Mike Lombardi is at it again...after viewing Hard Knocks, he tries to compare the Giants to Firestone Tires and the merger with Bridgestone Tires in 1988 with a source from MIT.
To make sweeping judgments from limited scenes and potentially scripted television programming seems a bit foolish.
He also gives no examples to support the claims he makes in this article. Just a very strange piece overall.
This article, and many of his "hot takes" on social media all seem like an attempt to peddle this new website/platform called The Daily Coach.
He does seem to have a fascination/vendetta against the Giants...
Link below.
Link - (
New Window )
Quote:
The Giants are valued between $6 & $7 billion and are one of the highest valued NFL franchises. I'm spite of the Mara family, the Giants are a money making machine.
Now if you want to say the on field product sucks and that the Maras can't get out of their own way then that's more than fair.
Lombardi is obviously talking about their football operations and the inability to put together a winning team. And why.
bw I know exactly what he means. I can always count on you with the condescending take. They're printing money hand over fist. Mara can't get out of the way and let those running the football operation do their jobs.
You miss the whole point of the league and you are as bad as Lombardi with context.
Just because YOU judge a team's record as its ultimate determination of success does not mean everyone does. That's why you're a fan, not a business owner. If you were, you'd know that a 13% increase in your bottom line from last year is a huge success. KC is at 16%, while the Raiders were at 22%. If you stopped giving a shit about the record year after year and stopped watching football, then maybe there'd be more of an incentive to make the product better. Therefore, maybe YOU'RE part of the problem. Ever think of that?
Yeah, a team worth 6 fucking billion dollars is a failure.....
Quote:
he’s not wrong. I’m not sure how he would come to that conclusion based on this week’s HK, but he’s not wrong until he’s proven wrong.
Yeah, a team worth 6 fucking billion dollars is a failure.....
It would be practically impossible at this stage for the Giants to be a financial failure, so I don't know why people insist on using that as a measure of the franchise's success.
For 12 years they have been an on-field failure, much like they were for nearly two decades before Pete Rozelle rescued the Mara family from their own pig-headed stupidity.
I think everyone knows that's what's being discussed here, except for the willfully obtuse.
Quote:
he’s not wrong. I’m not sure how he would come to that conclusion based on this week’s HK, but he’s not wrong until he’s proven wrong.
Yeah, a team worth 6 fucking billion dollars is a failure.....
The real question here is whether section125 could throw a snowball and hit Section331?
Quote:
at the franchise level is determined financially?
You miss the whole point of the league and you are as bad as Lombardi with context.
Just because YOU judge a team's record as its ultimate determination of success does not mean everyone does. That's why you're a fan, not a business owner. If you were, you'd know that a 13% increase in your bottom line from last year is a huge success. KC is at 16%, while the Raiders were at 22%. If you stopped giving a shit about the record year after year and stopped watching football, then maybe there'd be more of an incentive to make the product better. Therefore, maybe YOU'RE part of the problem. Ever think of that?
Fair enough and I don't own a team so it's my opinion, but I doubt owners view their franchises successful based on finances. The whole league is profitable, every single team.
Do you think they are all successful because of that? And you think 32 owners are satisfied?
Perhaps it is you who has the warped view of how owners view success. Most (or many) of these guys were/are billionaires before becoming sports franchise owners. I bet they put titles ahead of $$$. I know for example Steve Cohen (Mets owner) doesn't view the Mets as successful and he's making money.
The Maras and Rooneys are becoming anachronisms and soon the whole league will just be a billionaires club.
I think everyone knows that's what's being discussed here, except for the willfully obtuse. [/quote]
It’s not being obtuse when pointing out when perspectives make no sense. Are the Giants losing games? Yes. And for a long time. But this does not mean the franchise is a failure, or is poorly led. Want to complain about players performances? Sure. Bad coaching decisions? Absolutely. Questionable contracts? Fine. But none of these mean the franchise is a failure.
Quote:
In comment 16551684 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
at the franchise level is determined financially?
You miss the whole point of the league and you are as bad as Lombardi with context.
