Lamping: Jacksonville is our home, now and for the long haul.

[.Buzz]

If someone who has TheAthletic could post this...

[.Buzz]

 

[.Buzz]

 

[KhanYouDigIt]

If they are gonna take more home games they might as well just take the team to London.

[MightyRx]

LOLOLOL

I love what Shad is doing by trying to create ways for the team to be successful in Jax

[JaguarCrazy2832]

I know it helps the brand to go over there but dont you think we have a larger competitive advantage to stay at the bank? Like us playing  1 game a year over there doesn't exactly help us but so much over teams that never play there

[pwny]

12 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said:

I know it helps the brand to go over there but dont you think we have a larger competitive advantage to stay at the bank? Like us playing  1 game a year over there doesn't exactly help us but so much over teams that never play there

Its not about *brand*, it is about financial stability.

This team was the least valued franchise in the NFL when Shad took over and was hemorrhaging money. The London game brings in substantial revenue that helps stabilize the franchise and allows for the growth necessary to make Jacksonville a viable market in terms of value. We're now the 25th most valuable team and have tripled in valuation since Shad took over. We had the 20th highest revenue in the NFL, and the 22nd highest operating income last year, so the growth is on the back of actual growth and not cost cutting. And despite the team making major renovations the last few years, we are somewhere between 2nd and 5th in debt to value ratios in the NFL, and those other teams from 1-5 are all valued higher, so basically Shad's investment is all clean growth at this point.

 

Is it ideal from a competitive standpoint to have one game overseas? Probably not. But I do think we're gaining some kind of home field advantage as more and more European fans become accustomed to us going over there. But the main thing is that London brings in revenue that makes Jacksonville a viable market.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

1 hour ago, pwny said:

Its not about *brand*, it is about financial stability.

This team was the least valued franchise in the NFL when Shad took over and was hemorrhaging money. The London game brings in substantial revenue that helps stabilize the franchise and allows for the growth necessary to make Jacksonville a viable market in terms of value. We're now the 25th most valuable team and have tripled in valuation since Shad took over. We had the 20th highest revenue in the NFL, and the 22nd highest operating income last year, so the growth is on the back of actual growth and not cost cutting. And despite the team making major renovations the last few years, we are somewhere between 2nd and 5th in debt to value ratios in the NFL, and those other teams from 1-5 are all valued higher, so basically Shad's investment is all clean growth at this point.

 

Is it ideal from a competitive standpoint to have one game overseas? Probably not. But I do think we're gaining some kind of home field advantage as more and more European fans become accustomed to us going over there. But the main thing is that London brings in revenue that makes Jacksonville a viable market.

The fact that we are actually a good team now helps us out big time as well over there. You dont have much of an advantage when the people coming out aren't exactly rooting for you because you suck. Now that our bandwagon is growing that'll help alot too

[Tugboat]

On 22/09/2018 at 7:47 AM, pwny said:

Its not about *brand*, it is about financial stability.

This team was the least valued franchise in the NFL when Shad took over and was hemorrhaging money. The London game brings in substantial revenue that helps stabilize the franchise and allows for the growth necessary to make Jacksonville a viable market in terms of value. We're now the 25th most valuable team and have tripled in valuation since Shad took over. We had the 20th highest revenue in the NFL, and the 22nd highest operating income last year, so the growth is on the back of actual growth and not cost cutting. And despite the team making major renovations the last few years, we are somewhere between 2nd and 5th in debt to value ratios in the NFL, and those other teams from 1-5 are all valued higher, so basically Shad's investment is all clean growth at this point.

 

Is it ideal from a competitive standpoint to have one game overseas? Probably not. But I do think we're gaining some kind of home field advantage as more and more European fans become accustomed to us going over there. But the main thing is that London brings in revenue that makes Jacksonville a viable market.

I do also think there's a weird potential "competitive advantage" built into being the team that consistently goes over and plays there too.  Not so much in traditional "home field advantage" with the crowd per se...but just in the fact that if you can build continuity in this team and staff, they're going to become more and more comfortable going over there year after year.  Which is something, considering how unpredictable it can be for teams heading over to an entirely different continent without any significant experience.  It can be a real curveball for a team.  But if you do it every year once or twice a year...at some point that just starts to become part of the normal routine and culture of the team.  Which could become advantageous, even if all of London don't just become diehard Jaguars fans or whatever.

 

Let's be honest here...The Bank is one of those fields that does always seem to have a healthy contingent of opposing fans on any given week in the first place anyway.  For a lot of reasons i'd imagine.  From the size of the building, to the more transient local demographics, to the profile of the team and the appeal of a little football vacation in Florida.