Cowboys get Super Bowl, but the vote was close

by Dave Halprin on May 22, 2007 8:20 PM CDT in Dallas Cowboys News

Well, they got the Super Bowl, but supposedly it was by a very slim margin. Even though the vote is secret ballot, Colts owner Jim Irsay spilled the beans.

Mr. Jones declined to discuss the voting, beyond saying that it went to the maximum fourth ballot. (On the first three ballots, the votes of three-fourths of the owners are needed. After that, it becomes a simple-majority contest between the two top contenders.)
Jim Irsay, owner of the Colts, said he was told the final vote was 17-15 in favor of North Texas.

Sounds like it was a very contentious vote. Was it the big-market, high-profile owners vs. the smaller-market, lower-profile crowd? I’d love to see the actual vote break down by owner.

Mickey says its all about the money.

But, on top of that, because of the outdoor plazas being built beyond the retractable doors at each end of the stadium, Jones points out another 20,000 ticketed fans watching on huge outdoor viewing screens can become a part of the Super Bowl game-day experience. Add it up, that's 120,000 people, which, depending how the attendance is counted, could obliterate the Super Bowl record crowd of 103,985, set at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., for Pittsburgh's Super Bowl XIV win over the then Los Angeles Rams in 1980.
That's a whole lot of revenue when it comes down to ticket sales, and it's been estimated a Super Bowl played to capacity at the Cowboys' new stadium would generate $23 million more for the NFL than either of the other two sites. After all, money counts, and these NFL owners didn't come into their fortunes by making bad business decisions when it comes to generating revenue.

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Gotta disagree with Mickey...

I think that revenue from game tickets is the last thing the NFL worries about when picking a superbowl site. It's such a tiny portion of the money they make off the game. Plus so many of those seats are given away to sponsors and corporate partners anyway.

$23 million extra for the owners to split is less than a mil a team. I can't imagine they care much about that.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on May 22, 2007 8:34 PM CDT reply actions

It's always about the Money!!!!

Even if they say it isn't, it's always about the money. I'd also like to see the breakdown of the vote, but I dont think we'll ever see it. The fact remains, Money talks, B.S. walks.

The owners are businessmen first and formost, they know its all about the bottom line and that means, Money when it comes to the showcase of the NFL superbowl, and how much of it gets into their pockets. The 27,000 PLUS, extra seating capacity of the NEW Dallas Cowboy stadium and the extra 23 million was enough to sway the vote into Jerry worlds favor.If it wasn't for that extra cash from the seat sales, Indy would of gotten the nod.

by Deke on May 22, 2007 8:40 PM CDT reply actions

Money talks, B.S. walks.

So, what was the money saying to the 15 owners who voted the other way?

Maybe these are the ones who never heard of Roger Staubach.

Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.

by OskieOskie on May 22, 2007 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Its Jerry Jones!!!

There are alot of owners out there that dont like Jerry Jones, period. They respect him for what he's done with the league, but they also think he has too much clout in the league, too out spoken. Jerry has said many times that the small market teams aren't doing enough to raise money for their own organizations, instead they stand there with their hand out for Jerry, Bon Kraft and Daniel Snyder, who promote their teams in their own region to write them checks to offset their costs. When it comes to marketing, there is no one better in this league.

Roger Staubach had NO influence on this vote.

by Deke on May 22, 2007 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions

Sometimes

BS talks too.

Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.

by OskieOskie on May 22, 2007 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm not sure about what happened

Because my understanding was if the 1st vote didn't result in a 75% majority any further votes would take place at a later date.

But, there is NO QUESTION that Roger had ZERO influence on this process.

I don't know or care about the other posts claiming other owners dont like Jerry or other such nonsense. Business people don't make billion $ decisions based on who they "like".

I won't go as far as to accuse anyone of collusion, but I will state ,again, that these owners knew long before arriving in Nashville who they were supporting in this bid.

The vote being "close" is great for mourning Indy fans.

by FunCowboysFan on May 22, 2007 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions

Nonsense, read it for yourself.

Even fellow owners who still dislike him have to admit that Jones has raised the value of their franchises with his aggressive marketing tactics. One longtime executive with another NFL club who has quietly talked about the evils of Jones's rebellion against the NFL's revenue-sharing plan nevertheless calls Jones a genius for his marketing acumen.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ins...

Snyder, Jones and about a half-dozen other owners, however, are asking just how much of its enormous revenue the league should continue to share evenly. They argue that the existing model can reduce incentives among more entrepreneurial owners who are generating enormous sums on their own through local marketing, promotional and broadcast deals. This unshared revenue is estimated to have swelled to about $2 billion a year

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...

You can call it nonsense all you want, but you'd be ignoring the truth. Some of these owners, Buffalo's and Cincy's in particular have been very critical of Jerry, Bob kraft and Daniel Snyder. I'd almost bet, those were two votes against Jerry along with Indys vote.

by Deke on May 22, 2007 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions

You can bet anything you like

I'm not going to bother trying to explain why this is no different than the posturing that goes on with every other business. I'll leave that task to your professors.

