Sources: Commanders boss Snyder claims 'dirt' on NFL owners, Goodell


Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
10,951
Reaction score
2,134
Points
113
From a competitive standpoint, absolutely not. Chicagoland is a Bears town first and foremost,

On the other hand, unlike some other owners in the league, the Bears franchise is the only asset of this scale that the McCaskeys own. They have to manage their cash flow far more carefully than, say, Stan Kroenke or the Glazer estate. Having a second tenant under the right circumstances would greatly help the cash flow.
I just don't see how it possibly hurts anything, from the Bears perspective. They're away those weekends. It puts another NFL team in the stadium those weekends. Chicagoland is a huge, huge area full of transplants who didn't grow up rooting for the Bears. So maybe they'd take to a new team.

Guessing a good deal of people showing up for LA Chargers at SoFi did not grow up in SD and root for Chargers.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
2,894
Points
113
I just don't see how it possibly hurts anything, from the Bears perspective. They're away those weekends. It puts another NFL team in the stadium those weekends. Chicagoland is a huge, huge area full of transplants who didn't grow up rooting for the Bears. So maybe they'd take to a new team.

Guessing a good deal of people showing up for LA Chargers at SoFi did not grow up in SD and root for Chargers.
I think the biggest negative for having a 2nd NFL Team for the Bears is having to fight much harder for Corporate sponsorships, luxury suite holders etc.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
33,938
Reaction score
12,687
Points
113
I think the biggest negative for having a 2nd NFL Team for the Bears is having to fight much harder for Corporate sponsorships, luxury suite holders etc.
This. It's going to be much harder to sell those things and/or they'd have to reduce the prices if you're competing with another team.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
10,951
Reaction score
2,134
Points
113
SoFi suites and areas of the stadium sell to different sponsors, depending if its the Rams or Chargers playing?

Guys ... this isn't rocket science. It could work exactly like it works, right now, today, at SoFi.


If anything, having the ability, as a corporate sponsor, to buy a suite for 17 games a year instead of 8 or 9 is that much better. More dates to give to sales and major clients, rewards to workers, etc. That's how those things go.
 


Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
16,949
Reaction score
8,593
Points
113
What would the Bears be losing? They'd be "letting" the Jags fill up the place on all the weeks that they (Bears) can't play there because they're on the road. If anything, Bears maybe take a cut of ticket sales (not sure if Rams do that for Chargers game).
They'd be losing the chance that some of the people could become Jags fans and then the demand for tickets and jerseys would go down. They would be competing, in Chicago.

It's pretty simple logic, competition drives down prices/profits.

Could the city support another franchise? Probably Would it hurt the Bears? Absolutely.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
2,894
Points
113
I just don't see how it works for LA and NYC but doesn't for Chicago.

That doesn't make me right. It just seems like a thing that could reasonably be done in those 3.


If you count different teams in different stadiums but technically the same market, you also arguably have the Bay Area and Baltimore/DC.
The Bay Area is just 1 NFL Franchise market again, since 2020 when the Raiders moved to Vegas.

Widely speculated the A's will join them.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
10,951
Reaction score
2,134
Points
113
They'd be losing the chance that some of the people could become Jags fans and then the demand for tickets and jerseys would go down. They would be competing, in Chicago.

It's pretty simple logic, competition drives down prices/profits.

Could the city support another franchise? Probably Would it hurt the Bears? Absolutely.
I disagree that competition is bad. It drives you to work harder and innovate more.

I doubt the NFL allows jerseys to be sold at anything other than a standard price and likely don't allow discounts.

The stadium seats 65k, let's say, and the Chicago metro has about 10M people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_metropolitan_area#Population). I have to imagine there are plenty of people who would love to buy Bears tickets, but can't because it's already full. Maybe on a waiting list. This would give then another chance to buy tickets to an NFL team, and would then in no way affect those already buying Bears tickets.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
10,951
Reaction score
2,134
Points
113
Look, it was just for fun. I made it up completely out of thin air. I really doubt it would actually happen.

You guys are saying the same things over, and so am I.


I'm ready to take the loss and move on. Just wanted to have some fun with it, but wasn't trying to piss people off. We can move on
 



Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
16,949
Reaction score
8,593
Points
113
I disagree that competition is bad. It drives you to work harder and innovate more.

I doubt the NFL allows jerseys to be sold at anything other than a standard price and likely don't allow discounts.

