Charlie in the Trees
Aug 28 2003, 05:59 PM
I'm surprised San Francisco (#24) and Atlanta (#31) are so low. I'm shocked that Detroit (#11) is so high. Must have something to do with stadium leases, because it certainly isn't ticket and merchandising sales that are getting the Lions up there -- although the gap between #8 (Baltimore) and #19 (Kansas City) is rather small.
No surprise that Arizona is #32. I would've thought that New Orleans (#20), Cincinnati (#27) and Indianapolis (#29) would've been scraping the very bottom right with the Bidwells. You look at the bottom five (San Diego (#28), Indianapolis, Minnesota, Atlanta and Arizona) and it's no wonder that those are the candidates (with the exception of the Falcons) for the next Los Angeles football franchise.
Indy in particular plays in a crappy stadium, in terms of revenue generation, due to the simulataneous lack of luxury skyboxes and a market for luxury skyboxes. I guess it's all those Peytie Manning replica jersey sales that's keeping the Colts in front of Minnesota (tiny tiny stadium), Atlanta and Arizona.
RJ in Huntington
Aug 28 2003, 08:21 PM
The prices of the football team must include the stadium that they play in also. Like it stated in the article, Snyder bought the Redskins and the stadium for $800 million. I wish that the article had disclosed on how the prices were calculated.