Forbes: Cowboys have NFL's most valuable team; Redskins No. 2

[tr1]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/082610dnspocowforbesvalue.8d2199f0.html

The Dallas Cowboys have the NFL's most valuable franchise, according to a study by Forbes.com. And with the growth the franchise is showing, becoming the world's most valuable franchise is certainly within reach.

The Cowboys' value increased a league high 9% from last year's study to league-best $1.8 billion. This is an impressive number in any context, but is especially significant given the current economic climate on the NFL. According to the report, "team values fell 2% last season to an average of $1.02 billion, the first decline since Forbes began tracking the league's finances in 1998, with 21 of the league's 32 teams seeing their worths drop."

The Cowboys sold out every regular season game with the NFL's highest average ticket price ($160). The Cowboys are worth more than any other sports franchise in the world not named Manchester United, which has a slight lead with a value at $1.84 billion, according to the report.

Which teams are giving the Cowboys the closest competition for top spot on the list? Coincidentally enough, many of them are the teams the Cowboys compete with the most on the field. Three of the next six teams are franchises that the Cowboys face twice a year in division play. The Washington Redskins come in at No. 2. Their value trails the Cowboys by about $200 million ($1.6 billion).

The New York Giants came in at No. 4 ($1.2 billion) and the Philadelphia Eagles were No. 7 ($1.1 billion).

[tr1]

Only in America does a decade of failure get rewarded royally.

[TonyRomoProBowl]

Only in America does a decade of failure get rewarded royally.

i know, how the hell can the Skins be #2.....holy hell.......Snyder is one hellova salesman!

[tr1]

i know, how the hell can the Skins be #2.....holy hell.......Snyder is one hellova salesman!

Not as good a salesman as that owner of the most over-hyped, under-achieving and over-paid group he owns.

I mean, after all, they've only beaten the Eagles in the last decade to escape the all time one-and-done NFL record for playoff losses.

That's quite the achievement.

:ols:

[fsunoles0021]

Only in America does a decade of failure get rewarded royally.

I hear ya.

It's amazing when you consider the Redskins were 70-90 in the past decade with a measly 2 playoff appearances. Well done Snyder.

[tr1]

I hear ya.

It's amazing when you consider the Redskins were 70-90 in the past decade with a measly 2 playoff appearances. Well done Snyder.

Even more amazing is that in a span of over a decade, the pukes have only produced on playoff game against a team in its own division.

Forget the AFC, the pukes can't manage to beat anyone outside of the NFCE when it counts.

Too funny.

:ols:

[fsunoles0021]

Even more amazing is that in a span of over a decade, the pukes have only produced on playoff game against a team in its own division.

Forget the AFC, the pukes can't manage to beat anyone outside of the NFCE when it counts.

Too funny.

:ols:

The Skins also have won only a single playoff game. It's a lot tougher to beat a division team in the playoffs, especially when you're going for the sweep. It makes it even tougher when you predicted that the Eagles would go to the Superbowl before they got housed by the Cowboys in back to back weeks.

[Skin'Em84]

The Skins also have won only a single playoff game. It's a lot tougher to beat a division team in the playoffs, especially when you're going for the sweep. It makes it even tougher when you predicted that the Eagles would go to the Superbowl before they got housed by the Cowboys in back to back weeks.

Yea..well..Cowboys suck. Take that.

[tr1]

The Skins also have won only a single playoff game. It's a lot tougher to beat a division team in the playoffs, especially when you're going for the sweep. It makes it even tougher when you predicted that the Eagles would go to the Superbowl before they got housed by the Cowboys in back to back weeks.

The Eagles being decimated by injuries is hard to predict.

That the pukes beat an injury-decimated team, well, what are the odds?

:ols:

That the pukes didn't even put up a decent game against Minny just shows you how weak your team is outside of the division.

[fsunoles0021]

The Eagles being decimated by injuries is hard to predict.

That the pukes beat an injury-decimated team, well, what are the odds?

:ols:

That the pukes didn't even put up a decent game against Minny just shows you how weak your team is outside of the division.

That argument is so pathetic, it's not even worth responding to. New low.

[tr1]

That argument is so pathetic, it's not even worth responding to. New low.

I didn't expect a response.

The truth stings, eh?

:ols:

[fsunoles0021]

I didn't expect a response.

The truth stings, eh?

:ols:

Lame to say the least.

[Boss_Hogg]

'Decade of failure?' perhaps. However like another poster said, our beloved redskins have had a decade of FAIL too and we are still #2.

However the real reason for the CowTurd value is the diarrhea coverage and love from the Turd fanboys at ESPN, NFL Network, and Joe Buck. The Turds have great marketing power with the major sports networks predicting a SB win for them every year.

[zoony]

It would seem to me that the overall value of a franchise tells very little of the story.

It's almost entirely driven by the cost of your stadium. Teams that don't own their own stadium don't even show up on the radar.

But is the overall value number net or gross? If you build a $10 billion stadium and finance the entire thing, is your franchise worth $10 billion, despite the fact that you are $10 billion in debt?

I would be curious which teams have the most cash flow, ROI, and healthiest balance sheets. Total value seems almost irrelevant.

[Califan007]

It would seem to me that the overall value of a franchise tells very little of the story.

It's almost entirely driven by the cost of your stadium. Teams that don't own their own stadium don't even show up on the radar.

But is the overall value number net or gross? If you build a $10 billion stadium and finance the entire thing, is your franchise worth $10 billion, despite the fact that you are $10 billion in debt?

I would be curious which teams have the most cash flow, ROI, and healthiest balance sheets. Total value seems almost irrelevant.
Excellent points :yes:...

[coolbeans]

It would seem to me that the overall value of a franchise tells very little of the story.

It's almost entirely driven by the cost of your stadium. Teams that don't own their own stadium don't even show up on the radar.

But is the overall value number net or gross? If you build a $10 billion stadium and finance the entire thing, is your franchise worth $10 billion, despite the fact that you are $10 billion in debt?

