Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Colts moving on from Brissett per Chris Simms


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Moosejawcolt said:

U mayb right,  however the way most of these owners run their franchises it leads me to believe they dont care and/ or are  clueless.  Most likely both.

They are some of the best business owners in the world or they couldn't own a team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 322
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Please!  Everybody and their momma saw that coming after what we witnessed for that stretch of games. I totally believe they have deep reservations.  I mean who wouldn't after we literally sat there a

I'm not sure I agree with the bolded part, I think fans are mostly done with the JB experience. But I don't think the front office should care, they should do what makes the most sense without regard

I can't imagine they keep him if they are moving on.       

Posted Images

16 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

May not have stated it clearly. I know he would get paid all his contract even if he were to be traded but if we traded him could we not guarantee to pay half his remaining contract? It would make it more appealing to the team trading for him and my point was if we didn't trade him and cut him after June 1 we would still have to pay him 7M. If we could get something in return and threw in 10M in trade we would only throwing in an extra 3M net.

 

I'm not too familiar in contract language, but I would assume there would be something in the contract to prevent that. That imo would be something teams would take advantage of. Cut date is basically there to take advantage of the contract already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

They are some of the best business owners in the world or they couldn't own a team.

I didnt say they were not great buisness men.  Doesnt mean u can run a successful NFL franchise  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

I'm not too familiar in contract language, but I would assume there would be something in the contract to prevent that. That imo would be something teams would take advantage of. Cut date is basically there to take advantage of the contract already.

Could be but it seems like I believe it was Denver literally paid another team to take a QB off there hands. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

U mayb right,  however the way most of these owners run their franchises it leads me to believe they dont care and/ or are  clueless.  Most likely both.

Indy is a small market, which is even more important. I'm confident Irsay understands it's a symbiotic relationship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Indy is a small market, which is even more important. I'm confident Irsay understands it's a symbiotic relationship.

I do think Irsay is an excellent owner  and truly cares about winning and the state of his franchise.  I think he one of the few owners that actually care about winning

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, EastStreet said:

We had a steady decline for 3-4 years, and they expect another one in 2020. Overall it's a 10% decline in attendance in the last 10 years. I think 2017 was the first year we averaged less than 100% attendance. If you don't think Irsay is concerned about the trend, not sure what to tell you. 

 

https://clintoncountydailynews.com/report-shows-steady-decline-for-colts-attendance/


Did I ever even remotely mention that no one was concerned about attendance? I know what the decline is, as I didn’t just pull the 97% number out of my rear... We are doing just fine for a small market team, and they know this. They also know they have to produce a winning, super bowl competing team and that JB isn’t going to cut it long term... but Ballard’s M.O. isn’t to force the issue to the detriment of the team. I’ve said that on this forum all along. I think they bring Rivers in and draft one from pick 3 on this year to attempt to get back in the race and prove to fans they have. But I still believe fans put way too much weight in their worth. According to Forbes it’s worth about $50 per fan. That’s a lot less than what fans on this forum and twitter tend to give themselves credit for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:

I do think Irsay is an excellent owner  and truly cares about winning and the state of his franchise.  I think he one of the few owners that actually care about winning

I really think there are a lot of great owners who care about winning, and doing right for their fans and towns. Some suck, but more because they're clueless. Some suck because they don't give a sheet, but I think there's very few to be honest. I'm just glad we aren't the Bengals or Browns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

Could be but it seems like I believe it was Denver literally paid another team to take a QB off there hands. 

 

Who? I don't recall that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:


Did I ever even remotely mention that no one was concerned about attendance? I know what the decline is, as I didn’t just pull the 97% number out of my rear... We are doing just fine for a small market team, and they know this. They also know they have to produce a winning, super bowl competing team and that JB isn’t going to cut it long term... but Ballard’s M.O. isn’t to force the issue to the detriment of the team. I’ve said that on this forum all along. I think they bring Rivers in and draft one from pick 3 on this year to attempt to get back in the race and prove to fans they have. But I still believe fans put way too much weight in their worth. According to Forbes it’s worth about $50 per fan. That’s a lot less than what fans on this forum and twitter tend to give themselves credit for. 

You just said earlier that attendance was overrated, and that when people don't go, the TV ratings go up, and so does the revenue. And that's completely untrue. Network contracts are fixed. 

