PDA

View Full Version : Broncos Financial Issues...


Popps
06-23-2009, 10:34 PM
So, I'm curious to see what folks think around here, particularly anyone who can think beyond "McStoopidpoopoo," et al.

Is our organization encountering real money issues? It's been thrown around. If you think so, what's the basis?

Marshall pulled almost the exact about-face Cutler did, only at least Marshall admitted it's about money. (Mostly.) Cutlerbus tried to weasel out of it as being some sort of conflict of player/coach interest.

Interested to hear opinions, particularly anyone with any insight as to the financial workings of the team. It appears we'll run considerably under the cap this year? Have we done that in the past ten years? Never seems like it.

Were Cutler and Marshall just told that the till is empty, or are these just individual cases that involve circumstances that keep us from wanting to pay them? (Attitudes, arrests, etc?)

We certainly had no problem paying Casey W., despite some risk. (Age.)

Do you believe this team is in a real financial bind, and will it continue? Or, are we just trying to get the books back in order as we rebuild?

Archer81
06-23-2009, 10:48 PM
I believe they are circumstances of players trying to test the new coach and GM. One got shipped out because of disrespect towards the owner, the other wont be going anywhere without a lot coming back in return.

:Broncos:

BroncoBuff
06-23-2009, 10:49 PM
Don't know any details, but I feel certain the "budget-cutting" excuse for firing those four staffers was a smokescreen.

They replaced at least two anyway (the PR guy Paul Kirk and the BroncosTV guy .... what was his name?)

TheReverend
06-23-2009, 10:52 PM
So, I'm curious to see what folks think around here, particularly anyone who can think beyond "McStoopidpoopoo," et al.

Is our organization encountering real money issues? It's been thrown around. If you think so, what's the basis?

Marshall pulled almost the exact about-face Cutler did, only at least Marshall admitted it's about money. (Mostly.) Cutlerbus tried to weasel out of it as being some sort of conflict of player/coach interest.

Interested to hear opinions, particularly anyone with any insight as to the financial workings of the team. It appears we'll run considerably under the cap this year? Have we done that in the past ten years? Never seems like it.

Were Cutler and Marshall just told that the till is empty, or are these just individual cases that involve circumstances that keep us from wanting to pay them? (Attitudes, arrests, etc?)

We certainly had no problem paying Casey W., despite some risk. (Age.)

Do you believe this team is in a real financial bind, and will it continue? Or, are we just trying to get the books back in order as we rebuild?

One extraordinary issue with your premise:

If Cutler wanted to weasel his trade into a contract. He could've.

Period.

Sooooooooooooooooo... /thread

Los Broncos
06-23-2009, 10:53 PM
Don't know any details, but I feel certain the "budget-cutting" excuse for firing those four staffers was a smokescreen.

They replaced at least two anyway (the PR guy Paul Kirk and the BroncosTV guy .... what was his name?)

Andrew Mason I believe.

BroncoBuff
06-23-2009, 10:56 PM
One extraordinary issue with your premise:

If Cutler wanted to weasel his trade into a contract. He could've.

Period.

Sooooooooooooooooo... /thread

True and true ... all the Cutler-haters concocted a conspiracy scenario wherein Bus Cook orchestrated the whole thing to avoid Jay's contract's '09 low-low salary year and get a new deal. But then ... first announcement after he was traded ... "we're gonna wait til next off-season to work a new deal."

Oops.

BroncoBuff
06-23-2009, 10:58 PM
Andrew Mason I believe.

Yeeees.... how could I forget that guy?

DivineBronco
06-23-2009, 11:04 PM
I know we have discussed this many times but really it doesn't strike you as a PR move for Cook to say that after he helped butcher his clients public image?

TheReverend
06-23-2009, 11:05 PM
True and true ... all the Cutler-haters concocted a conspiracy scenario wherein Bus Cook orchestrated the whole thing to avoid Jay's contract's '09 low-low salary year and get a new deal. But then ... first announcement after he was traded ... "we're gonna wait til next off-season to work a new deal."

Oops.

When, in all actuality, he says "I won't play for the Bear's without a new contract" pre-trade, and those 2 firsts and a third and Orton come off the table quick.