I would be curious which teams have the most cash flow, ROI, and healthiest balance sheets. Total value seems almost irrelevant.


Well here's a link to the report with all the info you could probably want. Those last 3 columns are fairly interesting. Looks like Jerry is no longer broke and that low debt ratio must mean he has paid much of the stadium off already, even without a naming rights deal.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

[zoony]

Well here's a link to the report with all the info you could probably want. Those last 3 columns are fairly interesting. Looks like Jerry is no longer broke and that low debt ratio must mean he has paid much of the stadium off already, even without a naming rights deal.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html


That is an interesting link. Especially the Patriots- what in the world are they in so much debt for?

Color me a bit skeptical, though. I don't see how it's possible to build xanadu and have one of the healthiest debt ratios the very next year.

[Tweedr01]

The Skins also have won only a single playoff game. It's a lot tougher to beat a division team in the playoffs, especially when you're going for the sweep. It makes it even tougher when you predicted that the Eagles would go to the Superbowl before they got housed by the Cowboys in back to back weeks.

Uh try again, we have two, so in the decade of fail we win over you.

P.S. This is about the puke fail of having the most valuable team, and still being a failure, what the Skins do has no bearing on this, please stay on topic or get out.


Yea..well..Cowboys suck. Take that.

The truth sir!


I didn't expect a response.

The truth stings, eh?

:ols:

No wonder they disappear at the end of the year, lol


That is an interesting link. Especially the Patriots- what in the world are they in so much debt for?

Color me a bit skeptical, though. I don't see how it's possible to build xanadu and have one of the healthiest debt ratios the very next year.

Spy equipment is expensive zoony

[fsunoles0021]

Uh try again, we have two, so in the decade of fail we win over you.

P.S. This is about the puke fail of having the most valuable team, and still being a failure, what the Skins do has no bearing on this, please stay on topic or get out.



hahaha. Try again sir. The Redskins have 1 playoff win last decade against the Buccaneers in 2005. You don't even know your own team, so you probably shouldn't comment on the Cowboys either...

[coolbeans]

That is an interesting link. Especially the Patriots- what in the world are they in so much debt for?

Color me a bit skeptical, though. I don't see how it's possible to build xanadu and have one of the healthiest debt ratios the very next year.

To be honest, I am a little skeptical of the debt ratio for the Cowboys as well. It says the debt ratio includes stadium debt so if the team is worth $1.8 billion and their debt ratio is 11%, that means Jerry only owes $200 million on the stadium. I was not aware that he has already paid off as much as $1 billion. Thats surprising if true. I know he got money from the NFL and the city but that still leaves about $400-500 million that supposedly is already paid off. Imagine the cash flow after he pays off the stadium and gets a naming deal?

[Tweedr01]

hahaha. Try again sir. The Redskins have 1 playoff win last decade against the Buccaneers in 2005. You don't even know your own team, so you probably shouldn't comment on the Cowboys either...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH, you sir are incompetent. The Redskins won January 8, 2000, which would make it the 1999 - 2000 season, which would still be within the decade of last year, being that it was the 2009 - 2010 season since the 2010 - 2011 season has not even begun. You fail, of this there is no doubt. You don't even know the topic at hand, so you probably shouldn't comment on anything, period.

Again, please stay on topic. This thread is about the Cowboys fail, how the Redskins did or did not do has no bearing.

[63echo]

Again, please stay on topic. This thread is about the Cowboys fail, how the Redskins did or did not do has no bearing.

I'm sorry, but you keep on saying this. Doesn't the fact that this thread is titled "Cowboys have NFL's most valuable team; Redskins No. 2" invite comparisons between the two? Maybe this should be over in The Stadium?

[fsunoles0021]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH, you sir are incompetent. The Redskins won January 8, 2000, which would make it the 1999 - 2000 season, which would still be within the decade of last year, being that it was the 2009 - 2010 season since the 2010 - 2011 season has not even begun. You fail, of this there is no doubt. You don't even know the topic at hand, so you probably shouldn't comment on anything, period.

Again, please stay on topic. This thread is about the Cowboys fail, how the Redskins did or did not do has no bearing.

hahahaha the last decade's worth of seasons would be 2000-2009. The 1999 season does not fall in that category. Whether the game was played in January makes no difference, it was the 1999 season. If we were to count that season, we would have to say the past 11 years.

Awful attempt at squeezing in a playoff win on a bogus technicality that doesn't even make sense.

[coolbeans]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH, you sir are incompetent. The Redskins won January 8, 2000, which would make it the 1999 - 2000 season, which would still be within the decade of last year, being that it was the 2009 - 2010 season since the 2010 - 2011 season has not even begun. You fail, of this there is no doubt. You don't even know the topic at hand, so you probably shouldn't comment on anything, period.

Again, please stay on topic. This thread is about the Cowboys fail, how the Redskins did or did not do has no bearing.


I think you need to do the math again. The last 10 NFL seasons(decade) include the 00-01 season through the 09-10 season. The 99-00 season would be 11 seasons ago meaning it was not within the past decade.

[fsunoles0021]

Again, please stay on topic. This thread is about the Cowboys fail, how the Redskins did or did not do has no bearing.

Huh? This thread is about the net worth of NFL teams. Reading comprehension...

[Tweedr01]

hahahaha the last decade's worth of seasons would be 2000-2009. The 1999 season does not fall in that category. Whether the game was played in January makes no difference, it was the 1999 season. If we were to count that season, we would have to say the past 11 years.

Awful attempt at squeezing in a playoff win on a bogus technicality that doesn't even make sense.

Boo hoo, its within the past decade, don't cry about it because its true. If you want to argue semantics go find DOTS, I'm sure he can help.

http://www.qwantz.com/fanart/qwantz-semantics.png

[Tweedr01]

I think you need to do the math again. The last 10 NFL seasons(decade) include the 00-01 season through the 09-10 season. The 99-00 season would be 11 seasons ago meaning it was not within the past decade.

