Welcome Guest! You can login or register.
Login or Register.
#1
Posted
:
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 1:46:23 PM(UTC)
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Applause Given: 439
Applause Received: 1,241
Can't say the owners are hurting in these dire economic times.
Ol' Ziggy is smiling someplace.. public kicks in a ton of money, yet his bottom line increases 22%.
Quote:Dallas, New England are most valuable NFL franchisesMammas, feel free to let your babies grow up to be owners of mediocre NFC East franchises. The Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins again are near the front of Forbes' NFL team valuations despite a long run of ineptitude that has seen the division rivals combine for three playoff wins in the past 16 years.
Jerry Jones' Cowboys are valued at $2.1 billion, well ahead of the New England Patriots ($1.64 billion). Owner Daniel Snyder's Washington Redskins are the third-most valuable team at $1.6 billion.
The Cowboys and Redskins demonstrate that on-field success isn't necessarily an indicator of off-field financial power. Of the nine franchises with the highest values, only two (New England and the fourth-ranked New York Giants) have won Super Bowls in the past 15 years. More successful teams like the Green Bay Packers, Baltimore Ravens and Pittsburgh Steelers occupy the middle part of the Forbes list.
Full list
here.
1. Dallas Cowboys, $2.1 billion, up 14% over last year
Factoring in the royalties from Jerry Jones' pizza rap song, the total ticks up to $2,000,000,006.17.
3. Washington Redskins, $1.64 billion, up 3%
The few remaining Snyder apologists always hide behind the "but he's a good businessman" argument. Six Flags, the gameday experience at FedEx Field and stagnant 2012 growth would be to disagree. No other team in the top half of the rankings had such a low percentage in value change. Not to worry; Snyder is used to knowing what it's like to not grow.
10. Green Bay Packers, $1.162 billion, up 7%
The Packers, the only publicly-owned NFL franchise, recently offered a sale of "stock" (really a sliver of a fraction of a percentage share of the team) to the public. It was a rousing success, showing that public offerings aren't dead yet, Facebook.
22. Minnesota Vikings, $975 million, up 22%
The Vikes had the highest percentage jump in the league. Minnesota residents should be proud that their $498 million contribution to the new stadium is paying such dividends.
#2
Posted
:
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 1:58:33 PM(UTC)
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Applause Given: 439
Applause Received: 1,241
I think this is a more important ranking in terms of teams that need to change the way they are ran.
#3
Posted
:
Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:17:35 AM(UTC)
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance
Applause Given: 891
Applause Received: 923
I wonder how real estate added into these calculations. And I wonder what the values would have been had such real estate not been gov't subsidized.
Ahem.
#4
Posted
:
Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:32:35 AM(UTC)
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Applause Given: 439
Applause Received: 1,241
Wade said: 
I wonder how real estate added into these calculations. And I wonder what the values would have been had such real estate not been gov't subsidized.
Ahem.
Minne...
Agreed... and it is simply larger than that. We the people of this land are watching this country consume itself more and more via the hand of the politicians and oil.. yet we continue to willingly subsidize and allow these professional sports leagues reap record profits off our backs.
From Antitrust exemptions to funding for their building and infrastructures.. we continue to give to them, then again at the ticker window and buying their retail products. Talk about screwed up.
Even the "publicly owned" Packers with non revenue earning stock, what do we really as a public gain from owning the franchise? Past controlling that they stay.. not too damn much.
I wanna stick my head in the sand, because damn sometimes we humans just don't make much sense.
#5
Posted
:
Thursday, September 6, 2012 10:59:28 AM(UTC)
Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 216
Applause Received: 159
You guys must be pissed about the new stadium, eh? With the revenue the Vikings will be able to capture with it you won't be able to claim how they 'share' in your team's revenue. Hey, no frets, though. You can always go back to the tried, tiring, and loutish empty Super Bowl trophy case angle.
#6
Posted
:
Thursday, September 6, 2012 11:33:32 AM(UTC)
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI
Applause Given: 2,569
Applause Received: 4,247
Formo said: You guys must be pissed about the new stadium, eh? With the revenue the Vikings will be able to capture with it you won't be able to claim how they 'share' in your team's revenue. Hey, no frets, though. You can always go back to the tried, tiring, and loutish empty Super Bowl trophy case angle.
Actually, we worry about things like Super Bowl victories, not revenue. :-({|=
#7
Posted
:
Thursday, September 6, 2012 11:56:43 AM(UTC)
Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 216
Applause Received: 159
Zero2Cool said: Actually, we worry about things like Super Bowl victories, not revenue. :-({|=
You might.
But I've fielded my fair share of arguments here on how my team takes money from your team to stay afloat.
#8
Posted
:
Thursday, September 6, 2012 12:04:45 PM(UTC)
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI
Applause Given: 2,569
Applause Received: 4,247
Formo said: You might.
But I've fielded my fair share of arguments here on how my team takes money from your team to stay afloat.
That's what superior teams do, they help out the little guy. You're welcome, but that's about the most you'll get from me on that subject because I know little to nothing about the revenue sharing.
What I do know is the Packers won Super Bowl XLV and that, for me, supersedes the other stuff.
#9
Posted
:
Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:04:59 PM(UTC)
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance
Applause Given: 891
Applause Received: 923
Formo said: You might.
But I've fielded my fair share of arguments here on how my team takes money from your team to stay afloat.
I could actually care less about how the teams split up their money.
My objection (as you know) is in what I see as "taxpayer-financed"-subsidies to organizations that claim to be worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, yet have a return to investment too low to get market-based financing. Put the "Value" numbers together with the income numbers Shawn posted, and only the Cowboys and the Patriots represent a decent return on investment.
And if you adjust for stadium subsidies via sales taxes/diversions of lottery revenues from other uses, etc., you get even more disgusting results.
If I was Jerry Jones or Bob Kraft I wouldn't want to subsidize those other losers. But I'm not either one -- so they can spend their money on those losers or on solid gold shower faucets for all I care.
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.