 

And if you don't understand the revenue drivers of businesses during game day, you don't understand how things work. Why do you think Irsay is working so hard to keep the combine in Indy. Stuff like that means a lot financially to the city.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CR91 said:
1 hour ago, hoosierhawk said:

Could be but it seems like I believe it was Denver literally paid another team to take a QB off there hands. 

 

Who? I don't recall that.

Here's an interesting and somewhat humorous look at Denver's QB situation over several seasons. My favorite quote is "I hope the Broncos keep Elway employed for another decade, just to see how long it’ll take him to sign Shawn Bradley."

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/2/14/18224843/joe-flacco-trade-john-elway-denver-broncos-quarterbacks-history

 

As to the conversation, perhaps hoosierhawk was referring to the Texans dumping of Brock Osweiler to the Browns?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Who? I don't recall that.

The Texans are trading quarterback Brock Osweiler to the Browns, a move that will take Osweiler's $16 million guaranteed salary off of Houston's books.

Cleveland also will receive the Texans' 2018 second-round pick and a 2017 sixth-round pick (No. 188 overall). Houston will get a 2017 fourth-round pick (No. 142), and save $10 million in salary-cap space and $16 million in cash this season.

 

This is what I was thinking of. Not the same as I was thinking although Houston got rid of a larger contract by giving up Draft choices, not money. My bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I really think there are a lot of great owners who care about winning, and doing right for their fans and towns. Some suck, but more because they're clueless. Some suck because they don't give a sheet, but I think there's very few to be honest. I'm just glad we aren't the Bengals or Browns.

Did u listen to that podcast??

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dogg63 said:

Here's an interesting and somewhat humorous look at Denver's QB situation over several seasons. My favorite quote is "I hope the Broncos keep Elway employed for another decade, just to see how long it’ll take him to sign Shawn Bradley."

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/2/14/18224843/joe-flacco-trade-john-elway-denver-broncos-quarterbacks-history

 

As to the conversation, perhaps hoosierhawk was referring to the Texans dumping of Brock Osweiler to the Browns?

 

You got it!! Just referred to that trade in above post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

You just said earlier that attendance was overrated, and that when people don't go, the TV ratings go up, and so does the revenue. And that's completely untrue. Network contracts are fixed. 

 

And if you don't understand the revenue drivers of businesses during game day, you don't understand how things work. Why do you think Irsay is working so hard to keep the combine in Indy. Stuff like that means a lot financially to the city.


TV ratings have consistently gone up as  attendance has decreased. That’s fact. Also fact is that the tv contracts are fixed, but are being renegotiated early (like right now) when they are through 2021... Revenue is going up and the tv revenue is about to spike big time, as it did in 2011 and 2015. 
 

I understand the business of game day. I know there is a lot that is impacted. I don’t discount any of that. Frankly, because I don’t think attendance will ever drop enough to be a significant impact that actually hurts a franchise. I think the league is on the up and up, and quickly heading toward being a $25 billion annual business, and every franchise is going to benefit from that from a valuation standpoint. Therefore, they aren’t going to stress about attendance like you are suggesting... 

 

My entire point was fans put too much weight into their value. And I stand by that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any QB college or pros that a Colts fan can get excited about. Unless they throw logic to the wind and try to trade up for a college QB there are no second hand pros that can take any team to the SB. Right now the NFL is overloaded with mediocre QBs that will be on the trading block. They will not gain anything by dumping Brissett in favor of some loser from another NFL team.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:


TV ratings have consistently gone up as  attendance has decreased. That’s fact. Also fact is that the tv contracts are fixed, but are being renegotiated early (like right now) when they are through 2021... Revenue is going up and the tv revenue is about to spike big time, as it did in 2011 and 2015. 
 

I understand the business of game day. I know there is a lot that is impacted. I don’t discount any of that. Frankly, because I don’t think attendance will ever drop enough to be a significant impact that actually hurts a franchise. I think the league is on the up and up, and quickly heading toward being a $25 billion annual business, and every franchise is going to benefit from that from a valuation standpoint. Therefore, they aren’t going to stress about attendance like you are suggesting... 

 

My entire point was fans put too much weight into their value. And I stand by that. 

Just stop spinning the TV ratings stuff... People attending games add more to the bottom line team specific revenue than people watching on TV. The NFL revenue model is that they share equally the national revenue (TV contracts, advertising, etc), but local revenue (ticket sales, corp suites, concessions, etc) are not shared equally. Increased viewers for a specific team doesn't mean increased revenue for a specific team. And TV ratings are still trying to get back to 2015 levels, so even if the model changed, Indy's small market of viewers has less impact on the national level.