Didn't mean to word it that way, it's within the past 'decade', so its within the last 10 years.

[Ken]

Only in America does a decade of failure get rewarded royally.

Yeah really.

How does a 4-12 team last year and noting winning a super bowl in 19 years get rewarded with 2nd place?

Totally sqewed if you ask me...:ols:

[Califan007]

I think you need to do the math again. The last 10 NFL seasons(decade) include the 00-01 season through the 09-10 season. The 99-00 season would be 11 seasons ago meaning it was not within the past decade.
Actually Tweed was right...whenever we talked about the Cowboys' playoff futility lasting "X" amount of years, we started from the date of their last playoff win, regardless of what season it was a part of. So in the decade of 2000-2009, the Skins do have 2 playoff wins.

[Tweedr01]

Actually Tweed was right...whenever we talked about the Cowboys' playoff futility lasting "X" amount of years, we started from the date of their last playoff win, regardless of what season it was a part of. So in the decade of 2000-2009, the Skins do have 2 playoff wins.

Thank you sir!:beavisnbutthead:

[fsunoles0021]

Didn't mean to word it that way, it's within the past 'decade', so its within the last 10 years.

You're the one playing semantics man. Come on. Trying to throw in an additional playoff win.

[fsunoles0021]

Actually Tweed was right...whenever we talked about the Cowboys' playoff futility lasting "X" amount of years, we started from the date of their last playoff win, regardless of what season it was a part of. So in the decade of 2000-2009, the Skins do have 2 playoff wins.

I always knew of the Cowboys' drought being counted from the 1996 season. So it had been 12 seasons of 0 playoff wins.

[brianm23]

i know, how the hell can the Skins be #2.....holy hell.......Snyder is one hellova salesman!


Not as good a salesman as that owner of the most over-hyped, under-achieving and over-paid group he owns.

Crap tr1, you are going to make me defend those bastards (sort of). At least Jerry Jones has won 3 Super Bowls (not from his doing) since he took over the Cowboys, which is more than we can say for our owner. :(

Both of them are smart businessmen, but the problem is that both of them "think" they know football and talent. Truth of the matter is that both have huge egos and feel like they can be just as successful being a NFL GM/Owner as they were in their previous business endeavors. Hopefully one of the two got the message and backed away into the Owners box to be seen and not heard. The other one however continues to think he's a good GM. He's not.

Truthfully, as a Skins fan, I have to thank JJ everyday for being a dumbass. On two occasions now, he ran off the best things that Dallas has ever had. First it was Jimmy Johnson, second it was Bill Parcells. I would actually fear the Cowboys if Parcells were on the sideline right now, and if it wasn't for Jerry's huge ego, Johnson (or Parcells) would most likely still be around. (winning of course)


I find this funny. Only 3 owners in the NFL also hold the title of GM. Al Davis (raiders), Mike Brown (bengals), and Jerry Jones (cowboys) and look at the turmoil each of those franchises are in. Yes cowboy fans, when you are stacked the way the cowboys are and continue to lose playoff games, it's turmoil.

I need a shower after that.

[Tweedr01]

You're the one playing semantics man. Come on. Trying to throw in an additional playoff win.

And the pot called the kettle black, and the kettle did not care....because the pot is a puke fan, lol. Lighten up Francis, you mad cuz I'm right?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mfl/lowres/mfln130l.jpg

[pjfootballer]

Truthfully, as a Skins fan, I have to thank JJ everyday for being a dumbass. On two occasions now, he ran off the best things that Dallas has ever had. First it was Jimmy Johnson, second it was Bill Parcells. I would actually fear the Cowboys if Parcells were on the sideline right now, and if it wasn't for Jerry's huge ego, Johnson (or Parcells) would most likely still be around. (winning of course)


I doubt that Johnson would be the head coach today, but with the team he built, he would have won at least 2 more SB's (including the Switzer led one) for a total of about 5 that decade. Johnson would be in his 21st season as head coach. Only Fisher is close to that in Tenneesee. Thank god he had a fight and hired a bunch of lame asses.

[Ken]

Crap tr1, you are going to make me defend those bastards (sort of). At least Jerry Jones has won 3 Super Bowls (not from his doing) since he took over the Cowboys, which is more than we can say for our owner. :(

Both of them are smart businessmen, but the problem is that both of them "think" they know football and talent. Truth of the matter is that both have huge egos and feel like they can be just as successful being a NFL GM/Owner as they were in their previous business endeavors. Hopefully one of the two got the message and backed away into the Owners box to be seen and not heard. The other one however continues to think he's a good GM. He's not.

Truthfully, as a Skins fan, I have to thank JJ everyday for being a dumbass. On two occasions now, he ran off the best things that Dallas has ever had. First it was Jimmy Johnson, second it was Bill Parcells. I would actually fear the Cowboys if Parcells were on the sideline right now, and if it wasn't for Jerry's huge ego, Johnson (or Parcells) would most likely still be around. (winning of course)


I find this funny. Only 3 owners in the NFL also hold the title of GM. Al Davis (raiders), Mike Brown (bengals), and Jerry Jones (cowboys) and look at the turmoil each of those franchises are in. Yes cowboy fans, when you are stacked the way the cowboys are and continue to lose playoff games, it's turmoil.

I need a shower after that.
Hmmm...

The Raiders I agree with, the Bengals though, are poised to have a good year. Where is this turmoil you speak of?

The Cowboys are picked by everyone in the media to win the Super Bowl and are widely considered to have one of the most talented rosters in the league. What are you talking about?

Both Parcells and Johnson have been out of coaching for some time, why do you think they would somehow still be coaching the Cowboys if JJ wasn't still here? It is a ludicrous assertion.

[SkinZ187]

lol...you guys are debating who has the better pinto. gotta love ATN. :beavisnbutthead:

[EnFoRcEr_uPu]

I'm a Redskins fan through and through, but if there is going to be a pissing contest around here, don't you think the Giants win that hands-down?

