Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Small Market Economics

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • yourfavestoner
    started a topic Small Market Economics

    Small Market Economics

    I don't mean for this to be a Jaguars-only thread, as this is a league-wide issue. It's just that this particular article happens to be Jaguars related.

    Originally posted by Gene Frenette
    Jaguars' real concern is economics


    By GENE FRENETTE, The Times-Union

    Jaguars fans would prefer to read about which players the team intends to pursue in free agency, who the starting quarterback will be next season, or likely targets with the 17th overall pick in the NFL draft.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but I want to touch on an underplayed subject with bigger long-term implications - Jacksonville's ability to survive in a 32-team economic jungle.

    This is a convoluted and unpopular issue because nobody supporting a family on a $40,000 salary wants to hear about NFL owners and players fighting to divide billions of dollars.

    But if Jaguars fans want to know why there's been speculation about the team moving, or why season-ticket prices are seemingly taking an excessive jump, then it's important to understand Jacksonville's status on the NFL money landscape.

    The Jaguars finished 27th in the league last year in average ticket price ($45), which is a bigger bargain when you consider that includes 11,200 club seats - among the NFL's highest number of premium seats - into the calculation. This year, the Jaguars' average price will increase to $50, far below the league average of $63.

    Before 46,000 season-ticket renewals accuse the Jaguars of a senseless money grab, they need to know that owner Wayne Weaver is merely trying to keep pace with a money train that is putting small-market teams at a competitive disadvantage.

    Many thought it became a non-issue when a new Collective Bargaining Agreement was signed last year, but the truth is NFL owners still haven't agreed on a revenue-sharing formula.

    "It's hard to get into these discussions because it comes across as whining," said Tim Connolly, the Jaguars' Senior Vice-President of Business Development. "The NFL agreed to give the players 59.5 percent of the league's average revenue, but it's not the same amount of the pie for everybody."

    By Connolly's estimation, the Jaguars' player salaries eat up 65-70 percent of the team's overall revenues, compared to 40-45 percent for the Washington Redskins and New England Patriots. That's a lot more cash high-revenue clubs have to throw around in signing bonuses than Jacksonville.

    Unless the NFL evens the playing field with a sound revenue-sharing plan, the Jaguars may eventually field weaker rosters.

    Consider this: the Jaguars received $620,000 per year from Alltel for the stadium naming rights, which have expired, while the Patriots pocket $8 million per year from Gillette.

    Right now, the Jaguars are struggling to find a new stadium sponsor for even half of what the Patriots are getting.

    That 28-3 playoff rout New England put on the Jaguars two years ago is nothing compared to the money gap between them. The Patriots even have naming rights on their parking lot. Ford puts brand names of its cars there, reportedly at a price higher than what the Jaguars may command in a new stadium deal.

    The Patriots are so shrewd at marketing, you wonder if they'll try to sell the naming rights to Tom Brady's baby.

    Here's the economic reality: until Jacksonville's population and income rises significantly, the Jaguars will be in a money crunch.

    Pay attention, Jaguars fans. When this franchise will return to being a Super Bowl contender is far from its only worry.

  • bearsfan_51
    replied
    Originally posted by eacantdraft View Post
    Have you ever been to Mexico City?
    I'm really not going to take much time to explain this to you, because you're flippant sarcastic attitude shows that you aren't going to listen anyway. But here are a few points.

    1)As pointed out by others, nobody uses the first world/third world dichotomy. Even economists don't use it anymore. It is a remnant of the Cold War to explain countries that were neither capitalistic or communist. It makes no sense to use it now.

    2)It also completely lacks nuance. As uneducated people like to use it now, it is in the creation of a rigid and bifurcated notion of modernity. A country is either modern or it's not, it's either progressive or it's not. Looking beyond the fact that nobody can truely define modern or progressive as they are historical constructions, such vague terms really mean nothing.

    3)You're not even talking about a country, you're talking about a city. Even using your outdated terms they don't apply. Is Alabama third world even though it's in the United States? Is Gary, Indiana or Flint, Michigan?

    Leave a comment:


  • eacantdraft
    replied
    Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
    You talked to everyone in the city about whether or not they care about football? USC has a huge following, so obviously they care about football.