Think the Redskins wouldn't throw money at him?

Thought wrong.

Florida_Bronco
06-23-2009, 11:05 PM
I doubt there are any financial issues. I'm sure revenue is down with the recession, but the team seems to have all the money that it needs to get things done.

TheReverend
06-23-2009, 11:06 PM
I know we have discussed this many times but really it doesn't strike you as a PR move for Cook to say that after he helped butcher his clients public image?

PR?

His job is to make money for his client.

He's an AGENT. Not PR.

DivineBronco
06-23-2009, 11:12 PM
I am an awful internet debater my typing sucks and my writing skills are that of a 12 year old, but someone here must be smart enough to point out how naive that statement is. Ok I shall bow out and leave this those of you who can handle a keyboard

TheReverend
06-23-2009, 11:21 PM
I am an awful internet debater my typing sucks and my writing skills are that of a 12 year old, but someone here must be smart enough to point out how naive that statement is. Ok I shall bow out and leave this those of you who can handle a keyboard

Dude...

You didn't even clarify which statement is naive...

Should I defend or destroy you?

I DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kaylore
06-23-2009, 11:36 PM
I think Cutler didn't want to play in Denver because he knew McDaniels wasn't going to do whatever he wanted and so he forced his way out so he could get a team that treated him like a god again. I know Manning is the same way but the Mannings and the Brady's are the hardest workers in the offseason and aren't plastered the night before game day wherein they are fumbling the ball on the five yard line against a crappy team at home.

Kaylore
06-23-2009, 11:38 PM
Dude...

You didn't even clarify which statement is naive...

Should I defend or destroy you?

I DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's common knowledge agents are directly responsible for PR and advise their clients on Pr issues. This is largely because it directly affects their earning power and ability to land endorsement deals.

TheReverend
06-23-2009, 11:43 PM
It's common knowledge agents are directly responsible for PR and advise their clients on Pr issues. This is largely because it directly affects their earning power and ability to land endorsement deals.

So what you're trying to tell me is that Cutler intentionally disregarded a new contract in order to clean his PR image to get a bigger deal next season when deals are primarily due to stats and he'll be in Chicago's offense with Chi's WRs?

Khan... are you ****ing kidding me?

Kaylore
06-23-2009, 11:45 PM
So what you're trying to tell me is that Cutler intentionally disregarded a new contract in order to clean his PR image to get a bigger deal next season when deals are primarily due to stats and he'll be in Chicago's offense with Chi's WRs?

Khan... are you ****ing kidding me?

No I didn't agree with that overall argument, I was speaking specifically to the point he made suggesting you were naive to think that agents don't do PR things. That was incredibly stupid.

TheReverend
06-23-2009, 11:48 PM
No I didn't agree with that overall argument, I was speaking specifically to the point he made suggesting you were naive to think that agents don't do PR things. That was incredibly stupid.

It's the overall picture. Jay could've EASILY landed himself a new contract if that was his motivation as this thread stupidly implies. Anyone who argues the contrary is legitimately dumb. Regardless, who cares?

Popps
06-23-2009, 11:54 PM
Sooooooooooooooooo... /thread

Wow, dude. A self-end thread?

You're better than that.

TheReverend
06-23-2009, 11:56 PM
Wow, dude. A self-end thread?

You're better than that.

Sorry, but as OP, you have a responsibility not to build threads on retarded premises.

Clearly, you failed. Your responsibility. Not mine:

Marshall pulled almost the exact about-face Cutler did, only at least Marshall admitted it's about money. (Mostly.) Cutlerbus tried to weasel out of it as being some sort of conflict of player/coach interest.

Popps
06-23-2009, 11:59 PM
It's the overall picture. Jay could've EASILY landed himself a new contract if that was his motivation as this thread stupidly implies.

How do you know?

How do you know for a fact that the organization HAS the money that he's looking for, and was willing to offer it up?

So, by your logic, Jay Cutler could have easily made himself one of, if not THE highest paid QB in the game... and simply didn't do it because McDaniels hurt his feelings?

Really?

You don't think there's ANY possible way that Cutler and his agent were given some sort of tell that the golden goose wasn't laying eggs?