[Tweedr01]

I'm a Redskins fan through and through, but if there is going to be a pissing contest around here, don't you think the Giants win that hands-down?

Nah, they were lucky to catch up with us a few years back, congrats to them, lol ;)

[Ken]

I'm a Redskins fan through and through, but if there is going to be a pissing contest around here, don't you think the Giants win that hands-down?

We are talking about net value and the Giants are not in competition for that. Sure, they have been more successful but they aren't worth anything because they have a timeshare with the Jets.

[Califan007]

I always knew of the Cowboys' drought being counted from the 1996 season. So it had been 12 seasons of 0 playoff wins.

Nope, we always talked about it in terms of years...the Cowboys' last playoff win had been in 1996. Their next playoff win occurred in 2010. Sounds worse that way, doesn't it? lol ;)...But it's also technically correct if someone said "In 13 years the Cowboys never once won a playoff game." (which also sounds worse lol)

[coolbeans]

Only here does the last decade include the past 11 NFL seasons!:ols::ols::ols:

Gotta love this place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tweedr01]

Only here does the last decade include the past 11 NFL seasons!:ols::ols::ols:

Gotta love this place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


there's the door!
:ciao:

[coolbeans]

there's the door!
:ciao:


The truth stings when you on the wrong side of it, huh?:ols:

[fsunoles0021]

Nope, we always talked about it in terms of years...the Cowboys' last playoff win had been in 1996. Their next playoff win occurred in 2010. Sounds worse that way, doesn't it? lol ;)...But it's also technically correct if someone said "In 13 years the Cowboys never once won a playoff game." (which also sounds worse lol)

Fair enough. I prefer to look at it by seasons, but to each his own. Although, I do think Tweed citing the 99 season is inaccurate here. We were talking about the last 10 seasons.

[JustAfan47]

The Eagles being decimated by injuries is hard to predict.

That the pukes beat an injury-decimated team, well, what are the odds?

:ols:

That the pukes didn't even put up a decent game against Minny just shows you how weak your team is outside of the division.

Brooking is still crying about that game... :ols:

[blue collar]

Only in America does a decade of failure get rewarded royally.

Tr1,

The Skins are #2.

[Tweedr01]

The truth stings when you on the wrong side of it, huh?:ols:

what? yeah you got me, man you sure are coolhttp://jerseymike.org/wp-content/uploads/internet-hi-five.jpg

[brianm23]

The Raiders I agree with, the Bengals though, are poised to have a good year. Where is this turmoil you speak of?

Wait? They are poised to have a good year? One out of how many? Twenty? The sun shines on a dog's ass once in a while, so that doesn't mean they aren't still in turmoil. Why you say? Because the root of the problems are still there (Their GMs/Owners) Of the three, Jerry is the better of them.



The Cowboys are picked by everyone in the media to win the Super Bowl and are widely considered to have one of the most talented rosters in the league. What are you talking about?

They've been picked for the Super Bowl for years now, and still can't even get to the NFC championship, nevertheless the super bowl. Have you noticed that the Cowboys do exceptionally well when other people are running it?(johnson/parcells) Hence the turmoil I'm referring to. That time from when Johnson left to when Parcells picked up the reigns was pretty bleak for the Boys.


Both Parcells and Johnson have been out of coaching for some time, why do you think they would somehow still be coaching the Cowboys if JJ wasn't still here? It is a ludicrous assertion.

Ludicrous maybe, but we don't know how things might have turned out if it weren't for Jerry and his ego. Jimmy might have still been coaching, and so might have Parcells. Neither one of them wanted to deal with Jerry's meddling in the front office. I guess we'll never know thankfully. ;) Jerry firing Jimmy would have been the equivalent of JKC firing Joe Gibbs so if Jimmy left coaching, it would have been on his own terms had it not been for dumbass . (hell he's only 67 :silly: ) I feel as if one of the two would still be coaching.

[doncherry]

Wait? They are poised to have a good year? One out of how many? Twenty? The sun shines on a dog's ass once in a while, so that doesn't mean they aren't still in turmoil. Why you say? Because the root of the problems are still there (Their GMs/Owners) Of the three, Jerry is the better of them.




They've been picked for the Super Bowl for years now, and still can't even get to the NFC championship, nevertheless the super bowl. Have you noticed that the Cowboys do exceptionally well when other people are running it?(johnson/parcells) Hence the turmoil I'm referring to. That time from when Johnson left to when Parcells picked up the reigns was pretty bleak for the Boys.



Ludicrous maybe, but we don't know how things might have turned out if it weren't for Jerry and his ego. Jimmy might have still been coaching, and so might have Parcells. Neither one of them wanted to deal with Jerry's meddling in the front office. I guess we'll never know thankfully. ;) Jerry firing Jimmy would have been the equivalent of JKC firing Joe Gibbs so if Jimmy left coaching, it would have been on his own terms had it not been for dumbass . (hell he's only 67 :silly: ) I feel as if one of the two would still be coaching.

Anybody who knows anything about Jimmy Johnson knows that there is no way he would still be in Dallas. He never spent more than 5 years as a head coach anywhere, he has come out and said as much in numerous interviews. I agree, he left early and for that Jerry is responsible, at least partly. But so is Jimmy.

[ExoDus84]

Hmmm...

The Raiders I agree with, the Bengals though, are poised to have a good year. Where is this turmoil you speak of?

The Cowboys are picked by everyone in the media to win the Super Bowl and are widely considered to have one of the most talented rosters in the league. What are you talking about?

Both Parcells and Johnson have been out of coaching for some time, why do you think they would somehow still be coaching the Cowboys if JJ wasn't still here? It is a ludicrous assertion.

The brokebacks are picked to win the superbowl every year in recent memory. How's that worked out for you?