    The Rams and Raiders didn't work b/c they were competing against themselves. I agree it's not like New York, but they could easily sustain one team. Easily.

    Umm, the Rams had LA all to themselves once the Raiders left and even then they couldn't survive.

    Leave a comment:


  • eacantdraft
    replied
    Originally posted by njx9 View Post
    and that it's a complete cop out to use that kind of terminology because it requires no real thought. moreso in a context in which something can be "dismissed" as third world by someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about.

    Last time I checked it's not Americans illegally crossing the border so they can live in the glorious country of Le Mexique.

    When a city bigger than New York doesn't have any professional sports franchises, there is a reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • njx9
    replied
    and that it's a complete cop out to use that kind of terminology because it requires no real thought. moreso in a context in which something can be "dismissed" as third world by someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about.

    Leave a comment:


  • UKfan
    replied
    Originally posted by eacantdraft View Post
    Have you ever been to Mexico City?
    I don't think he means that Mexico City isn't third world ( I don't know ) I think he means no one describes places as first or third world in academic circles.

    Leave a comment:


  • eacantdraft
    replied
    Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
    The first world-third world dichotomy is so incredibly outdated. Anyone that uses that in academics is laughed at. It's similar to duck and cover.
    Have you ever been to Mexico City?

    Leave a comment:


  • bearsfan_51
    replied
    Originally posted by eacantdraft View Post
    One difference. Toronto is first world, Mexico City is third world. I don't think players would want to live their and the populace can't afford to attend many NFL games.
    The first world-third world dichotomy is so incredibly outdated. Anyone that uses that in academics is laughed at. It's similar to duck and cover.

    Leave a comment:


  • eacantdraft
    replied
    Originally posted by pysseddoph View Post
    just to add.

    toronto also has something of merit more than just the fans. toronto has company headquarters there. toronto is the nyc/la of canada. they could get recompetetive with stadium naming rights because there would be a real market for such a thing. the club and box seats could be sold there as the economy could support such a thing.

    now the ideal thing would to have a team in canda ( toronto ) and a team in mexico ( mexico city ). the nfl is a business and they understand the overall grand scheme. its about product placement. the nfl brand. now looking at these 2 cities .... you would have a domed 65 to 75k seat stadium in toronto. i think thats all they can handle. but in new mexico you would put an 80k plus stadium. get the firm that didnt the new texas stadium to do the one in mexico city.

    also at this time you would do another realignment of the league ( the bills should have went to the afcn to begin with, smh at mr wilson for fighting that ) because as it stands right now ... both of the probable teams are in the afc.
    One difference. Toronto is first world, Mexico City is third world. I don't think players would want to live their and the populace can't afford to attend many NFL games.

    Leave a comment:


  • bearsfan_51
    replied
    Originally posted by bigbluedefense View Post
    Those baseball teams you mentioned actually benefit from the new revenue sharing policy. Its like welfare for baseball teams. The bottom 10 teams in baseball profit more per year than the top 10. The Yankees and Red Sox alone account for 60% of baseball revenue. The overall revenue is split up and divided so other teams can survive. The bottom 10 teams take that money and run to the bank with it, they don't want to spend it to develop a team thus coming out with higher revenues as a whole compared to the top 10 teams.

    The problem is, most people from the LA area either root for the Raiders or 49ers anyway. The niche market that you would go after is small. And with the fickle personality of the area, once you start losing, no one will show up.

    The NFL would love to have a market in LA. The problem is, theres no market. They tried twice and failed twice. LA is simply not a football town. Have you ever been to LA? I have, and I definately got the impression that those people could care less about football.
    You talked to everyone in the city about whether or not they care about football? USC has a huge following, so obviously they care about football.

    The Rams and Raiders didn't work b/c they were competing against themselves. I agree it's not like New York, but they could easily sustain one team. Easily.

    Leave a comment:


  • bearsfan_51
    replied
    Originally posted by pysseddoph View Post
    kinda funny you say this in the same breath as you speak of the chiefs situation. the bills are a regional as well. as far south as erie pa, as far east a syracuse ny and as far north as toronto ontario. that is how large the blackout area is for the bills. you have fans that make the drive every sunday.

    i think the bills should move but my plan is one that works more for the state of new york and the bills as well. they should move to niagara falls ny.
    They should move to Toronto, like I already said. It's a major metro area that is still very close to the region.

