Ok, got ya, but I don’t see how it’s a “both right or both wrong” thing, lol. This is exactly what I explained in the post you quoted, you’re still looking at this wrongly (not to sound harsh).
The percentage matters more if we’re talking about growth rates, the total difference (or “raw dollars number” as you put it) does not take into account the overall increase of value for both teams.
The Eagles have grown faster than the Redskins have. It’s that simple. If they continue at this pace, the Eagles will be more valuable than the Redskins in a handful of years. The Eagles have grown 5.3 times their initial amount while we’ve grown 3.8 times. Does that make more sense?
My point all along is that the conclusion you are arriving to is faulty based on the data you are using. And that, furthermore, it can be argued either way whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing.
I don’t really agree with you that it’s a positive for Dan that we need to give him credit for, but I also don’t think the team’s growth in value being outpaced by most other NFL franchises is necessarily a negative either. We are talking from the perspective as fans, right?
For instance, if Dan is actually doing a good job increasing the team’s value AND if that increase means more charity is spent AND/OR that money is being invested in the right way to improve the on and off field product... we can say that’s a “good thing” and that Dan should be getting credit for it. However, we need a lot more info to come to that.
What if, for instance, we find that Dan has done a great job increasing the team’s value, but then it has had no effect on the charitable contributions he’s given (which would mean it’s actually a lesser percentage he’s giving as every year goes by) and/or he’s spent less investing back into the team’s staff, facilities, etc...?
Would that still be a “good thing” that he’s increased the team’s value? No way, at least not from our fan’s perspective! We’re not rooting for Dan to increase his bank account, for God’s sake, are we!?
But the main point here is that you used data that doesn’t support the original conclusion you arrived to; that Dan has done a good job increasing the team’s value. When looking at it relative to the rest of the NFL, that outlook can easily change. The Eagles are one example of this.
Again, you arrived at a conclusion without these factors being taken account of, not me. I’m glad you agree with me on some, but that should automatically mean you retract your conclusion since it’s missing key data, right? I’m glad you seem willing to recognize that.
Also, fan loyalty isn’t necessarily tied to the purchase of live tickets, though it’s a factor. The Skins have a strong nationwide fanbase just by virtue of their long and storied history. They are one of the oldest franchises in the league. There’s a lot of other things we can get into regarding fan loyalty, but I think it’s unnecessary for now.
Well, I went into this wondering about the team’s value in a totally neutral way. I was honestly curious as to whether or not they’ve progressed or regressed there.
But so far the evidence is pointing to a regression and that we’ve actually grown less than most teams in the NFL. We’re below average with the numbers we’ve looked at so far. What I’m seeing here is that, at this rate, we’re going to be outpaced by another 2-3 teams very soon and that 5-10 years down the road we’ll be middle of the pack or worst.
More data is needed, though. And the new stadium will definitely impact all of this. So no matter what we figure out now it’s not totally indicative of how things will pan out.
For me, the one thing that has actually mattered to me about all of this (and this has been the case for a long time, not as a result of this present discussion between us) is how ridiculous it is that we’re still one of the most valuable franchises, and have been for a long time, yet our facilities are among the worst in the NFL. Furthermore, while we had this immense “team value” all this time, our scouting department was one of the most understaffed in the NFL (that’s changed recently). That just pisses me off when I think about it.
I was happy to see Dan actually put in some effort this offseason when he went to Europe and visited some of the premier futból clubs there to see how we can improve our injury prevention/recovery. I mean, does it make me sick it took a complete catastrophe for him to do that? Sure. But it’s definitely a positive, better late than never, and that’s where I’d like to see our “team value” being so high actually benefit us. I want to be known as an organization that really invests in itself in the best way.
Here’s something to chew on... if we’re actually regressing in terms of team value and other teams start jumping ahead of us more and more, but Dan is increasingly investing in charity, facilities, equipment, staff, etc... (which has happened recently, as long as it’s taken) that’s much more of a good thing than what you’ve presented and something we should commend Dan for. I’d hold Dan in much higher esteem if I find out that, even though the team’s value is decreasing compared to other’s in the league, he’s investing more than they are. That’s much more of a “good thing” to me than seeing our team value among the top of the league while knowing just how little has been invested for so much of that time.
I hope I clarified everything enough here.