[jnhay]

I would be curious which teams have the most cash flow, ROI, and healthiest balance sheets. Total value seems almost irrelevant.
The Redskins had easily the highest operating income in the 2009 report. Dallas was 4th to last in 2009, and 10th in 2008. Go back to 2005, and the Cowboys edged out the Redskins only slightly for the number 1 spot. I think the Redskins have been #1 ever since.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income.html

[No_Pressure]

The new Cowboys stadium puts them ahead of the Redskins in franchise value, but thats just looking at it from an assets standpoint. When you figure in the fact that Jerry Jones doesn't own his stadium outright and it isn't paid off and Dan Snyder does and FedEx Field is paid for it probably puts us back on top or something. I don't know how much revenue the Redskins bring in but it must be a lot.

These types of things aren't important though, a franchise in the end is worth whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay for it, and I know we all have pride in our teams and love to be the best at everything, but when both teams have missed even a trip to the championship game for the past what...15 and 19 years respectively, it isn't really a good thing to brag that one team is worth more than the other. In fact, as fans one could even say it reflects poorly on us as we're stupid enough to keep forking over more money than anybody else out there for a continually lackluster result. Still, some would say it is an indicator of fan dedication and is a good thing.

Whatever you believe, being the richest team in the league or the most valuable or whatever is pointless. My final thought is simply this: Even though things aren't as intense in the Dallas-DC rivalry (though they are finally heating up again a little bit), we can certainly agree that it is a profitable one for both franchises and thats something that both fan bases can be happy about...or angry about...or whatever, who cares?

[coolbeans]

The Redskins had easily the highest operating income in the 2009 report. Dallas was 4th to last in 2009, and 10th in 2008. Go back to 2005, and the Cowboys edged out the Redskins only slightly for the number 1 spot. I think the Redskins have been #1 ever since.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income.html


That list is for the 2008/09 season when all of Jerry's income was going into the stadium. The link I provided earlier is for the 2009/10 season in which the cowboys dwarf every team, including the skins, in every category. That new stadium is the mother of all cash cows.

Here it is again in case you missed it. Read the little paragraph under the chart for clarification.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

[jnhay]

That list is for the 2008/09 season when all of Jerry's income was going into the stadium. The link I provided earlier is for the 2009/10 season in which the cowboys dwarf every team, including the skins, in every category. That new stadium is the mother of all cash cows.

Here it is again in case you missed it. Read the little paragraph under the chart for clarification.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html
Thanks. I only found a bunch of articles relating to the 2010 report, but not the report itself. That makes a lot more sense considering how massive that stadium is.

[Switchgear]

That list is for the 2008/09 season when all of Jerry's income was going into the stadium. The link I provided earlier is for the 2009/10 season in which the cowboys dwarf every team, including the skins, in every category. That new stadium is the mother of all cash cows.

Here it is again in case you missed it. Read the little paragraph under the chart for clarification.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

So your owner screws over the fanbase better than our owner. Congratulations.

[ArmchairRedskin]

Who paid for the new Meadowlands? Is it the Giants owner or is that a city owned deal? Do the Jets own any part of it? What's the deal?

[Califan007]

Only here does the last decade include the past 11 NFL seasons!:ols::ols::ols:

Gotta love this place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only in Cowboys fans' minds does a playoff win that occurred in 2000 not count as a playoff win that occurred during the last decade! :ols: :ols: :ols:

Gotta love those 'Boys fans!!!!!!!!!!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

That is an interesting link. Especially the Patriots- what in the world are they in so much debt for?

Kraft has been trying to build some kind of entertainment/retail/studio complex next to the stadium for years. I wonder if he's acquired a lot of debt in the process.


Color me a bit skeptical, though. I don't see how it's possible to build xanadu and have one of the healthiest debt ratios the very next year.

It's probably not entirely accurate, but Jerry got $350 million from Arlington and $150 million from the NFL. So, that's $800 million that he financed.

That's basically what Snyder paid for the Skins. And - at least according to Wikipedia - Snyder pays $50 million a year on that loan. The Skins' debt is 15 percent and the Cowboys is 11 percent.

Considering that Jerry has already turned that place into an absolute money making machine - Big 12 title game, NBA all-star game, Cotton Bowl, NBA All-Star game, Paul McCartney, U2, George Strait with a Super Bowl and Final Four to come - he may have been able to make a large lump payment at some point. He also may have a better rate.

What I don't get is how he is at 11 percent and the Giants are at 55 percent while the Jets are at 66 percent. Where their deals that ****ty?

On Edit: I just did the math. There is no way that the Cowboys only have $200 million in debt. I wonder if the "debt" is the interest payments on the stadium. That would make sense. And maybe the Jets and Giants are calculated with the principal.

Anyway, the question is: If Jerry or Danny wanted to sell, who could possibly buy? Seriously, how are you going to finance a $1.8 billion purchase in 2010? There was some discussion about this on the Yankees a while ago. Basically, the only entity rich enough to buy the Yankees was the Yankees.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Who paid for the new Meadowlands? Is it the Giants owner or is that a city owned deal? Do the Jets own any part of it? What's the deal?

It's a 50-50 partnership for the Jets and Giants. (Old Giants Stadium was the Giants' place with the Jets basically renting the joint).

I don't know as much about it as I do Jerry World, but it looks like it was financed almost entirely by private funds.

[brianm23]

When you figure in the fact that Jerry Jones doesn't own his stadium outright and it isn't paid off and Dan Snyder does and FedEx Field is paid for it probably puts us back on top or something.

I thought that he is the sole owner of the new stadium (still being financed through various of loans/investors) it's just hasn't been paid for quite yet. I vary well could be wrong on this and it is the City of Arlington's stadium.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_Stadium

Seems he had to scrape up some extra dough from peeps to pay for the extra costs to the stadium. A loan from the NFL? really?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Last I checked, FedEx is not "paid off." I don't think it will ever be "paid off." It's not a Chevy Malibu. Though maybe on paper it is.

But Dan Snyder did not have $800 million in the bank when he bought the team. He's been paying off various partners over the years. I think he owns the team entirely now, but I'm not sure.