Just because YOU judge a team's record as its ultimate determination of success does not mean everyone does. That's why you're a fan, not a business owner. If you were, you'd know that a 13% increase in your bottom line from last year is a huge success. KC is at 16%, while the Raiders were at 22%. If you stopped giving a shit about the record year after year and stopped watching football, then maybe there'd be more of an incentive to make the product better. Therefore, maybe YOU'RE part of the problem. Ever think of that?
Fair enough and I don't own a team so it's my opinion, but I doubt owners view their franchises successful based on finances. The whole league is profitable, every single team.
Do you think they are all successful because of that? And you think 32 owners are satisfied?
Perhaps it is you who has the warped view of how owners view success. Most (or many) of these guys were/are billionaires before becoming sports franchise owners. I bet they put titles ahead of $$$. I know for example Steve Cohen (Mets owner) doesn't view the Mets as successful and he's making money.
The Maras and Rooneys are becoming anachronisms and soon the whole league will just be a billionaires club.
Great question. But I honestly believe that winning super bowls in not an owner's priority. I just don't. There's overwhelming proof of that. There are stil1 12 teams that have not won a SB. Cleveland still hasn't been in one! And to further back that point, the NFL owners have been a billionaires club for decades now.
Now, if an ownership group had performance based standards on whether they'd have a franchise that was dependent on winning %, or primetime games or playoff appearances, I think you'd see a drastically different approach of on field success.
Umm .. they do run a successful business. They make a lot of money and a lot of profit. You might not like the product, but to say it is unsuccessful as a business is wrong.
Quote:
In comment 16552539 MNP70 said:
Quote:
In comment 16551684 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
at the franchise level is determined financially?
You miss the whole point of the league and you are as bad as Lombardi with context.
Just because YOU judge a team's record as its ultimate determination of success does not mean everyone does. That's why you're a fan, not a business owner. If you were, you'd know that a 13% increase in your bottom line from last year is a huge success. KC is at 16%, while the Raiders were at 22%. If you stopped giving a shit about the record year after year and stopped watching football, then maybe there'd be more of an incentive to make the product better. Therefore, maybe YOU'RE part of the problem. Ever think of that?
Fair enough and I don't own a team so it's my opinion, but I doubt owners view their franchises successful based on finances. The whole league is profitable, every single team.
Do you think they are all successful because of that? And you think 32 owners are satisfied?
Perhaps it is you who has the warped view of how owners view success. Most (or many) of these guys were/are billionaires before becoming sports franchise owners. I bet they put titles ahead of $$$. I know for example Steve Cohen (Mets owner) doesn't view the Mets as successful and he's making money.
The Maras and Rooneys are becoming anachronisms and soon the whole league will just be a billionaires club.
Great question. But I honestly believe that winning super bowls in not an owner's priority. I just don't. There's overwhelming proof of that. There are stil1 12 teams that have not won a SB. Cleveland still hasn't been in one! And to further back that point, the NFL owners have been a billionaires club for decades now.
Now, if an ownership group had performance based standards on whether they'd have a franchise that was dependent on winning %, or primetime games or playoff appearances, I think you'd see a drastically different approach of on field success.
Ok, if the owners priority is not a title, but profits, why do so many GMs and coaches get fired for consistently losing? Even the Browns, who ranked lowest in the NFL made $105M in operating income last reported year (2022).
The NFL teams are still all going to be profitable even if in-game attendance falls to all time lows (my guess), but you still see turnover, at sometimes very fast rates, for losing front offices and coaching staffs?
There is more antipathy about the Giants now than any moment in my entire lifetime.
But "successful business!"
GTFO
So now the incremental profit is driven by day-of revenue and non-football revenue.
The Giants and Jets enjoy the fact that they play in the biggest vacation destination by volume and dollars spent in the US. They have no problem selling tickets, even if they go unused. The "loser" in that equation is the aftermarket. But obviously the economics are working out for them.
And then of course MetLife hosts 15-20 premium concerts, and another dozen smaller events.
That's why the Giants and Jets are 2 of the three worst teams over the last decade, and enjoying record value.