 

As far as the game day businesses are concerned, if you don't think a 10% drop is a big deal, you simply don't understand the relationship Irsay has with the city. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

Just stop spinning the TV ratings stuff... People attending games add more to the bottom line team specific revenue than people watching on TV. The NFL revenue model is that they share equally the national revenue (TV contracts, advertising, etc), but local revenue (ticket sales, corp suites, concessions, etc) are not shared equally. Increased viewers for a specific team doesn't mean increased revenue for a specific team. And TV ratings are still trying to get back to 2015 levels, so even if the model changed, Indy's small market of viewers has less impact on the national level.

 

As far as the game day businesses are concerned, if you don't think a 10% drop is a big deal, you simply don't understand the relationship Irsay has with the city. 

 

 

Attendance at games means sooo much to the city and commerce. From $250/ night hotel rooms to $100 meals to $25 parking, Hard to imagine how much money is spent down town for a game with full house of 62,000+. Obviously the Colts have a large stake in attendance in bringing money into the city and merchants. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hoosierhawk said:

Attendance at games means sooo much to the city and commerce. From $250/ night hotel rooms to $100 meals to $25 parking, Hard to imagine how much money is spent down town for a game with full house of 62,000+. Obviously the Colts have a large stake in attendance in bringing money into the city and merchants. 

And folks don't realize that when the team is doing well and fans are excited, they also spend a bunch during away games at sports bars and other pubs. Before I moved, a friend of mine worked at the largest sports bar downtown. It was packed for away games. Their "Colts Sundays" were a large portion of the monthly take. I also have/had friends and family that owned smaller pubs and restaurants downtown and near side, and all got a huge boost when the Colts do well. 

 

Irsay has talked many times about his commitment and responsibility to the city. He works hard to bring things to Indy, and recently is working very hard to keep the combine in Indy. He knows where his bread is buttered. And he knows he will hear about it if there's a downturn.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to dismiss his first 7 starts last year when he played well. his performance fell off on his last 9 games. I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that he had very little support from the receiving corps in the last 9 games due to injuries.  With that said, I am not ready to declare that JB is our future. I do think he holds the starter role but I also think we draft a QB either in round 1 or 2 and groom that pick to be our future starter. I am not sold on us signing Rivers or another veteran QB to be replacement for JB.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EastStreet said:

Just stop spinning the TV ratings stuff... People attending games add more to the bottom line team specific revenue than people watching on TV. The NFL revenue model is that they share equally the national revenue (TV contracts, advertising, etc), but local revenue (ticket sales, corp suites, concessions, etc) are not shared equally. Increased viewers for a specific team doesn't mean increased revenue for a specific team. And TV ratings are still trying to get back to 2015 levels, so even if the model changed, Indy's small market of viewers has less impact on the national level.

 

As far as the game day businesses are concerned, if you don't think a 10% drop is a big deal, you simply don't understand the relationship Irsay has with the city. 

 

 


Ok number 1, this is my last response to you so I’m going to make it count and be clear as mud. 
 

local revenue is not limited to tickets and concession sales. Local broadcasting via radio, sponsorships and pro shop for the entire year is lumped into that, and is as much as tickets and concessions on that front. I know the value that those things bring to the city of Indy and that the Irsay’s are big on that. I get it. It’s a big deal to them, or they at least say it is for political purposes here. Who knows. It doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t make a big difference in the value of their franchise. Because as long as the NFL keeps growing as a whole, so does the value of the Indianapolis Colts. 

I’m going to use the Cincinnati Bengals as an example. Their attendance dropped from 77.5% attendance or a little under 51k per game in 2017 to 72 percent or a little over 47k per game. That’s pretty drastic according to you and should be detrimental to their organization. Except Forbe’s says their value increased by 11% last year. 
 

How could it be that the Bengals and the Colts, among others, have seen decreased attendance but their value more than doubled in the last 6 years? Because you put more weight into game day attendance and sales than is actual, which is my whole point of fans putting too much weight into their worth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:


Ok number 1, this is my last response to you so I’m going to make it count and be clear as mud. 
 

local revenue is not limited to tickets and concession sales. Local broadcasting via radio, sponsorships and pro shop for the entire year is lumped into that, and is as much as tickets and concessions on that front. I know the value that those things bring to the city of Indy and that the Irsay’s are big on that. I get it. It’s a big deal to them, or they at least say it is for political purposes here. Who knows. It doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t make a big difference in the value of their franchise. Because as long as the NFL keeps growing as a whole, so does the value of the Indianapolis Colts. 