If I had to guess, I would think that in the next ten years, Dan Snyder's hedge fund will actually buy the team from Dan Snyder.

[Ken]

Only in Cowboys fans' minds does a playoff win that occurred in 2000 not count as a playoff win that occurred during the last decade! :ols: :ols: :ols:

Gotta love those 'Boys fans!!!!!!!!!!

Only in a skins fan mind does a playoff win in the 1999 season count in both the 1999 season and 2000 season.

At least, this is how you are trying to portray it....lol.

[darklight1216]

As much as I hate them, I'd love to see the Cowboys topple Manchester United.

The Skins also have won only a single playoff game. It's a lot tougher to beat a division team in the playoffs, especially when you're going for the sweep. It makes it even tougher when you predicted that the Eagles would go to the Superbowl before they got housed by the Cowboys in back to back weeks.
I don't know the stats on all divisional playoff game, but teams that have beaten rivals twice in the regular season usually beat them a third time if they meet in the post-season. It's something like 11-7, but I'd have to look up the exact stat.

[Califan007]

Only in a skins fan mind does a playoff win in the 1999 season count in both the 1999 season and 2000 season.

At least, this is how you are trying to portray it....lol.

Here's a fun thing to try, Ken...point out where I said the playoff win in 2000 counts as a playoff win for the 2000 season. It should keep you busy and entertained for hours looking for it :yes:...

[brianm23]

Here's a fun thing to try, Ken...point out where I said the playoff win in 2000 counts as a playoff win for the 2000 season. It should keep you busy and entertained for hours looking for it :yes:...


http://www.anrichvets.co.uk/images/sce/big_headed_tiny_dog_chasing_tail_lg_nwm.gif

[Califan007]

^^^ :ols:

Somebody photoshop a dog tag on him with the name "ken" on it, please :D...

[jnhay]

Here's a fun thing to try, Ken...point out where I said the playoff win in 2000 counts as a playoff win for the 2000 season. It should keep you busy and entertained for hours looking for it :yes:...

I really hate to say this, but considering it's August 2010, the playoff win in 2000 isn't within a decade of today's date. If it was the 2000 season, you'd be correct. So it looks like you and Ken are both wrong.

EDIT: Hold up. You were right Califan (only wrong to say "in the last decade"). I can't believe I assumed a Cowboys fan wasn't 100% wrong.

[Ken]

Here's a fun thing to try, Ken...point out where I said the playoff win in 2000 counts as a playoff win for the 2000 season. It should keep you busy and entertained for hours looking for it :yes:...

So did you have a playoff win in the 2000 NFL season or not? I go by the NFL calendar when computing when teams went to the playoffs or not.

It is semantics to say that they went and won a playoff game in 2000, especially when I take "the last decade" as the last 10 years, not the LAST decade that ends in 0. The 2010 season has started, so it is inclusive of the 2000 season.

Dictionary.com says the 1st definition of decade is how I interpreted it. Not how you choose to interpret it to fit your argument.

[jnhay]

So did you have a playoff win in the 2000 NFL season or not? I go by the NFL calendar when computing when teams went to the playoffs or not.

It is semantics to say that they went and won a playoff game in 2000, especially when I take "the last decade" as the last 10 years, not the LAST decade that ends in 0. The 2010 season has started, so it is inclusive of the 2000 season.

Dictionary.com says the 1st definition of decade is how I interpreted it. Not how you choose to interpret it to fit your argument.

Actually Tweed was right...whenever we talked about the Cowboys' playoff futility lasting "X" amount of years, we started from the date of their last playoff win, regardless of what season it was a part of. So in the decade of 2000-2009, the Skins do have 2 playoff wins.

[Ken]

but have not won one in the last decade of nfl seasons.

Again, only a futile skin fan would take pride in winning a playoff game by calendar date.

Unreal.

Also, the NFL would not include anything from the 1999 season in any all decade team or team accomplishment regardless of when it occurred. But it fits the silly argument so lets go with it.

[jnhay]

but have not won one in the last decade of nfl seasons.

Again, only a futile skin fan would take pride in winning a playoff game by calendar date.

Unreal.

Also, the NFL would not include anything from the 1999 season in any all decade team or team accomplishment regardless of when it occurred. But it fits the silly argument so lets go with it.
You're basing your whole argument over one line that wasn't worded correctly, while the entire discussion had already established that they were talking about the 2000-2009 decade. You are aware of how people refer to the 90s, 80s, 70s as decades? This is what is going on here.

How many playoff wins did the Redskins have last decade? 2. It's so incredibly simple.

[coolbeans]

Kraft has been trying to build some kind of entertainment/retail/studio complex next to the stadium for years. I wonder if he's acquired a lot of debt in the process.



It's probably not entirely accurate, but Jerry got $350 million from Arlington and $150 million from the NFL. So, that's $800 million that he financed.

That's basically what Snyder paid for the Skins. And - at least according to Wikipedia - Snyder pays $50 million a year on that loan. The Skins' debt is 15 percent and the Cowboys is 11 percent.

Considering that Jerry has already turned that place into an absolute money making machine - Big 12 title game, NBA all-star game, Cotton Bowl, NBA All-Star game, Paul McCartney, U2, George Strait with a Super Bowl and Final Four to come - he may have been able to make a large lump payment at some point. He also may have a better rate.

What I don't get is how he is at 11 percent and the Giants are at 55 percent while the Jets are at 66 percent. Where their deals that ****ty?

On Edit: I just did the math. There is no way that the Cowboys only have $200 million in debt. I wonder if the "debt" is the interest payments on the stadium. That would make sense. And maybe the Jets and Giants are calculated with the principal.

Anyway, the question is: If Jerry or Danny wanted to sell, who could possibly buy? Seriously, how are you going to finance a $1.8 billion purchase in 2010? There was some discussion about this on the Yankees a while ago. Basically, the only entity rich enough to buy the Yankees was the Yankees.

