(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.

Yeh I've seen  most of them

Their sample of winning games and it's ability to make a sustainable franchise is based on either the 90s era or the literal one year sample this decade

Revenue below league average is still very profitable. So what they are really saying is even if we won we won't make as much as money as we want...and they're saying it under a historically poor losing ownership

---