If you really believe the "truth" lies with one owner or another not liking Jerry Jones, have at it.

by FunCowboysFan on May 22, 2007 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions

Oy

When someone tells me that they absolutely know something that they couldn't possibly know, in CAPITAL LETTERS no less, methinks they doth protest too much.

If you're reading this, you could be commenting, too. Sign up for a free account on Blogging The Boys.

by Dave Halprin on May 22, 2007 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions

Never claimed

Insider info.

Just COMMON SENSE to anyone with a business background.

(the caps for effect, of course)

by FunCowboysFan on May 22, 2007 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions

I have a long business background

And I know that human interaction, relationships, friendships, ego, competition, pride, envy and many other factors can affect a business decision, even at the highest levels. Your sense may not be as common as you believe.

When a person knows it all, they usually don't know much.

If you're reading this, you could be commenting, too. Sign up for a free account on Blogging The Boys.

by Dave Halprin on May 22, 2007 11:09 PM CDT up reply actions

Oh...

I certainly don't know it "all"

I know enough to know that what you said is silly, though.

I've seen MANY multi-million deals put together. Never once saw friendships, ego, pride, or envy stop one from happening. Sure, plenty of grumbling after the fact. But never saw someones dislike for someone else prevent a huge deal from going through.

Methinks you watch too many movies, Grizz.

I definately don't "know it all". But I submit I know more than most in here how these type of deals go down in the real world.

by FunCowboysFan on May 22, 2007 11:24 PM CDT up reply actions

I give, you do know it all

If you're reading this, you could be commenting, too. Sign up for a free account on Blogging The Boys.

by Dave Halprin on May 22, 2007 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions

We obviously

aren't on fair debating grounds here.

If you care to debate what you "know" in a different forum, I'm all for it. I'll be happy to put my credentials forth.

by FunCowboysFan on May 22, 2007 11:34 PM CDT up reply actions

Sorry but you might be missing

Grizz's point here. I practiced as a CPA with a national firm, my own firm and entered into two significant business deals as purchaser over 37 years and almost always the successful deals involved personal charisma and personal experience as well as the numbers. There are way too many folks good with numbers to follow that route exclusively. The rainmakers of this world get extraordinary clout but also some extraordinary resentment. All of the NFL owners are rich. They mostly came for ego since only a few got rich in the NFL. That sets up some difficult dynamics.

What intrigues me more than anything here is that the NFL loses image in the Super Bowl when the entire news media is disgruntled about being in Indianapolis instead of Miami or Phoenix. Dallas has a shot at winning some of them over just on weather alone. This image is the brand that rakes in the big bucks. So why flirt with Indy at all? That is the intrigue.

by lee3022 on May 23, 2007 12:36 AM CDT up reply actions

Flirting with Indy

Was all about the pitch made to Indy when it came time to finance their new stadium.

by FunCowboysFan on May 23, 2007 1:00 AM CDT up reply actions

I think you underestimate

what people on this blog know and have experienced.

by dunkman on May 23, 2007 5:34 AM CDT up reply actions

Not underestimate

Each of us has unique experience and perspective. You will note that I bring my own without dissing yours (everyone's). That is good for this site - added perspectives from each of us. So I do respect your experience and I am glad for you to bring your perspectives here on any subject just as I hope my own are respected as well.

by lee3022 on May 24, 2007 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions

Sorry Lee

I was responding to FunCowboys, not you. I think I accidentally posted to your thread instead. My only point is that one would be surprised at what many of the posters do and have done in their lives. I think we agree.

by dunkman on May 24, 2007 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions

it's not always black and white

it's not always black and white.

When the votes are as close as 17-15 I guarantee that Roger S. had some noticeable influence on some of the voters. He has a very charismatic presence and that makes a difference.

When there are so many factors contributing towards an owner's vote (political factors, direct compensation, future relationships, future compensation, human nature, stubbornness, pride, and many more) there is no doubt whatsoever that a strong presentation by a magnetic individual would have an effect on the voters.

Sorry FCF, human characteristics play a part at all levels.

by llutherr on May 23, 2007 12:53 AM CDT up reply actions

Clear on one thing

For ANYONE to claim Roger had nothing to do with it is someone who is just plain stupid. When one of the all time great players, a true legend, and a very charismatic person, speaks to you: you listen even if you disagree. And if you are wavering on which way to go- THAT will have an effect. 17-15 is supposedly the vote. How can anyone with any kind of a brain at all think that Roger had no effect?

by burmafrd1944 on May 23, 2007 6:37 AM CDT reply actions

AMEN brother

you hit the nail on the head

In Romo we Trust

by Terry on May 23, 2007 7:38 AM CDT up reply actions

Staubach

is not just a HOF celebrity, but is a successful businessman and powerful persuader in his own right. Roger is not just another air-head ex-jock running his mouth.

There is no way anyone on here can say with certainty that Staubach, who was leading the presentation team, did not have an impact on the decision. Roger is the one who made the successful pitch for the big game, and he deserves credit for landing the deal.

Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.

by OskieOskie on May 23, 2007 7:34 AM CDT reply actions