Actually, USA Today recenty reported in an article that the Cowboys are only $190 million in debt. It seems Jerry sunk alot of his own money into the stadium to already be that far into paying the stadium off.

[Ken]

You're basing your whole argument over one line that wasn't worded correctly, while the entire discussion had already established that they were talking about the 2000-2009 decade. You are aware of how people refer to the 90s, 80s, 70s as decades? This is what is going on here.

How many playoff wins did the Redskins have last decade? 2. It's so incredibly simple.

Right and your missing it.

The NFL Considers the 2000 NFL SEASON thru last year (which ended technically in 2010) the last decade.

You are aware of this, right?

[ArmchairRedskin]

This thread deserves a face palm and a head shake. Or maybe just a "c'mon man!"

[jnhay]

Right and your missing it.

The NFL Considers the 2000 NFL SEASON thru last year (which ended technically in 2010) the last decade.

You are aware of this, right?

I'll just say this. It's one thing to say "The Cowboys of the 2000s" and another to say "How many playoff wins did the Cowboys have in the 2000s?" The first is what you are referring to, the second is just the English language. Now where is our reward for creating the most worthless off topic discussion of the year?

[Califan007]

I'll just say this. It's one thing to say "The Cowboys of the 2000s" and another to say "How many playoff wins did the Cowboys have in the 2000s?" The first is what you are referring to, the second is just the English language. Now where is our reward for creating the most worthless off topic discussion of the year?

"Ken" and "worthless discussions" tend to go hand-in-hand quite a bit in this forum lol :cool:...

[BigDFan]

Only in Cowboys fans' minds does a playoff win that occurred in 2000 not count as a playoff win that occurred during the last decade! :ols: :ols: :ols:

Gotta love those 'Boys fans!!!!!!!!!!

Jan 2000 to Jan 2010 was a decade

Its August That was over a decade ago

[Ken]

"Ken" and "worthless discussions" tend to go hand-in-hand quite a bit in this forum lol :cool:...

Yet my "worthless discussions" are usually the most interesting going on.....

:beavisnbutthead:

[Califan007]

Jan 2000 to Jan 2010 was a decade

Its August That was over a decade ago

Yep :yes:...but the comment wasn't "in the last 10 years", so that point you're making is irrelevant. ;)

Actually, here are the original comments:


Even more amazing is that in a span of over a decade, the pukes have only produced on playoff game against a team in its own division.

Forget the AFC, the pukes can't manage to beat anyone outside of the NFCE when it counts.

Too funny.

:ols:


The Skins also have won only a single playoff game.
So tr1 actually said in a time span OVER a decade...fsunoles then claimed that the Skins had "also" only won one playoff game in that timespan. Which, of course, is wrong lol...

Tweed and fsunoles then went into talking about either the 10 years that made up the last decade (Tweed) or the games that made up the last 10 seasons (fsunoles). Funny thing is, though, that fsunoles already acknowledged that you could look at it either way, depending on the individual, and has dropped the subject at that. He's no longer on here arguing it...yet he's one of the two posters who started it all. If he's fine with the different distinctions, why are other Cowboys fans taking up the argument?

[Califan007]

Yet my "worthless discussions" are usually the most interesting going on.....

:beavisnbutthead:

"interesting"? Ah, no lol. "Popular"? Eh, maybe...but then again a lot of people here enjoy watching you get owned so that wouldn't surprise me. ;)

[Ken]

"interesting"? Ah, no lol. "Popular"? Eh, maybe...but then again a lot of people here enjoy watching you get owned so that wouldn't surprise me. ;)

Owned huh?

So, I'll acknowledge you won a playoff game in the year 2000 which IS NOT recognized by the nfl as a playoff win in the decade of the 2000s. While the Cowboys playoff win in 2010 IS recognized as a playoff win in the decade of the 2000s. Which means, according to the NFL, the Redskins and Cowboys both won 1 PLAYOFF GAME W IN THE DECADE OF THE 2000s.

K...?

[tr1]

Owned huh?

So, I'll acknowledge you won a playoff game in the year 2000 which IS NOT recognized by the nfl as a playoff win in the decade of the 2000s. While the Cowboys playoff win in 2010 IS recognized as a playoff win in the decade of the 2000s. Which means, according to the NFL, the Redskins and Cowboys both won 1 PLAYOFF GAME W IN THE DECADE OF THE 2000s.

K...?

When Kenny resorts to semantics, we win by default...:ols:

Kenny, just admit that your team has sucked for as long a time as the Skins have (though recent playoff records would tend to make the pukes look a bit worse.)

Now, take your ball and go home.

;)

[Mr. Jones]

When Kenny resorts to semantics, we win by default...:ols:

Kenny, just admit that your team has sucked for as long a time as the Skins have (though recent playoff records would tend to make the pukes look a bit worse.)

Now, take your ball and go home.

;)

You know the two teams to of gone the longest without going to an nfc title game?

Lions and Redskins.

[Hitman21ST]

You know the two teams to of gone the longest without going to an nfc title game?

Lions and Redskins.


You know who's next? The Dallas Cowboys.

And for what it's worth, the Redskins have the second best record (5-1) of NFC Championship Games of the teams who have been to more than one, behind the Giants, who are 4-0.

[Califan007]

You know the three teams to of gone the longest without going to an nfc title game?

Lions, Redskins and Cowboys.

Fixed that for ya :thumbsup:...

[Mr. Jones]

Fixed that for ya :thumbsup:...

Cowboys have won 3 superbowls and gone to 4 straight championship games since the Redskins went to one:thumbsup:.

Neither team has done that much lately, but the Redskins have done less for longer, in addition to being worse the last few years.

[tr1]

Neither team has done that much lately...

Exactly. So quit visiting this site and pumping up your pathetic franchise.

Sheeesh. :doh:

[Tweedr01]

Only in Cowboys fans' minds does a playoff win that occurred in 2000 not count as a playoff win that occurred during the last decade! :ols: :ols: :ols:

Gotta love those 'Boys fans!!!!!!!!!!