I’m going to use the Cincinnati Bengals as an example. Their attendance dropped from 77.5% attendance or a little under 51k per game in 2017 to 72 percent or a little over 47k per game. That’s pretty drastic according to you and should be detrimental to their organization. Except Forbe’s says their value increased by 11% last year. 
 

How could it be that the Bengals and the Colts, among others, have seen decreased attendance but their value more than doubled in the last 6 years? Because you put more weight into game day attendance and sales than is actual, which is my whole point of fans putting too much weight into their worth. 

You still don't get it. What you are describing above is valuation, not revenue. And every single team's valuation is going up. And it's really not about revenue either. It's about happy fan bases/cities. And happy fan bases go to games and spend more money. And winning makes people happy, and happy fans go to games.

 

But OK, let's talk valuation....  Indianapolis has a bigger population than Boston by almost 200M. And a slightly bigger stadium. NE is at ~100% attendance while we're ~97%. So valuation shouldn't be that much different, right?  The Colts are valuated at 2.65B (20th). The Pats are valuated at 4.1B (2nd). What's the difference? Winning and happy fanbase.

 

In short, it's about a lot more than TV viewership, because that's all shared equally. It's the other stuff that differentiates a franchise. If fans aren't happy, they don't go to games. If fans aren't happy, they don't buy Directv packages, merch, etc.. Game attendance correlates to happy fans and in turn revenue and valuation. That's why the Cinci is near the bottom. Ya think Irsay wants to be more like the Bengals at 30, or the Pats at 2? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

You still don't get it. What you are describing above is valuation, not revenue. And every single team's valuation is going up. And it's really not about revenue either. It's about happy fan bases/cities. And happy fan bases go to games and spend more money. And winning makes people happy, and happy fans go to games.

 

But OK, let's talk valuation....  Indianapolis has a bigger population than Boston by almost 200M. And a slightly bigger stadium. NE is at ~100% attendance while we're ~97%. So valuation shouldn't be that much different, right?  The Colts are valuated at 2.65B (20th). The Pats are valuated at 4.1B (2nd). What's the difference? Winning and happy fanbase.

 

In short, it's about a lot more than TV viewership, because that's all shared equally. It's the other stuff that differentiates a franchise. If fans aren't happy, they don't go to games. If fans aren't happy, they don't buy Directv packages, merch, etc.. Game attendance correlates to happy fans and in turn revenue and valuation. That's why the Cinci is near the bottom. Ya think Irsay wants to be more like the Bengals at 30, or the Pats at 2? 


I get it. But their revenues are increasing. Even with decreased attendance. Which is why their value  continues to increase. The fixed shared revenues still have built in increases which more than offset decreases in other operations. you apparently don’t get that.

Everyone wants to be the Pats when it comes to winning. Everyone wants to be the Cowboys when it comes to value... But that isn’t possible is it? Most owners are content continuing the profitability, and seeing their business increase in value, which is happening regardless of what is happening in their stadiums or on their win/loss column. 
 

The Bengals are at the bottom, but they are still worth $2 billion... and 55% plus of that revenue is from the league. And majority of the people with the wealth to acquire a franchise, would love to be in the small circle of NFL ownership. Why wouldn’t they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:


Everyone wants to be the Pats when it comes to winning. Everyone wants to be the Cowboys when it comes to value... But that isn’t possible is it? Most owners are content continuing the profitability, and seeing their business increase in value, which is happening regardless of what is happening in their stadiums or on their win/loss column. 
 

The Bengals are at the bottom, but they are still worth $2 billion... and 55% plus of that revenue is from the league.

So Irsay should be happy being valuated at 20, and the 6th worst revenue, because anything over 2B doesn't matter..... LOL... I'd never buy stock in a business you're running.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

So Irsay should be happy being valuated at 20, and the 6th worst revenue, because anything over 2B doesn't matter..... LOL... I'd never buy stock in a business you're running.


He should be happy with a 10% Annual increase in his business, which is par for the rest of the league. 
 

And you mentioning size of the city of Boston versus Indy shows your ignorance to market demographics... Boston is one aspect of New England which encompasses a market worth a billion dollars versus 300 million for Indy. You tell me to stop spinning the nonsense, when it’s you that is spewing incorrect info to try and prove a point... I’d never offer stock in my company to someone like you, so you don’t have to worry about that... 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:


He should be happy with a 10% Annual increase in his business, which is par for the rest of the league. 
 

