Login

JagsFanSince95 · 02-09-2020, 09:52 AM

(02-07-2020, 08:45 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:
(02-07-2020, 08:16 AM)JagsFanSince95 Wrote: Look, we were 22nd this year in total attendance at home, granted that is including the wembley game. Still, where and what is acceptable for a team who has 1 winning season per decade, then sucks the rest of the time, supposed to perform? We have the second smallest tv market of all nfl teams bro. Finishing anywhere above 31st in revenue and attendance should be seen as a win for a young, small market franchise that has struggled mightily over the last 15+ years. 2017 and even 2018 numbers show you that if you can generate hype around the team by simply winning and being competitive, Jacksonville is more than capable of supporting a franchise. Hell, we’ve proven that now anyways even while losing.

We are capable of supporting a franchise if the only requirement is to make a profit. Unfortunately, the same revenue-sharing model that enables that profit is a double-edged sword. Other owners are also sharing their revenue, and they see themselves as subsidizing our team. For example, since TV revenue is shared equally, if the Jaguars bring in a fraction of the TV revenue that certain other teams do, why would they be happy about giving the Jaguars an equal share?

Yes, we make a profit, but it comes from the TV money, and the other owners would say Jacksonville does not pull its weight in that regard. It's too small.

As for the "22nd in total attendance" argument, it's easy to be 22nd in attendance if your ticket prices are among the lowest in the league. If all they want is attendance, they can cut the ticket price to $1 and they'd have the highest attendance in the league. It's not how many bodies are in the seats, it's the total money they pay to be there. Additionally, since visiting teams get a percentage of the ticket revenue for their game in Jacksonville, why would they be happy about the low ticket revenue they are sharing? Visiting teams make way more money on an away game in Dallas than they do in Jacksonville, because they get their standard share of a lot more ticket money.

It's not greed to want to make more revenue. It's necessity, because if they don't make more money, eventually the other owners could force a move.

This is also a bunch of hog wash. I ask the same question. Where should a bad Jaguars team, with no national TV games (TNF doesn't really count) and a piss poor record supposed to be on a list of TOTAL REVENUE GENERATED per year?

If we use your logic, the Dallas Cowboys should feel they subsidize every other team, because 2nd place to Dallas is over 250 MILLION off in revenues for 2019. It's no surprise that Dallas also had the most prime time TV time too(tied for most). We are 23rd, still, as I stated, BETTER than their actual market rank among NFL teams.

We also out performed teams like the Chiefs, who just won a freaking super bowl. We hear nothing of "long term sustainability in our market" from them, yet the Chiefs are valued slightly less than our Jaguars are worth, and made less revenue who also had 5 prime time games vs our 1, if you count TNF.

The business model of the NFL makes ticket sales and concessions its least most important factor for revenues, just ahead of corporate sponsorship. TV deals and product licensing are far, far larger of the "revenue pie" than anything else, nothing comes close.

It does not matter how you slice it, attendance or revenue, the Jaguars are out performing their market share in revenue when you factor in size of market compared to other NFL teams who are performing worse than us. 23rd out of 32 should be celebrated for crying out loud. What more do you and money grubber Kahn want from this market and fan base????

https://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/#tab:overall