Oh snap!


So did you have a playoff win in the 2000 NFL season or not? I go by the NFL calendar when computing when teams went to the playoffs or not.

It is semantics to say that they went and won a playoff game in 2000, especially when I take "the last decade" as the last 10 years, not the LAST decade that ends in 0. The 2010 season has started, so it is inclusive of the 2000 season.

Dictionary.com says the 1st definition of decade is how I interpreted it. Not how you choose to interpret it to fit your argument.

Uh, this has already been established, you are rehashing an argument that you have already lost, please stop digging your hole.


You're basing your whole argument over one line that wasn't worded correctly, while the entire discussion had already established that they were talking about the 2000-2009 decade. You are aware of how people refer to the 90s, 80s, 70s as decades? This is what is going on here.

How many playoff wins did the Redskins have last decade? 2. It's so incredibly simple.

You do remember you are talking to a puke fan, nothing is incredibly simple, they can turn the 'calculus difficulty' option on to spin their agenda.


"Ken" and "worthless discussions" tend to go hand-in-hand quite a bit in this forum lol :cool:...

Oh snap!! :ols::ols:


Yep :yes:...but the comment wasn't "in the last 10 years", so that point you're making is irrelevant. ;)

Actually, here are the original comments:




So tr1 actually said in a time span OVER a decade...fsunoles then claimed that the Skins had "also" only won one playoff game in that timespan. Which, of course, is wrong lol...

Tweed and fsunoles then went into talking about either the 10 years that made up the last decade (Tweed) or the games that made up the last 10 seasons (fsunoles). Funny thing is, though, that fsunoles already acknowledged that you could look at it either way, depending on the individual, and has dropped the subject at that. He's no longer on here arguing it...yet he's one of the two posters who started it all. If he's fine with the different distinctions, why are other Cowboys fans taking up the argument?

Yup, this was argued from two different viewpoints of how this can be interpreted, but either way, this is a Skins board so my opinion is correct!:beavisnbutthead:

[Tweedr01]

There is just so much failure from the pukes in this thread, this is just comical. I am now literally just checking this thread for entertainment purposes while at work, congrats!

[fsunoles0021]

There is just so much failure from the pukes in this thread, this is just comical. I am now literally just checking this thread for entertainment purposes while at work, congrats!

Just wondering, but are you a tr1 wannabe? You seem to be trying his gimmicks out and the username seems to be similar too. But unfortunately, there is and can only be one tr1. Sorry!

[pjfootballer]

Cowboys have won 3 superbowls and gone to 4 straight championship games since the Redskins went to one:thumbsup:.

Neither team has done that much lately, but the Redskins have done less for longer, in addition to being worse the last few years.

Wow, an "I know you are but what am I," argument. Would have been better if you pulled out the "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you," or "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, we've won more than you."

[Tweedr01]

Just wondering, but are you a tr1 wannabe? You seem to be trying his gimmicks out and the username seems to be similar too. But unfortunately, there is and can only be one tr1. Sorry!

Wow, thank you, I'm working on it, but I don't think I'll ever have the ability to rile you crazies up like tr1. It is an honor and I do appreciate the comparison but I am no Mr. ATN. I know they look like gimmicks, but what I'm actually using is the truth, I know it's difficult for puke fans to comprehend the truth.

FYI, I really think after reading SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many tr1 threads, it starts to become second nature to treat puke fans like....well puke fans.

[Tweedr01]

Wow, an "I know you are but what am I," argument. Would have been better if you pulled out the "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you," or "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, we've won more than you."

Actually, they can't really say that they have won more. Just because puke fans don't count World Championships before they existed, doesn't mean they never happened. If it wasn't for the success we created, they never would have existed.

[Califan007]

...this is a Skins board so my opinion is correct!:beavisnbutthead:

LOL! :rotflmao:...Exactly, dammit! :yes:

[Califan007]

Cowboys have won 3 superbowls and gone to 4 straight championship games since the Redskins went to one:thumbsup:.

Neither team has done that much lately, but the Redskins have done less for longer, in addition to being worse the last few years.
LoL...the "longer" you speak of is 4 freakin' years. Hardly the type of timespan to gloat over. It's like saying "I may not have been laid in 14 years, but YOU haven't been laid in 18 years! Ha!"...The guys who are getting laid with regularity are just gonna shake their heads and laugh at that comeback lol :ols:...

[Big Blue Joe]

:ols: Cowboys fans and 'Skins fans arguing over which owner has milked their hard-working fanbase the most for the least amount of return.

[Ken]

When Kenny resorts to semantics, we win by default...:ols:

Kenny, just admit that your team has sucked for as long a time as the Skins have (though recent playoff records would tend to make the pukes look a bit worse.)

Now, take your ball and go home.

;)

And when tr1 doesn't answer the question and changes the subject, we know we are over the target. ;)

[No_Pressure]

:ols: Cowboys fans and 'Skins fans arguing over which owner has milked their hard-working fanbase the most for the least amount of return.


Thats exactly what I was getting at a few pages back. Some people see it as a good sign, that the fans support the team no matter what. Personally I see it as we're all mentally insane and keep wasting our money over and over again.

I'm sure you would probably do the same to some degree if the Giants were sucking balls and ticket prices continued to rise anyway. Most other team's fans have a breaking point though, I guess the Redskins' fan point is generally pretty high up there.

Either way yeah, the franchises are rich and they don't even have to do anything good to become rich. This is not a good message to send to the owners, I'm not sure why people are arguing over who is #1 other than its something that one team could "win" over another. I would compare it to two children at school talking about how their dad could beat up the other kid's dad...only it really isn't beating up, its "my dad is currently viewed as having a slightly higher net value than your dad!".

Woo I can feel the excitement from here.

[Warhead36]

:ols: Cowboys fans and 'Skins fans arguing over which owner has milked their hard-working fanbase the most for the least amount of return.

Yeah exactly. Who really cares who's more "valuable"? I want to win on the football field, not in the board room.