And you mentioning size of the city of Boston versus Indy shows your ignorance to market demographics... Boston is one aspect of New England which encompasses a market worth a billion dollars versus 300 million for Indy. You tell me to stop spinning the nonsense, when it’s you that is spewing incorrect info to try and prove a point...

Again, your going back to TV viewership which is shared. Back in the day, the Colts were valuated higher than the Pats. NE back in the late 80s was sold and resold like 3 times and was not a highly valuable team. Both the Pats and Colts were valuated similar in those days and through the 90s IIRC. It was not until the 2000s that they killed it. And in terms of the NE "area", not everyone from NH, Conn, Verm, RI, and Maine are Pats fans. I have a lot of friends and family in the NE are, and most are Giants and Jets fans. The young kids are Pats fans, but why? Winning........

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Again, your going back to TV viewership which is shared. Back in the day, the Colts were valuated higher than the Pats. NE back in the late 80s was sold and resold like 3 times and was not a highly valuable team. Both the Pats and Colts were valuated similar in those days and through the 90s IIRC. It was not until the 2000s that they killed it. And in terms of the NE "area", not everyone from NH, Conn, Verm, RI, and Maine are Pats fans. I have a lot of friends and family in the NE are, and most are Giants and Jets fans. The young kids are Pats fans, but why? Winning........


 

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

But OK, let's talk valuation....  Indianapolis has a bigger population than Boston by almost 200M. And a slightly bigger stadium. NE is at ~100% attendance while we're ~97%. So valuation shouldn't be that much different, right?  The Colts are valuated at 2.65B (20th). The Pats are valuated at 4.1B (2nd). What's the difference? Winning and happy fanbase


You said population in regard to valuation... population in the city of Boston is smaller than Indy, you are correct. But that’s you “spinning” it to act like Boston is a small market, or smaller than Indy in regard to market size... that’s hilarious. Boston’s metro area is twice the size of Indy’s and the CSA (combined statistical area) is over 8 million people versus 2 million for Indianapolis. That’s 4 times the population in their market. 
 

That’s nothing to do with tv. The tv market of NE/Boston is top 10, and is based on homes in the market. 2.3 million plus in Boston market versus 1.05 million in Indianapolis market. That has nothing to do with winning Or a happy fan base. That’s why NY teams are valued higher than small market teams. You thinking Boston is a small market is hilarious.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

You said population in regard to valuation... population in the city of Boston is smaller than Indy, you are correct. But that’s you “spinning” it to act like Boston is a small market, or smaller than Indy in regard to market size... that’s hilarious. Boston’s metro area is twice the size of Indy’s and the CSA (combined statistical area) is over 8 million people versus 2 million for Indianapolis. That’s 4 times the population in their market. 
 

That’s nothing to do with tv. The tv market of NE/Boston is top 10, and is based on homes in the market. 2.3 million plus in Boston market versus 1.05 million in Indianapolis market. That has nothing to do with winning Or a happy fan base. That’s why NY teams are valued higher than small market teams. You thinking Boston is a small market is hilarious.  

Either you're being intentionally disingenuous, or you losing track of your argument. 

You said:

Quote

If fans don’t go to games as much, the tv ratings go through the roof and so does the revenue.

This is false. TV revenue is an equal share based on fixed contract. And in general, when a team loses, both attendance and local ratings suffer. Folks that stay home in the first place lose interest. 

 

You then wanted to compare total metro population to team valuation.

Population always matters (more people to buy), but it doesn't always correlate to valuation. Atlanta's total metro is 5.8M vs Boston's 4.7M. Atlanta's valuation is 2.7B vs NE's 4.1B.... Why isn't ATL's valuation higher if they're bigger? Winning and a winning history. Winning equates to happy fans. Happy fans attend games. Teams with happy fans have  higher valuations.

 

The easiest comparison is two teams in the same city. The Giants and Jets. The Giant's valuation is higher simply because of the winning history. The Giants have stunk it up it lately and the Jets valuation is closing on them, and their attendance has overtaken the Giants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Either you're being intentionally disingenuous, or you losing track of your argument. 

You said:

This is false. TV revenue is an equal share based on fixed contract. And in general, when a team loses, both attendance and local ratings suffer. Folks that stay home in the first place lose interest. 

 

You then wanted to compare total metro population to team valuation.

