PDA

View Full Version : How/why is Bowlen broke?


spdirty
03-18-2012, 05:43 PM
Just want a logical answer. Every last game the Broncos played since he became owner has sold out. They play in a 10 year old stadium. Able to rip people off with concessions. Tebow is a friggin cash cow in regards to merchandise sales.

I can't imagine the Broncos don't have more revenue coming in right now than ever before. A ton of exposure.

I don't understand why the Broncos/Bowlen could be broke right now. Someone please explain it logically to me beyond the "still paying the Shanny/McDaniels contracts" business. Cuz that aint it. The rumors been going around since 2007. And until someone can logically explain the how/why I won't believe it. Cheap maybe, but not broke.

Agamemnon
03-18-2012, 05:50 PM
I would guess it's because he has some ****ed up financial issues somewhere. The cap is set according to profitability across all teams, so any team that has constant sellouts and a modern stadium with luxury boxes should be able to fill it relatively easily. But if Bowlen's got a lot of debt that profitability going to start disappearing down the interest black hole very quickly. The rumor that he might have to take out a loan to get Manning makes me wonder if he took out other loans in the past like that, because if he did it would start showing up in the team's cash flow eventually.

Hotrod
03-18-2012, 05:51 PM
Were not "broke" its just too much for some to understand that the signing of Manning or not has major implications on the direction of the team. Are we building for the next 3 years around a pocket passing qb or a strong armed rb.

OBF1
03-18-2012, 05:52 PM
There are enough "IF's", "Guess", "Rumor", "wonder" in this short thread to kill a lion. Nothing like a factual thread :thumbs:

Hotrod
03-18-2012, 05:53 PM
I would guess it's because he has some ****ed up financial issues somewhere. The cap is set according to profitability across all teams, so any team that has constant sellouts and a modern stadium with luxury boxes should be able to fill it relatively easily. But if Bowlen's got a lot of debt that profitability going to start disappearing down the interest black hole very quickly. The rumor that he might have to take out a loan to get Manning makes me wonder if he took out other loans in the past like that, because if he did it would start showing up in the team's cash flow eventually.

Ok now I see

KevinJames
03-18-2012, 05:53 PM
Were not "broke" its just too much for some to understand that the signing of Manning or not has major implications on the direction of the team. Are we building for the next 3 years around a pocket passing qb or a strong armed rb.

Damn spot on.

Los Broncos
03-18-2012, 05:53 PM
Too much drinking.

Hotrod
03-18-2012, 05:53 PM
There are enough "IF's", "Guess", "Rumor", "wonder" in this short thread to kill a lion. Nothing like a factual thread :thumbs:

LOL you noticed that too

Agamemnon
03-18-2012, 05:54 PM
There are enough "IF's", "Guess", "Rumor", "wonder" in this short thread to kill a lion. Nothing like a factual thread :thumbs:

Because people on this board are going to have hard facts about Bowlen's finances. ::)

RhymesayersDU
03-18-2012, 05:54 PM
He never went to freecreditreport.com.

rugbythug
03-18-2012, 05:59 PM
Any owner that uses a team to make money will always be considered a Bottom Feeder. You buy sports teams to spend money not make it.

Drunken.Broncoholic
03-18-2012, 06:02 PM
Al davis was one of the least richest owners. He was worth 800 million back in 2009. He still spent his cap space. He was an idiot with what he spent it on but showed you can be broke and still spend for players.

Drunken.Broncoholic
03-18-2012, 06:04 PM
Because people on this board are going to have hard facts about Bowlen's finances. ::)

All I could find was he was the 937th richest man in the world in 2010. Likely lost money after that.

Agamemnon
03-18-2012, 06:05 PM
Any owner that uses a team to make money will always be considered a Bottom Feeder. You buy sports teams to spend money not make it.

Unfortunately this is the truth. And it pretty much sums up Bowlen.

theAPAOps5
03-18-2012, 06:11 PM
Because people on this board are going to have hard facts about Bowlen's finances. ::)

So you admit you are talking out of your ass....... Again?

razorwire77
03-18-2012, 06:14 PM
Bowlen isn't broke. This is one of those mane fantasies that has grown and grown and grown and grown. Bowlen and his family are one of the 1000 wealthiest families in the world.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/...mily_ACGS.html (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Patrick-Bowlen-family_ACGS.html)

However, he's not in the stratosphere of a Mark Cuban, Jerry Jones, Stan Kroenkeor Daniel Snyder type in terms of net worth. Although He's probably closer than many would think.