The stadium seats 65k, let's say, and the Chicago metro has about 10M people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_metropolitan_area#Population). I have to imagine there are plenty of people who would love to buy Bears tickets, but can't because it's already full. Maybe on a waiting list. This would give then another chance to buy tickets to an NFL team, and would then in no way affect those already buying Bears tickets.
I didn't say competition is bad. I said it if you own a business it drives down your ability to control the market. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's why there are antitrust laws. You're simply disagreeing with math.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
2,894
Points
113
SoFi suites and areas of the stadium sell to different sponsors, depending if its the Rams or Chargers playing?

Guys ... this isn't rocket science. It could work exactly like it works, right now, today, at SoFi.


If anything, having the ability, as a corporate sponsor, to buy a suite for 17 games a year instead of 8 or 9 is that much better. More dates to give to sales and major clients, rewards to workers, etc. That's how those things go.
Look, it was just for fun. I made it up completely out of thin air. I really doubt it would actually happen.

You guys are saying the same things over, and so am I.


I'm ready to take the loss and move on. Just wanted to have some fun with it, but wasn't trying to piss people off. We can move on

Spending about 10 minutes on a Google search I couldn't find out how the Rams/Chargers work the Suites/Game Day revenue. I did find lots of mentions that the Chargers PSL contributions were really underwhelming, which impacted their contribution to the funding of SoFi. This was much to Kroenke's dismay.

What I did find was that the Giants and Jets are completely separate. I assumed it was the same for the Rams/Chargers, but it might not be the case. I think some NBA/NHL franchises do share some of the dough from suites/sponsorships.


While I don't agree with your take, I don't even think you need to take an L. If it tick's people off that's on them. I do not view it as anything more than an interesting "what if conversation".

Without expansion (or minimal expansion say 2 teams) it's virtually no chance. An existing owner would have a much greater financial situation in an untapped market, London, Toronto or San Antonio.

Also take into consideration the other owners. If a 2nd team went to Chicago, the Bears would get the bulk of a Transfer or Expansion Fee, perhaps all. Instead the owners would want their share of the pie.

I think the NFL is set on world domination. If there is expansion to 36 or 40 teams, then heck ya it's not crazy to think Chicago gets a 2nd franchise. In addition to the 3 cities I mentioned, then Frankfurt or Mexico City are in play.

It would be a shame though if Chicago got a 2nd team before St Louis, Oakland or San Diego got a replacement. None of those cities lost their team due to lack of fan support. St Louis was even ready to upgrade to a new facility.
 

Gophers1992

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
1,713
Reaction score
2,122
Points
113
I didn't say competition is bad. I said it if you own a business it drives down your ability to control the market. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's why there are antitrust laws. You're simply disagreeing with math.
First time with this guy?
 




Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
2,894
Points
113
Snyder exploring options for selling the franchise.


My take is there will be a new majority owner by the start of next season. Just my gut feeling.
 

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
6,981
Reaction score
3,499
Points
113
Snyder exploring options for selling the franchise.


My take is there will be a new majority owner by the start of next season. Just my gut feeling.
The NFL wants Robert F Smith very badly to own a team. This may be his time.
 

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
16,949
Reaction score
8,593
Points
113
The NFL wants Robert F Smith very badly to own a team. This may be his time.
Good lord. I'm not disagreeing with you but why would the NFL care?

I hope the owner who offers Snyder the most money gets the team.
 


Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
10,951
Reaction score
2,134
Points
113
I very much doubt, in this day and age, that simply the most money gets it.

"Looks" matter quite a lot to the NFL.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,455
Reaction score
962
Points
113
Might seem like a kumbaya moment for the NFL owners. And Snyder might even actually sell the team. Though the announcement was careful to say " “consider potential transactions"not that he was selling the team.

It also came hours before Congress announces that their investigation into Snyder will continue. Money does make the world go round, but trusting Danny Boy may not be the right thing to do.

In testimony to Congress, former Commanders vice president of sales and customer service Jason Friedman alleged the team had maintained two sets of books, one with its real numbers and one with underreported ticket revenue from NFL games. Franchises are required to turn over 40 percent of their game day revenue to the visiting team, so the practice of hiding such money — allegedly known in the Commanders front office as "juice" — would effectively be stealing money from the NFL's other teams.

Considering Snyder's football fate is ultimately in the hands of his fellow team owners, that is one allegation he will very much not want to stick.

Aside from allegedly hiding ticket revenue and withholding up to $5 million in security deposits from fans, the Commanders are still under investigation by White for a litany of workplace misconduct allegations, including allegations of sexual assault against Snyder
."

 




Top Bottom