Population always matters (more people to buy), but it doesn't always correlate to valuation. Atlanta's total metro is 5.8M vs Boston's 4.7M. Atlanta's valuation is 2.7B vs NE's 4.1B.... Why isn't ATL's valuation higher if they're bigger? Winning and a winning history. Winning equates to happy fans. Happy fans attend games. Teams with happy fans have  higher valuations.

 

The easiest comparison is two teams in the same city. The Giants and Jets. The Giant's valuation is higher simply because of the winning history. The Giants have stunk it up it lately and the Jets valuation is closing on them, and their attendance has overtaken the Giants.

Attendance has suffered across the board, but tv ratings have gone up. That was my point. And you keep referring to fixed contracts. They are fixed on multiple platforms but they just signed a major Thursday night contract, and are currently leveraging for their new major contract. It’s the largest revenue source, which is why the franchises continue to increase in value and revenues, even when attendance dips. 2019 saw the worst attendance in the league since 2004. But was 5 percent higher in tv ratings, and everyone had better revenues than the previous year.  The next tv deal will blow everyone’s mind. And yet you are still arguing that revenue from gameday is more important... and using the biggest brand in football (aside from the Cowboys, who prove winning doesn’t matter) as your example. We aren’t and never will be the New England Patriots. We don’t have the market. We won’t win 6 Super Bowls. We will never have a Tom Brady like player again to build the type of brand they have. So it’s an awful example to talk about how winning builds a valuable franchise. We won more than everyone else except them for over a decade and still are 20th in valuation. That’s because of the market. Indianapolis is not New England. The money is not the same. The gate money and disposable income on tickets, merchandise, etc. will never be the same. I feel like we could argue about this stupidity until we both die. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 Super Bowl wins with how many ****.?  

1 hour ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Attendance has suffered across the board, but tv ratings have gone up. That was my point. And you keep referring to fixed contracts. They are fixed on multiple platforms but they just signed a major Thursday night contract, and are currently leveraging for their new major contract. It’s the largest revenue source, which is why the franchises continue to increase in value and revenues, even when attendance dips. 2019 saw the worst attendance in the league since 2004. But was 5 percent higher in tv ratings, and everyone had better revenues than the previous year.  The next tv deal will blow everyone’s mind. And yet you are still arguing that revenue from gameday is more important... and using the biggest brand in football (aside from the Cowboys, who prove winning doesn’t matter) as your example. We aren’t and never will be the New England Patriots. We don’t have the market. We won’t win 6 Super Bowls. We will never have a Tom Brady like player again to build the type of brand they have. So it’s an awful example to talk about how winning builds a valuable franchise. We won more than everyone else except them for over a decade and still are 20th in valuation. That’s because of the market. Indianapolis is not New England. The money is not the same. The gate money and disposable income on tickets, merchandise, etc. will never be the same. I feel like we could argue about this stupidity until we both die. 

 

You are partially correct.  We have not won 6 SB's but our's have no ** attached.  Thing's are looking bleak for the Pats, I think I will stick with my team, win or lose, I can still hold my head up.  "LOVE YOU LONG TIME" Mr. Kraft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

Attendance has suffered across the board, but tv ratings have gone up. That was my point. And you keep referring to fixed contracts. They are fixed on multiple platforms but they just signed a major Thursday night contract, and are currently leveraging for their new major contract. It’s the largest revenue source, which is why the franchises continue to increase in value and revenues, even when attendance dips. 2019 saw the worst attendance in the league since 2004. But was 5 percent higher in tv ratings, and everyone had better revenues than the previous year.  The next tv deal will blow everyone’s mind. And yet you are still arguing that revenue from gameday is more important... and using the biggest brand in football (aside from the Cowboys, who prove winning doesn’t matter) as your example. We aren’t and never will be the New England Patriots. We don’t have the market. We won’t win 6 Super Bowls. We will never have a Tom Brady like player again to build the type of brand they have. So it’s an awful example to talk about how winning builds a valuable franchise. We won more than everyone else except them for over a decade and still are 20th in valuation. That’s because of the market. Indianapolis is not New England. The money is not the same. The gate money and disposable income on tickets, merchandise, etc. will never be the same. I feel like we could argue about this stupidity until we both die. 

I think it has more to do with Bill Belichick than Tom Brady if you want to talk of brands and the winning ways of the Patriots. 

Belichick has proved he could still win games without Brady as a starter for New England. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure credible this is, but its genious! Jacoby was horrible last year. Some of worst QB stats of the decade i think i seen on one podcast. Get off the Jacoby train people!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...