Honestly, I think it has more to do with Pat Bowlen suffering from age related dementia. I seriously doubt Bowlen really has much to do with the day to day operational budget of the team. My guess is Joe Ellis, along with a slew of corporate attorneys, Bowlen family advisers etc. are attempting to keep the operational budget as low as possible in relation to the money the team makes. However, the team is still one of the ten most valuable in the league.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/mos..._slide_11.html (http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10_slide_11.html)
Worth more than the Steelers, Colts, Packers, Chargers, Raiders, Chiefs etc. etc.

So why is Bowlen/Bowlen's family doing this? My guess is that the family anticipates a time in the near future when Pat is completely unable to run the franchise and where they will sell the team. In the meantime, they are attempting to keep the costs associated with owning and operating an NFL franchise as low as possible, until the day where they sell the franchise.

The good news is in 2013 we get a per-team spending minimum
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ly-until-2013/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/30/per-team-spending-minimum-doesnt-apply-until-2013/)

"Each team muat spend at least 89 percent of the salary cap in cash on an annual basis."

Hulamau
03-18-2012, 06:16 PM
There are enough "IF's", "Guess", "Rumor", "wonder" in this short thread to kill a lion. Nothing like a factual thread :thumbs:

Indeed, those offering 'insights' and speculation here are just playing 'rumor monger whores' that have no earthly idea what they are spouting and even less of a clue what is really on Bowlen's mind or in his wallet ... but love the sound of their own voice, toch? :-)

R8R H8R
03-18-2012, 06:24 PM
Just want a logical answer. Every last game the Broncos played since he became owner has sold out. They play in a 10 year old stadium. Able to rip people off with concessions. Tebow is a friggin cash cow in regards to merchandise sales.

I can't imagine the Broncos don't have more revenue coming in right now than ever before. A ton of exposure.

I don't understand why the Broncos/Bowlen could be broke right now. Someone please explain it logically to me beyond the "still paying the Shanny/McDaniels contracts" business. Cuz that aint it. The rumors been going around since 2007. And until someone can logically explain the how/why I won't believe it. Cheap maybe, but not broke.

The short answer is that he is not broke, far from it. But it doesn't stop yahoos on a message board from declaring it so. Declaring it so, doesn't make it so.

This is being discussed on another thread. Bottom line is that in 2008 the Broncos brought in $240 million of revenue and had $39.9 million of operating income. O.I. is profits before taxes & interest. Obviously, 2011 numbers would be much larger. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/30/football-values-09_NFL-Team-Valuations_Income.html

DENVERDUI55
03-18-2012, 06:25 PM
I've never heard anything about him being broke other than on the Mane. Seems like SOCAL is the ring leader on it. I could be wrong though never seen a link or an article mentioning money problems for him.

R8R H8R
03-18-2012, 06:26 PM
I've never heard anything about him being broke other than on the Mane. Seems like SOCAL is the ring leader on it. I could be wrong though never seen a link or an article mentioning money problems for him.

Because it doesn't exist.

Pat Bowlen
03-18-2012, 06:34 PM
Because people on this board are going to have hard facts about Bowlen's finances. ::)
No kidding. I once tried counting all the zeros but didn't feel like taking off my shoes.

Drunken.Broncoholic
03-18-2012, 06:35 PM
No kidding. I once tried counting all the zeros but didn't feel like taking off my shoes.

Hey Pat. Sign Bunkley.

R8R H8R
03-18-2012, 06:36 PM
Hey Pat. Sign Bunkley.

ROFL!

Sign anyone!

Hotrod
03-18-2012, 06:40 PM
ROFL!

Sign anyone!

LOL


this

baja
03-18-2012, 06:46 PM
Just want a logical answer. Every last game the Broncos played since he became owner has sold out. They play in a 10 year old stadium. Able to rip people off with concessions. Tebow is a friggin cash cow in regards to merchandise sales.

I can't imagine the Broncos don't have more revenue coming in right now than ever before. A ton of exposure.

I don't understand why the Broncos/Bowlen could be broke right now. Someone please explain it logically to me beyond the "still paying the Shanny/McDaniels contracts" business. Cuz that aint it. The rumors been going around since 2007. And until someone can logically explain the how/why I won't believe it. Cheap maybe, but not broke.

Bowlen has a very expensive hooker habit

baja
03-18-2012, 06:47 PM
His fur coat is on ebay, that says something.