Both Marshall AND Cutler pulled the "trade me immediately" card VERY quickly, VERY early in the negotiations.

I'm not claiming to know either way.... but that sure smells an awful lot like someone may have stomped on their big contract aspirations.

watermock
06-24-2009, 12:01 AM
One extraordinary issue with your premise:

If Cutler wanted to weasel his trade into a contract. He could've.

Period.

Sooooooooooooooooo... /thread

Butt, butt, Cutler wanted a new contract!....

He's playing for less than BM. Da Bears aren't paying his SB.

TheReverend
06-24-2009, 12:03 AM
How do you know?

How do you know for a fact that the organization HAS the money that he's looking for, and was willing to offer it up?

So, by your logic, Jay Cutler could have easily made himself one of, if not THE highest paid QB in the game... and simply didn't do it because McDaniels hurt his feelings?

Really?

You don't think there's ANY possible way that Cutler and his agent were given some sort of tell that the golden goose wasn't laying eggs?

Both Marshall AND Cutler pulled the "trade me immediately" card VERY quickly, VERY early in the negotiations.

I'm not claiming to know either way.... but that sure smells an awful lot like someone may have stomped on their big contract aspirations.

You mean to tell me the Jets or Redskins or multiple other teams involved in trade talks wouldn't offer a contract?

Popps, since you seem to ignorant or are playing yourself to be... let me remind you how trade talks work.

Step 1:

Team places player on trade block and notifies agent

OR

Agent requests trade, team agrees and notifies agent to facilitate trade.

Step 2 (REGARDLESS of how step one worked out):

AGENT works out a deal with other team (contract, and compensation for current team)

Step 3:

Agent proposes deal to current team.

Step 4:

Trade completed.

Now, obviously there are exceptions to the rule. Plummer unwilling to TB for example.

However, NEVER are there exceptions to the rule when TWO FIRSTS AND THEN SOME, are the compensation. This is a deal agreed upon by all.

TheReverend
06-24-2009, 12:05 AM
Also, Popps, you, nor I, have ANY idea how "quickly" BM pulled the "trade me" card. So get your **** together or shut the **** up.

SoCalBronco
06-24-2009, 12:07 AM
It's an important issue. I'm glad you brought it up, Popps. It is very difficult to tell. Most recently, Bowlen announced that the team was doing "fine" financially, but it has also been noted by Bowlen himself that unlike some of the other owners in the league, the large majority of his income is based on profits from the football team. He isn't independently wealthy like the Hunt family or like a Paul Allen, for example.

A poster on this board, I think it might have been killericon said that he did have oil holdings in Canada and I seem to remember a remark that the investments were doing poorly. Ofcourse, the Broncos themselves made several cutbacks to support staff last year, most notably being Andrew Mason and Paul Kirk, as noted above, although I agree with BroncoBuff that its a stretch that "economics" forced them to can two guys who probably didn't make more than 150k combined. I suspect that relatively speaking the Broncos are feeling at least a little bit of a pinch, just like anyone in this recession. But I'm just not sure if there is substantial evidence out there that there is a real cash flow problem beyond that.

It is true that our spending practices have become tighter recently, but that was true even before the economy hit a free fall as Bowlen announced in Spring, 08 that we were going to change the philosophy of aggressive FA additions and focus on a more prudent strategy of drafting and finding bargains, while making only moderate investments in FA. I think there is a good case to be made that this was a sincere (and warranted) philosophical change in belief, not necessarily just a pretext for keeping more profit.

The argument has been made that Bowlen giving a thumbs down to Shanny's proposal for a new training facility also suggests financial problems. That might be true, but there's just as good of a counterargument out there. Dove Valley is a top notch facility and is also relatively new, so it doesn't seem like a massive new investment was necessary on the merits.

The answer to this obviously would lie in the NFL's revenue data. We might actually get a chance to get our hands on it in the near future, as the NFLPA has been continually requesting internal financial documents from the League in the ongoing labor dispute that is probably going to come to a head in the next year. So far the league and owners have rebuffed them. That does suggest on the surface that perhaps the league is not doing as badly as they have been representing to the union, but its still just speculation. For the Broncos specifically, I have noticed that they remain among the Top 6,7 in terms of team value in the annual Forbes rankings and that would appear to suggest that their revenue streams can't be doing too badly, considering the relatively new stadium and what appear to be lucrative local TV deals.

Overall, I suspect they are probably taking a hit, but its not a truly substantial one. That's just my speculation based on all these things, though.

We'll see.

Popps
06-24-2009, 12:11 AM
You mean to tell me the Jets or Redskins or multiple other teams involved in trade talks wouldn't offer a contract?
.

Well, first off... the Denver Broncos wouldn't have been shopping for the best financial deal for Cutler. They would have been shopping for the best offer. If that offer came with NO contract guarantee for Cutler, he could have been traded anyway.

So, your theory that we would have looked for the deal to make Cutler the most money makes no sense.

WOULD the Skins have paid him more? Sure... maybe. Does Jay have any say in where he's traded? Of course not.


Now, obviously there are exceptions to the rule. Plummer unwilling to TB for example..

Oh, there's been hundreds of "exceptions" to that "rule."

Guys get traded where they get traded. Sometimes contract issues may be worked out ahead of time, sometimes they're not.

But, let me make this easier for you, Rev...

IF Cutler would have demanded a new contract... a big contract, would we have obliged him? Could we have?

You're hung up on one small detail in the thread. (That I personally DO believe he was told he wasn't getting a deal re-worked, and that helped him make up his mind to leave.)

But, say I'm wrong... and he didn't ask.

IF HE WOULD HAVE ASKED... could we have paid him?

There are some speculating that we can't.

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=4638

Taco John
06-24-2009, 12:13 AM
Marshall pulled almost the exact about-face Cutler did, only at least Marshall admitted it's about money. (Mostly.) Cutlerbus tried to weasel out of it as being some sort of conflict of player/coach interest.




I don't know if The Broncos are in financial troubles or not, except to say that I assume everybody is in financial troubles in these days, and that where there is smoke, there is probably fire. The hard part is determining what is actual smoke, and what is - um - mirrors?

On the Cutler issue, while I most definitely believe that money was a big factor in that ordeal, I think it's short-sighted to denigrate the player/coach concern. You can do a simple gut check to prove this one - does anybody really believe that McDaniels and Cutler could have existed successfully in the same locker room? IMO, It's a ridiculous thought. It would have been like an immaturity contest. It would have never worked.

Popps
06-24-2009, 12:16 AM
It's an important issue. I'm glad you brought it up, Popps. It is very difficult to tell. Most recently, Bowlen announced that the team was doing "fine" financially, but it has also been noted by Bowlen himself that unlike some of the other owners in the league, the large majority of his income is based on profits from the football team. He isn't independently wealthy like the Hunt family or like a Paul Allen, for example.

A poster on this board, I think it might have been killericon said that he did have oil holdings in Canada and I seem to remember a remark that the investments were doing poorly. Of course, the Broncos themselves made several cutbacks to support staff last year, most notably being Andrew Mason and Paul Kirk, as noted above, although I agree with BroncoBuff that its a stretch that "economics" forced them to can two guys who probably didn't make more than 150k combined. I suspect that relatively speaking the Broncos are feeling at least a little bit of a pinch, just like anyone in this recession. But I'm just not sure if there is substantial evidence out there that there is a real cash flow problem beyond that.

It is true that our spending practices have become tighter recently, but that was true even before the economy hit a free fall as Bowlen announced in Spring, 08 that we were going to change the philosophy of aggressive FA additions and focus on a more prudent strategy of drafting and finding bargains, while making only moderate investments in FA. I think there is a good case to be made that this was a sincere (and warranted) philosophical change in belief, not necessarily just a pretext for keeping more profit.

The argument has been made that Bowlen giving a thumbs down to Shanny's proposal for a new training facility also suggests financial problems. That might be true, but there's just as good of a counterargument out there. Dove Valley is a top notch facility and is also relatively new, so it doesn't seem like a massive new investment was necessary on the merits.

The answer to this obviously would lie in the NFL's revenue data. We might actually get a chance to get our hands on it in the near future, as the NFLPA has been continually requesting internal financial documents from the League in the ongoing labor dispute that is probably going to come to a head in the next year. So far the league and owners have rebuffed them. That does suggest on the surface that perhaps the league is not doing as badly as they have been representing to the union, but its still just speculation. For the Broncos specifically, I have noticed that they remain among the Top 6,7 in terms of team value in the annual Forbes rankings and that would appear to suggest that their revenue streams can't be doing too badly, considering the relatively new stadium and what appear to be lucrative local TV deals.

Overall, I suspect they are probably taking a hit, but its not a truly substantial one. That's just my speculation based on all these things, though.

We'll see.


Excellent response, SoCal. Interesting thoughts, all around. This is why you need to post more and raise the curve around here.



I tend to feel the same way. I think it's a philosophy shift, potentially combined with some mitigating circumstances involving these couple of players. Time will tell, but it's very interesting... if for no other reason, it's in stark contrast to the way we've done business in the past.

IF we make the right calls, I think it'll serve us well. Teams like Pittsburgh and Tennessee have stayed competitive drafting/developing/signing strategic FA's.

TheReverend
06-24-2009, 12:19 AM
Well, first off... the Denver Broncos wouldn't have been shopping for the best financial deal for Cutler. They would have been shopping for the best offer. If that offer came with NO contract guarantee for Cutler, he could have been traded anyway.

So, your theory that we would have looked for the deal to make Cutler the most money makes no sense.

WOULD the Skins have paid him more? Sure... maybe. Does Jay have any say in where he's traded? Of course not.



Oh, there's been hundreds of "exceptions" to that "rule."

Guys get traded where they get traded. Sometimes contract issues may be worked out ahead of time, sometimes they're not.

But, let me make this easier for you, Rev...

IF Cutler would have demanded a new contract... a big contract, would we have obliged him? Could we have?

You're hung up on one small detail in the thread. (That I personally DO believe he was told he wasn't getting a deal re-worked, and that helped him make up his mind to leave.)

But, say I'm wrong... and he didn't ask.

IF HE WOULD HAVE ASKED... could we have paid him?

There are some speculating that we can't.

http://www.thedenverdailynews.com/article.php?aID=4638

This is the most absurd post I've ever read.

You think the Bears offer that deal if Bus Cook had a new contract worked out with the Skins?

You're beyond dumb, Popps. Or just playing that way.

Popps
06-24-2009, 12:21 AM
I don't know if The Broncos are in financial troubles or not, except to say that I assume everybody is in financial troubles in these days, and that where there is smoke, there is probably fire. The hard part is determining what is actual smoke, and what is - um - mirrors?
.

Agreed.


On the Cutler issue, while I most definitely believe that money was a big factor in that ordeal, I think it's short-sighted to denigrate the player/coach concern. .

Also agree, to a point. I'm not saying the player/coach issues weren't involved at all, I just believe when you talk about smoke screens... a crafty agent helped escalate what could have been a mole-hill into a mountain.
(And a pouty QB fell right in step.)

You can do a simple gut check to prove this one - does anybody really believe that McDaniels and Cutler could have existed successfully in the same locker room? IMO, It's a ridiculous thought. It would have been like an immaturity contest. It would have never worked.

Possibly. But, Elway/Reeves managed to make it work for a long time. I could bore you with dozens of other examples, but I won't.

Question: If Bowlen would have offered to make Cutler the highest paid QB in football if he came back into the fold and worked out his differences with the staff, do you believe that Cutler would have still refused?

Popps
06-24-2009, 12:22 AM
This is the most absurd post I've ever read.

You think the Bears offer that deal if Bus Cook had a new contract worked out with the Skins?

You're beyond dumb, Popps. Or just playing that way.

Not remotely what I said. Are you drunk, too?



Adults are talking now, Rev.

Go to weight-lifting forum for poo-poo face names, please.

TheReverend
06-24-2009, 12:24 AM
Not remotely what I said. Are you drunk, too?



Adults are talking now, Rev.

Go to weight-lifting forum for poo-poo face names, please.

Actually, once again, that's exactly what you said.