    And there are just as many Browns fans in Erie as there are Bills fans. It's not the same as Kansas City as the Chiefs cover much more territory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iamcanadian
    replied
    Originally posted by bigbluedefense View Post
    LA is not a friendly market for the NFL. People of the area are fickle. Theyre not like East Coast cities who are big and support their franchises, they won't support their team through thick and thin. They only root for teams when its winning. Look at SD, they all of a sudden had a bunch of fans this year, whereas in years past you couldn't even fill the stadium. USC is now the hot team to root for because theyre winners, but before Carroll no one in the area gave 2 shits about USC.

    The Rams and Raiders left because theres no fan loyalty. LA is a bunch of bandwagoners quite honestly. Also couple the fact that many who live there are not originally from LA, and you have no real market to advertise to.

    Guys there are just different. My best friend moved there from Jersey to Cali and he hates it now. The fakeness is just too much for an east coast guy.

    The only franchise that has success there is the Lakers. And thats because theyre the Yankees of basketball.
    Not a LA fan but I think your completely wrong. The biggest roadblock for a successful franchise in LA is a stadium. The colisium isn't a pro standard stadium and it's in the wrong part of town as I understand it. Until LA builds a new modern stadium, pro football has no chance in that city. Build the fans a great venu to watch the game and LA would have no trouble filling the stadium and supporting the team.
    The only black mark on LA is its refusal to build a modern facility so a team could prosper. It's really hard to explain their failure to erect a stadium in this day an age.

    Leave a comment:


  • pysseddoph
    replied
    Originally posted by Iamcanadian
    I'd say Buffalo is in deeper sh-t than Jacksonville. Toronto with it's 16 million regional population is very attractive and might be the NFL's 1st step towards making the game international.
    just to add.

    toronto also has something of merit more than just the fans. toronto has company headquarters there. toronto is the nyc/la of canada. they could get recompetetive with stadium naming rights because there would be a real market for such a thing. the club and box seats could be sold there as the economy could support such a thing.

    now the ideal thing would to have a team in canda ( toronto ) and a team in mexico ( mexico city ). the nfl is a business and they understand the overall grand scheme. its about product placement. the nfl brand. now looking at these 2 cities .... you would have a domed 65 to 75k seat stadium in toronto. i think thats all they can handle. but in new mexico you would put an 80k plus stadium. get the firm that didnt the new texas stadium to do the one in mexico city.

    also at this time you would do another realignment of the league ( the bills should have went to the afcn to begin with, smh at mr wilson for fighting that ) because as it stands right now ... both of the probable teams are in the afc.

    Leave a comment:


  • pysseddoph
    replied
    Originally posted by bearsfan_51
    Originally posted by Splat420
    The Chiefs are in small market and have one of the bigger stadium's in the NFL Seating Capacity 79,451 it can be done.
    Kansas City draws from all over the place though. If you like in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska you're just as likely to be a Chiefs fan as anything else.

    Jacksonville basically draws from Northern Florida and that's it. It was an awful move to put a football team there in the first place. That being said, I think the Bills are the worst-placed team in the NFL, and I would keep a close on on the rumors of them eventually moving to Toronto.
    kinda funny you say this in the same breath as you speak of the chiefs situation. the bills are a regional as well. as far south as erie pa, as far east a syracuse ny and as far north as toronto ontario. that is how large the blackout area is for the bills. you have fans that make the drive every sunday.

    i think the bills should move but my plan is one that works more for the state of new york and the bills as well. they should move to niagara falls ny.

    Leave a comment:


  • Turbeauxdog
    replied
    The NFL probably wants a franchise in LA (for the billion dollar expansion fee), but I don't think TV wants a franchise there, becuase they won't sell out the stadium, and the nation's 2nd largest media market will be blacked out.

    LA has always had good basketball teams, from UCLA through the Lakers they have about 25 championships, so they are supported well.

    The Dodgers and Angels benefit from the large Latino population that loves baseball.

    No one cares too much about the Kings and Ducks, except for when they win.

    Also, no city in California will build a stadium for a team, and that doesn't help.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X

Debug Information