Garcia Bronco
03-18-2012, 06:56 PM
I've never heard anything about him being broke other than on the Mane. Seems like SOCAL is the ring leader on it. I could be wrong though never seen a link or an article mentioning money problems for him.

Correct. SoCal makes up many things about Bowlen. Its retarded.

elsid13
03-18-2012, 06:57 PM
When most of your money comes from real estate and lumber holding, why do you think he is a little tight with the cash outlay

Lestat
03-18-2012, 07:27 PM
if i remember correctly this rumor was started back when we were going through the coaching search and it was assumed that Bowlen wouldn't go for a big name coach so that he wouldn't have to pay him and Shanahan a ton of money.

that was the first i heard of him being in financial trouble and it hasn't stopped since then.

if i'm not mistake this is also around the time we were introduced to the "Pat Bowlen is a gutless drunk." mantra that has been adopted.

spdirty
03-18-2012, 07:39 PM
if i remember correctly this rumor was started back when we were going through the coaching search and it was assumed that Bowlen wouldn't go for a big name coach so that he wouldn't have to pay him and Shanahan a ton of money.

that was the first i heard of him being in financial trouble and it hasn't stopped since then.

if i'm not mistake this is also around the time we were introduced to the "Pat Bowlen is a gutless drunk." mantra that has been adopted.

Sundquist, our GM that got fired after losing a power struggle with Shanny, was the first I heard that was shouting that the Broncos were broke. I just started this thread cuz I wanted to get to the bottom of it, have a discussion about it, and get some answers. Wade through all the bull**** and you can still find posters that give some damn good informative answers on this site.

Chris
03-18-2012, 07:45 PM
I do think the potential threat of dementia for Pat may be one reason we're pushing to win now. Sad.

eddie mac
03-18-2012, 07:45 PM
No kidding. I once tried counting all the zeros but didn't feel like taking off my shoes.

You'd better take them off for Lord Manning or we'll pitchfork you out of Denver.

spdirty
03-18-2012, 07:45 PM
Bowlen isn't broke. This is one of those mane fantasies that has grown and grown and grown and grown. Bowlen and his family are one of the 1000 wealthiest families in the world.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/...mily_ACGS.html (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Patrick-Bowlen-family_ACGS.html)

However, he's not in the stratosphere of a Mark Cuban, Jerry Jones, Stan Kroenkeor Daniel Snyder type in terms of net worth. Although He's probably closer than many would think.

Honestly, I think it has more to do with Pat Bowlen suffering from age related dementia. I seriously doubt Bowlen really has much to do with the day to day operational budget of the team. My guess is Joe Ellis, along with a slew of corporate attorneys, Bowlen family advisers etc. are attempting to keep the operational budget as low as possible in relation to the money the team makes. However, the team is still one of the ten most valuable in the league.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/mos..._slide_11.html (http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10_slide_11.html)
Worth more than the Steelers, Colts, Packers, Chargers, Raiders, Chiefs etc. etc.

So why is Bowlen/Bowlen's family doing this? My guess is that the family anticipates a time in the near future when Pat is completely unable to run the franchise and where they will sell the team. In the meantime, they are attempting to keep the costs associated with owning and operating an NFL franchise as low as possible, until the day where they sell the franchise.

The good news is in 2013 we get a per-team spending minimum
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ly-until-2013/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/30/per-team-spending-minimum-doesnt-apply-until-2013/)

"Each team muat spend at least 89 percent of the salary cap in cash on an annual basis."

Thanks. Thats probably the most sensible and logical answer I could ask for. Just doesn't make sense that he'd be broke.

DenverBrit
03-18-2012, 08:02 PM
I've never heard of him being broke, except on the Mane.

If he were, and it was known, this town would have been buzzing about it a long time ago.

Lot of Bowlen and Elway haters here lately.

MaloCS
03-18-2012, 08:05 PM
if i remember correctly this rumor was started back when we were going through the coaching search and it was assumed that Bowlen wouldn't go for a big name coach so that he wouldn't have to pay him and Shanahan a ton of money.

that was the first i heard of him being in financial trouble and it hasn't stopped since then.

if i'm not mistake this is also around the time we were introduced to the "Pat Bowlen is a gutless drunk." mantra that has been adopted.

Being that you're not from Colorado your memory is incorrect. The talk of Bowlen's financial problems date back to 2002, if not earlier.

http://www.westword.com/2002-01-03/news/pat-s-big-fumble/

MaloCS
03-18-2012, 08:06 PM
I've never heard of him being broke, except on the Mane.

If he were, and it was known, this town would have been buzzing about it a long time ago.

Lot of Bowlen and Elway haters here lately.

The talk of Bowlen's financial problems date back to 2002, if not earlier.

http://www.westword.com/2002-01-03/news/pat-s-big-fumble/

Lestat
03-18-2012, 08:08 PM
I've never heard of him being broke, except on the Mane.

If he were, and it was known, this town would have been buzzing about it a long time ago.

Lot of Bowlen and Elway haters here lately.

if he was broke i'd imagine that he wouldn't have been one of the owners involved in labor discussions and would be McCourted MLB style. :strong:

DenverBrit
03-18-2012, 08:10 PM
The talk of Bowlen's financial problems date back to 2002, if not earlier.

http://www.westword.com/2002-01-03/news/pat-s-big-fumble/

Ok, there are 7 pages, I waded through page one.

Could you please post the paragraph that mentions Bowlen being broke.

Thanks.

Edit: Ok, I read it. Did you? The article is about the Kaiser transaction and the preferential ownersip deal he offered Elway.

The article was written in 2002, but writes of events years before.

Still not buying the 'Bowlen is broke' story.

Taco John
03-18-2012, 08:11 PM
Hard to believe he's broke if he's offering Peyton a 5 year, $90 million contract with $30 of it up front.

theAPAOps5
03-18-2012, 08:13 PM
The talk of Bowlen's financial problems date back to 2002, if not earlier.

http://www.westword.com/2002-01-03/news/pat-s-big-fumble/

Echo, echo


;D

baja
03-18-2012, 08:20 PM
Hard to believe he's broke if he's offering Peyton a 5 year, $90 million contract with $30 of it up front.

Word is he has to borrow the money

Taco John
03-18-2012, 08:21 PM
Word is he has to borrow the money

Maybe Elway will give him a loan...

DenverBrit
03-18-2012, 08:22 PM
Hard to believe he's broke if he's offering Peyton a 5 year, $90 million contract with $30 of it up front.

Exactly.

Broke would have problems coming up with $30 mill in cash and couldn't stand up to scrutiny in $90 million deal.

errand
03-18-2012, 08:25 PM
Because people on this board are going to have hard facts about Bowlen's finances. ::)

Amazing....TJ says a source he trusts claims Tebow wants a trade outta Denver, and he gets peppered with "link?" and people saying he shouldn't be saying things without "proof"....and yet you feel like you can do likewise about Bowlen's financial stability?

Lestat
03-18-2012, 08:28 PM
there's talk of him having poorly structured the ownership group and shifting it from one corporate holding to another. but almost all businesses do that to restructure debts incurred and to increase profitability.

even the loans he took out for the Broncos were done from other corporate holdings by the Bowlen family.

Being that you're not from Colorado your memory is incorrect. The talk of Bowlen's financial problems date back to 2002, if not earlier.

http://www.westword.com/2002-01-03/news/pat-s-big-fumble/

baja
03-18-2012, 08:28 PM
Maybe Elway will give him a loan...

Then John can drop the Mr. Bowlen and address him as Pat

While Bowlen will have to say "This one is for Mr. Elway".

DenverBrit
03-18-2012, 08:31 PM
Being that you're not from Colorado your memory is incorrect. The talk of Bowlen's financial problems date back to 2002, if not earlier.

http://www.westword.com/2002-01-03/news/pat-s-big-fumble/

LOL.

I've lived in Denver since 92, my memory is fine.

SJ Bronco
03-18-2012, 08:33 PM
Al davis was one of the least richest owners. He was worth 800 million back in 2009. He still spent his cap space. He was an idiot with what he spent it on but showed you can be broke and still spend for players.

On that note, the niners have ownership debates among siblings and what is probably now the single crappiest stadium in all of sports and they seem to be doing great.

Jekyll15Hyde
03-18-2012, 08:33 PM
I had heard that he wasnt broke exactly but that it was more of a cash flow issue. No links or evidence, just had heard it. Having tons of assets doesn't always mean you have adequate cash flow...

Pat Bowlen
03-18-2012, 08:33 PM
I had heard that he wasnt broke exactly but that it was more of a cash flow issue. No links or evidence, just had heard it. Having tons of assets doesn't always mean you have adequate cash flow...
I make it snow, I make it flurry. I make it out alright tomorrow, don't worry.

SJ Bronco
03-18-2012, 08:35 PM
Rich broke and poor broke are very different.

Example:
Pat - I may not be able to put gas in my private jet for a couple of days.

Joe public - I may not be able to buy food for a couple of days.

yerner
03-18-2012, 08:36 PM
I make it snow, I make it flurry. I make it out alright tomorrow, don't worry.

Get some longer shorts you weirdo.

razorwire77
03-18-2012, 08:55 PM
Being that you're not from Colorado your memory is incorrect. The talk of Bowlen's financial problems date back to 2002, if not earlier.

http://www.westword.com/2002-01-03/news/pat-s-big-fumble/

This particular article doesn't show anything other than a fuzzy chart that chronicles a billionaire's tax attorneys coming up with creative ways to circumvent paying Uncle Sam by creating a series of different corporations and as the article states:

the Bowlen family was seeking to insulate the property from creditors, lawsuits, bankruptcies and miscellaneous mischief that had befallen other investments.

Can you imagine how many times an NFL franchise gets sued in any given year? People slipping on spilled beer, services rendered lawsuits, 3rd party lawsuits etc. etc. etc.

If anything Bowlen was trying insulate the Broncos from Kaiser himself, by splitting the team ownership among shill corporations owned by different members of the families.

All this being said, I do agree that Bowlen/Ellis/Bronco Corporate interests have been pretty damn cheap over the past decade in terms of a financial commitment to player salary.

Garcia Bronco
03-18-2012, 08:58 PM
I had heard that he wasnt broke exactly but that it was more of a cash flow issue. No links or evidence, just had heard it. Having tons of assets doesn't always mean you have adequate cash flow...

This.

OrangeSe7en
03-18-2012, 09:16 PM
Bowlen isn't broke. This is one of those mane fantasies that has grown and grown and grown and grown. Bowlen and his family are one of the 1000 wealthiest families in the world.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/...mily_ACGS.html (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Patrick-Bowlen-family_ACGS.html)

However, he's not in the stratosphere of a Mark Cuban, Jerry Jones, Stan Kroenkeor Daniel Snyder type in terms of net worth. Although He's probably closer than many would think.

Honestly, I think it has more to do with Pat Bowlen suffering from age related dementia. I seriously doubt Bowlen really has much to do with the day to day operational budget of the team. My guess is Joe Ellis, along with a slew of corporate attorneys, Bowlen family advisers etc. are attempting to keep the operational budget as low as possible in relation to the money the team makes. However, the team is still one of the ten most valuable in the league.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/mos..._slide_11.html (http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10_slide_11.html)
Worth more than the Steelers, Colts, Packers, Chargers, Raiders, Chiefs etc. etc.

So why is Bowlen/Bowlen's family doing this? My guess is that the family anticipates a time in the near future when Pat is completely unable to run the franchise and where they will sell the team. In the meantime, they are attempting to keep the costs associated with owning and operating an NFL franchise as low as possible, until the day where they sell the franchise.

The good news is in 2013 we get a per-team spending minimum
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ly-until-2013/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/30/per-team-spending-minimum-doesnt-apply-until-2013/)

"Each team muat spend at least 89 percent of the salary cap in cash on an annual basis."

Net worth doesn't address liquidity or cash flow problems. If you have large short term debt and you're low on short term assets, you can still have a cash flow problem even with a high net worth.

razorwire77
03-18-2012, 09:19 PM
Net worth doesn't address liquidity or cash flow problems.

True, but Bowlen's cash flow problems have never been adequately confirmed. The only liquidity problem Bowlen has is when the driver forgets to rotate a new bottle of $300 cognac into the limo fridge.

OrangeSe7en
03-18-2012, 09:37 PM
True, but Bowlen's cash flow problems have never been adequately confirmed. The only liquidity problem Bowlen has is when the driver forgets to rotate a new bottle of $300 cognac into the limo fridge.

The point is, one of the sources you used cited his net worth, which alone really doesn't address the issue being discussed.

And lets say he had a lot invested in real estate, with how it has devalued during the past several years, it shouldn't be a surprise that he's taken a big financial hit.

razorwire77
03-18-2012, 09:46 PM
The point is, one of the sources you used cited his net worth, which alone really doesn't address the issue being discussed.

And lets say he had a lot invested in real estate, with how it has devalued during the past several years, it shouldn't be a surprise that he's taken a big financial hit.

Again, link? Where is the evidence that Bowlen has a cash flow problem? Lots of rich people took financial hits during the real estate crisis. If Pat had specific real estate holdings that effected his bottom line so much that it effectively limited his ability to make payroll on an NFL franchise what are these holdings? Surely it would have been big news if any Bowlen involved real estate corporations or subsidiaries of his companies went belly up? Why no reports of Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 in any of these companies. You know the Denver media would be on this like flies on **** if there was any fire.

DENVERDUI55
03-19-2012, 07:10 AM
I Don't think Pat will be drinking TENHIGH or Lord Calvert anytime soon.

Kaylore
03-19-2012, 07:16 AM
I am not convinced Bowlen is broke. I am convinced he's been cheap the last two years. Not the last ten, though. Shanahan had the checkbook and he got what he wanted. The other side of that is Bowlen has built and re-modeled the facilities at Dove Valley over the years investing a great deal of personal money to do so. He's spent money before.

Why the Broncos aren't right now is unclear to me, but once again no one is saying Bowlen is the reason.

DENVERDUI55
03-19-2012, 07:23 AM
I am not convinced Bowlen is broke. I am convinced he's been cheap the last two years.


That's what I think too and the mane perception is he must be broke after the careless spending in the 2000's.

Drek
03-19-2012, 08:16 AM
Bowlen isn't broke but the ownership group as a whole is running the team to make money first, produce wins second. We see that in how little cash they're willing to spend despite being a top 10 total value franchise in the league.

There are effectively two ways to run an NFL team if your primary goal is winning and your team makes enough money to spend competitively (that includes almost every team in the league).

Model #1 is what the Redskins do, to the ultimate extreme. You spend a lot of cash up front to get your big name FA signings and you amortize the cap hit over multiple years. This allows you to binge year after year on high priced FAs but requires a "purge" season fairly frequently when you let all the dead money clear off the cap, likely releasing those signed big name FAs so you can accelerate the amortized cap hit into the purge year.

This model lets you win the off-season nearly every year but you get poor value for your dollar. This is fine if your owner is Dan Snyder and you have the cash to burn through. Most wealthy people aren't idiots though and get real sour if their management of an organization try to explain how getting $5M worth of value on an asset you spend $15M to acquire was the right choice.

Model #2 is what a team like the Patriots do, also to the ultimate extreme of that perspective. Instead of focusing on cash spent they focus on cap spent. Every year should have you at or near the cap, regardless of cash actually given out. In a good FA market you fill your cap space with value signings (like Wes Welker, Andre Carter, and Mark Anderson to name a few). In dry FA markets you extend and restructure your in-house options to have them taken care of and off the books in anticipation of the better FA years.

Most teams fall somewhere in between these two. Pittsburgh and Green Bay would land far closer to model #2. Dallas and Philly are closer to model #1. The Jets and Giants land pretty close to the middle of scale, on average.

Overall much of the league tries to be a model #2 team year in and year out, with the intentions of turning into a model #1 team when they feel like they're a piece or two away from winning a title.

The problem with the Broncos from a financial standpoint is an unwillingness to spend in accordance with either model. This is why we have heard the front office talk about a "cash cap" where instead of focusing on the league's salary cap they instead work within a structure of how much real cash they're going to pay per season. Now a "cash cap" sounds like a good idea in principle, but it only works if you put the right amount of seed money into it to start things off, which we clearly haven't.

Want a real simple test as to why this doesn't work for the Broncos? Who would you rather have signed last off-season, Brandon Mebane for $5M AAV or Ty Warren for $4M AAV? I think the answer is obvious. But let's look at the details on those deals. Mebane's contract was 5 years, $25M. But $9M of that was guaranteed money. Ty Warren's was 2 years, $8M but only $4M of that was guaranteed. So in terms of real committed money Mebane received 125% more money than did Warren.

We are now seeing this play out with Peyton Manning. We can't sign many, if any, other veteran FAs if we get Manning because his guaranteed money will eat up the vast majority of our cash resources for the year.

Now if the team was truly committed to winning there would have been an edict issued from on high (Bowlen) stating that the FO should proceed forward with their expected cash budget pre-salary cap roll-over of about $25M and that he would willingly spend the additional up front cash and have them use the rolled over cap number to fit Manning on the books. But that obviously isn't what happened, and so we can't spend the cash resources the FO was supposed to have available until Manning decides where he's going.

That implies one of two things or a combination thereof, a liquidity problem or an unwillingness to invest in winning. I assume it is a combination of the two. Bowlen likely has no liquidity problems of his own, nor does his family. But the Broncos organization likely does as much of it's operating profits are probably being taken by ownership, preventing the team from building the kind of cash war chest needed to run a "cash cap" model. That is a long term strategy to build a winning organization, unfortunately long term thinking does not seem to rule the day in the organization at this point in time.

Eldorado
03-19-2012, 11:36 AM
Any owner that uses a team to make money will always be considered a Bottom Feeder. You buy sports teams to spend money not make it.
Unfortunately this is the truth. And it pretty much sums up Bowlen.

Well, ain't that a b****. :D

LittleFloyd
03-19-2012, 11:49 AM
Bowlen doesn't have much money left because plastic surgery for the old lady doesn't come cheap. And he still is a gutless drunk.

DENVERDUI55
03-19-2012, 11:50 AM
NFL teams make money regardless of team cap.

Drek
03-19-2012, 11:52 AM
NFL teams make money regardless of team cap.

Of course, its all about just how much money ownership wants to extract from the team.

Requiem
03-19-2012, 12:02 PM
Of course, its all about just how much money ownership wants to extract from the team.

You keep talking about $ when it comes to free agents and us being "cheap" -- but did you ever come to the realization that Mebane, Soliai, etc. ended up not wanting to play here after their visits?

Do you even know what kind of contracts the Broncos offered such players?

Drek
03-19-2012, 12:08 PM
You keep talking about $ when it comes to free agents and us being "cheap" -- but did you ever come to the realization that Mebane, Soliai, etc. ended up not wanting to play here after their visits?

Do you even know what kind of contracts the Broncos offered such players?

Multiple sources claim that the Broncos bowed out on Mebane last off-season because the dollar figure was too high for them. Some described the Broncos offer as being "low ball".

So I'd say that is pretty illustrative. The gap between Mebane and Warren is obviously worth the $1M AAV bump. We wouldn't go that extra mile for the younger, healthier, more reliable player? But then you look at guaranteed and up front money and then you see a real big disparity. So its pretty clear what the sticking point is for why they thought Mebane was "too expensive".

I'll reiterate what I've said on this forum before. If we aren't cheap then lets see the FO follow up the Manning addition with the appropriate follow ups. You can't start Andre Goodman as your #2 CB and guys like Mitch Unrein can't play serious snaps for you if you're a legit title contender. So spend the coin, shore up the offense to suit Manning, shore up the defense to support the offense.

If we aren't handicapped by an unwillingness to spend cash then let's spend up to that cap limit and make a legit run over the next two years. We entered the off-season with over $40M in cap room and we haven't spent dick yet. We've got nearly $20M left even after adding Manning. Lets make good on this potential and flash the cash.

Requiem
03-19-2012, 12:12 PM
That's a good illustration.

bendog
03-19-2012, 12:24 PM
http://www.rodneyfort.com/SportsData/NFL/NFLTeamValues/NFLNSLI02.pdf

Bowlen took on around 100 million in debt for the Diaphram

If the sales tax isn't enough to pay off the citizens' share of the debt, Bowlen gets the bill.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/19/denvers-stadium-downtown-a-case-study-for-charge/?print&page=all

Because the Club seats didn't sell as the team became mediocre, the Broncos reduced seat costs and the number of seats.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/30/nfl-valuations-11_Denver-Broncos_308211.html

btw, the broncs fell from 10 to 12 in most valuable franchises that year.

I never bought the argument that Den bailed on Mebane just on dollars. Like most UFAs he used other teams to raise the bid his current team would give, then he took the deal when it appeared he's maxed out what was the offer. it's stupid to overpay for a guy who just isn't a lot better than cheaper options. No team ever built via free agency

Manning should sell some club seats.

Beantown Bronco
03-19-2012, 12:29 PM
it's stupid to overpay for a guy who just isn't a lot better than cheaper options. No team ever built via free agency



But what if the team refuses for 10 years to draft DTs high? Teams don't trade good ones, so you're kind of left with FA and FA only.

Drek
03-19-2012, 12:32 PM
I never bought the argument that Den bailed on Mebane just on dollars. Like most UFAs he used other teams to raise the bid his current team would give, then he took the deal when it appeared he's maxed out what was the offer. it's stupid to overpay for a guy who just isn't a lot better than cheaper options. No team ever built via free agency.

Except multiple sources from both Denver and Seattle said they viewed Mebane's deal as "too expensive" at the time, and then gave Warren nearly as much money over the short term. the only major difference was guaranteed money.

Bowlen isn't hurting for cash. He isn't broke. He's just been very unwilling to spend the last several years like he was when he first took ownership and when he had Shanahan running things. The team still makes ****loads of money. Bowlen still has ****loads of money. He's just letting the team spend less of what it makes than he used to.

