page story about how they are suing some of their most loyal fans into bankruptcy. It's not illegal though. So it's their prerogative.

How many people hear Redskins and think of Indians? Damn few, compared to the rational people that hear Redskins and think of football.
If you're offended don't buy tickets, I guarantee the stadium will still be sold out.

Go Redskins! Beat the Cowboys!

morethanpretty;592957 wrote:

Cowboy and redskin are not even close in connotation. Redskin is a racial slur like nigger, spic, chink, ect. Cowboy is a profession or a job title and was not used to degrade a whole race of people.

Oh good God. :rolleyes: