Saxum Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/san-diego-chargers-los-angeles-move-relocation-011217 On 49ers: The seat licenses earned the 49ers $530 million. The team also sold out their full allotment of luxury boxes, worth $400 million. That’s close to a billion dollar payday, and we’re not even accounting for the increase in corporate sponsorships, parking costs (it adds up), in-stadium revenue, and the estimated $77 million annually from the actual sale of tickets (chump change). In all, the 49ers were able to pay off their share of their new stadium and massively profit before the team even took the field. Revenue jumped 160 percent, to $427 million, between 2013, the team’s last year in Candlestick Park, to 2014, the first year in Levi’s Stadium. The value of the 49ers franchise increased by nearly 70 percent ($1.6 billion to $2.7 billion) year-over-year as well, all because of the new digs. It was a total coup. The team didn’t even have to leave the Bay Area. Author lost me here - plenty went to games No one went to Rams games in L.A. — so who is going attend a Chargers game in L.A.? Remember how they used to say no team in LA was good for NFL for it made it easier for LA stations to choose game to show which would generate highest revenue? Things have changed. The Rams and Chargers are going to make more money with no one in the stands in Los Angeles than they ever could with full houses in the old stadiums of St. Louis and San Diego. Buffalo is not even a mid-level market and no Toronto and Southern Ontario does not count: The NFL is the most transparent of all the professional sports leagues when it comes to showing their true allegiances — the league has been part of at least half a dozen schemes to get cities and states to build new stadiums. It’s not because the stadiums really needed upgrades — although some certainly deserved to be condemned — it’s because of the money that a new stadium brings to team owners. A rising tide lifts all ships, and the Chargers were pulling down the league by being in a mid-level market with an antiquated stadium. The article writer conveniently left out that there is a rule about owning major franchises in different cities (evidently it does not apply to UK soccer team) but I suppose the Pegulas could each own a franchise (one Sabres, one Bills) and get around rule. The Chargers’ move will also allow the NFL to focus its attention on landing the Raiders a new stadium, whether that be in Oakland, Las Vegas, Mexico City, London, San Antonio, or Boise. Someone will cough up the cash necessary to house the Raiders, and that franchise’s value will balloon as well. Another win for the NFL, which could then help the Buffalo Bills threaten to move to Toronto or San Antonio or Shanghai — whatever city will build a new stadium for free and allow the team to keep the billions the new digs will make them. Build the stadium — it doesn’t matter whether they actually come. The NFL really doesn’t need people in the stands for anything but optics. Fan money doesn’t add up, corporate dollars do — and with the way the NFL and its teams do business, that corporate cash is going to be rolling in for decades. How does the Dallas Bills sound to you? Jerry rents out the stadium to the Pegulas like the deal the Rams are giving the Chargers with the Bills being able to sell PSLs, etc.
Mr. WEO Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 PSL's are a one time charge. If those and the sale of boxes all went/go to debt service, how does that count as "increased revenue" annually?
Recommended Posts