Mebane publicly said last off-season that he figured he'd be leaving Seattle. He wasn't fishing for leverage, he realistically thought he was out the door. We weren't willing to spend up to what the league deems as fair rate for a good starting DT.

bendog
03-19-2012, 12:43 PM
Sea matched Den's offer. Den chose not to go into a bidding war.

http://seattle.sbnation.com/seattle-seahawks/2011/7/30/2304852/brandon-mebane-contract-seattle-seahawks-free-agency

You cannot seriously be trying to say the broncos couldn't pay 5 mil a year with 5 guaranteed for 5 years.

If you can't grasp the fact that Bowlen overestimated how much revenue the diaphram would yield and shanny put him in dead money hell, there's nothing I can do to help you. Now, if you were trying to say Den had so many holes when EFX took over that Mebane v. short term fixes like gambles on bunkley and warren, it made management unwilling to spend ... then I'd agree with you.

Bowlen thinks people will buy club seats to see peyton.

Drek
03-19-2012, 12:54 PM
Sea matched Den's offer. Den chose not to go into a bidding war.

http://seattle.sbnation.com/seattle-seahawks/2011/7/30/2304852/brandon-mebane-contract-seattle-seahawks-free-agency

You cannot seriously be trying to say the broncos couldn't pay 5 mil a year with 5 guaranteed for 5 years.

If you can't grasp the fact that Bowlen overestimated how much revenue the diaphram would yield and shanny put him in dead money hell, there's nothing I can do to help you. Now, if you were trying to say Den had so many holes when EFX took over that Mebane v. short term fixes like gambles on bunkley and warren, it made management unwilling to spend ... then I'd agree with you.

Bowlen thinks people will buy club seats to see peyton.
1. your link doesn't specify that it was matching the Broncos offer.

2. from the same site you linked:
The Seahawks DT will likely be too expensive for Denver to sign, and the Broncos have dropped their pursuit of Mebane. (http://seattle.sbnation.com/seattle-seahawks/2011/7/29/2302332/brandon-mebane-nfl-free-agency-denver-broncos)

3. I would agree that he overestimated the money he'd make off the stadium's club level, but the Shanahan cap hell era has been over for a couple years now. The FO purged the books the year after Shanahan left.

4. This all just underscores my point. Bowlen isn't losing money on the Broncos. He isn't poor. But he and his family who are effectively his ownership partners have a set amount of money they expect the team to make for them. The various issues you describe are symptomatic issues stemming from an ownership group who puts making money off the team before fielding the best team possible. When those issues cut into the bottom line the team feels it, not the ownership group's profit margin.

BMarsh615
03-20-2012, 06:15 AM
Interesting thing about Broncos is most presume it will be for sale in coming years, so Manning cld become part of future ownership group

https://twitter.com/#!/dkaplanSBJ/status/182089931978584064

kappys
03-20-2012, 06:31 AM
Multiple sources claim that the Broncos bowed out on Mebane last off-season because the dollar figure was too high for them. Some described the Broncos offer as being "low ball".

So I'd say that is pretty illustrative. The gap between Mebane and Warren is obviously worth the $1M AAV bump. We wouldn't go that extra mile for the younger, healthier, more reliable player? But then you look at guaranteed and up front money and then you see a real big disparity. So its pretty clear what the sticking point is for why they thought Mebane was "too expensive".

I'll reiterate what I've said on this forum before. If we aren't cheap then lets see the FO follow up the Manning addition with the appropriate follow ups. You can't start Andre Goodman as your #2 CB and guys like Mitch Unrein can't play serious snaps for you if you're a legit title contender. So spend the coin, shore up the offense to suit Manning, shore up the defense to support the offense.

If we aren't handicapped by an unwillingness to spend cash then let's spend up to that cap limit and make a legit run over the next two years. We entered the off-season with over $40M in cap room and we haven't spent dick yet. We've got nearly $20M left even after adding Manning. Lets make good on this potential and flash the cash.

This will really be the test. I'm willing to give EFX the benefit of the doubt last year because they were inheriting a new group of players, finally putting decent coaches out there and perhaps waiting to see exactly what they had. While I agree Mebane is clearly a better option than Warren it could be that they felt a short term stopgap was a better option at that time until they could really assess their resources. Lets not pretend Mebane is an elite DT worth signing regardless of your overall team position. I would prefer Bunkley over Mebane given the choice.

Now we have Peyton and we'd better win now. I bet the pocketbook is wide open - or at least $21 mil is open and we should spent just about every penny.