(01-15-2020, 05:33 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(01-15-2020, 05:26 PM)JackCity Wrote: He used a one year sample of winning as evidence for the market being not able to support a winning team. 

That seems extremely illogical to me. If he said it after a 5 years of even slightly competitive football maybe we could draw actual conclusions

Have you ever watched any of his presentations from the "state of the franchise" events? 

He says this at every single one of them. He illustrates it with 17 graphs and pie charts. 
Even when this team is winning and selling out games their revenue projects to be below the league average because our ticket prices are so low. 

They've been ramping up this point year after year as they prepare to ask for higher ticket prices, a new stadium, downtown development subsidies, and an additional UK game.  

O just see it as more of the same old talk from Lamping trying to drum up justification for charging more and now shipping off another game.

And what exactly is wrong with being below the average as a small market team in a revenue shared business? The city is going to foot the majority of the bill on the stadium too, so again, why does any of this matter? You want the 41st largest US tv market to perform at average in a 32 team league? That’s borderline insane. It’s one thing if we are the packers, have a rich history of hof players and championships from day 1 of the nfl. We are the exact opposite, no titles, newest franchise besides Houston(and Carolina) and we have been a dumpster fire for most of our history. To expect this team to perform anywhere near top 16 in attendance or revenue is flat out wrong to ask of Jacksonville IMO.

---