Marshall pulled almost the exact about-face Cutler did, only at least Marshall admitted it's about money. (Mostly.) Cutlerbus tried to weasel out of it as being some sort of conflict of player/coach interest.

Now, if you're too dim to understand your own words... or if your agenda is too strong... that's a personal issue.

watermock
06-24-2009, 12:29 AM
How do you know?

How do you know for a fact that the organization HAS the money that he's looking for, and was willing to offer it up?

So, by your logic, Jay Cutler could have easily made himself one of, if not THE highest paid QB in the game... and simply didn't do it because McDaniels hurt his feelings?

Really?

You don't think there's ANY possible way that Cutler and his agent were given some sort of tell that the golden goose wasn't laying eggs?

Both Marshall AND Cutler pulled the "trade me immediately" card VERY quickly, VERY early in the negotiations.

I'm not claiming to know either way.... but that sure smells an awful lot like someone may have stomped on their big contract aspirations.

First, Cutler never demanded a new contract. BM has.

Both demanding trades has more to do with the coaching change than contracts.

It's almost ludicrous to defend the moves by Bowlen.

We HAD a
"#2 2 O, decimated by injury and no true #1.

Bowlen didn't have to ASK Shanny to fire Slowick. He could of forced a resignation.

Then, Bowlen fires the Goodmans and gives a 32 y/o footboy GM powers comparable to Shanny.

Popps
06-24-2009, 12:30 AM
Actually, once again, that's exactly what you said.
.

I said nothing about the Bears/Skins in my original post. Maybe you're lit up?

Not sure.

I said that Cutlerbus played up the player/coach issue, POTENTIALLY when they were told the well was dry.

OR, maybe Jay really IS just SUCH a pussy that he couldn't even fabricate having a spine.

But, most clear-thinking people MIGHT think money plays an issue in life at times.

TheReverend
06-24-2009, 12:33 AM
I said nothing about the Bears/Skins in my original post. Maybe you're lit up?

Not sure.

I said that Cutlerbus played up the player/coach issue, POTENTIALLY when they were told the well was dry.

OR, maybe Jay really IS just SUCH a p***Y that he couldn't even fabricate having a spine.

But, most clear-thinking people MIGHT think money plays an issue in life at times.

Wow.

This is a new depth of Popps "I didn't say what I'm quoted as saying"...

Honestly, you've missed your appropriate calling in terms of career path:

http://armchair-fan.webs.com/circus.jpg

You could've been a contender...

Taco John
06-24-2009, 12:36 AM
Possibly. But, Elway/Reeves managed to make it work for a long time. I could bore you with dozens of other examples, but I won't.

This is true, but no example that you're going to cite (or at least in my memory banks) is going to involve both participants being so close in age. Immaturity and inexperience on both of their parts doomed the relationship right out of the gates. This thing was up in flames in no time. I don't believe that they could have co-existed in the same locker room.



Question: If Bowlen would have offered to make Cutler the highest paid QB in football if he came back into the fold and worked out his differences with the staff, do you believe that Cutler would have still refused?

Of course not, but that hardly proves anything. I watched a friend take a lesson in that one just recently. He hated his job/company but due to circumstances was suddenly promoted and offered a substantial raise. He went from wanting out, to focusing on taking care of business.

But even if that happened, I think Cutler and McDaniels would mix like oil and water. Maybe it would have worked on the field like Gannon and Gruden. But I think it would have looked more like June Jones and Jeff George. I think that by the end of the season, the entire locker room would probably hate both of them.

That's just my opinion though. It's a question that will never be answered.

Popps
06-24-2009, 12:36 AM
Wow.

This is a new depth of Popps "I didn't say what I'm quoted as saying"...
..


Here's what you quoted me as saying...

Marshall pulled almost the exact about-face Cutler did, only at least Marshall admitted it's about money. (Mostly.) Cutlerbus tried to weasel out of it as being some sort of conflict of player/coach interest.

Then, here's what you claim I said...

You think the Bears offer that deal if Bus Cook had a new contract worked out with the Skins?

Ummm.... huh?

Put down the bong, or the bottle, or both.

'the **** do the Redskins have to do with my statement that money was likely involved in the dispute?

Popps
06-24-2009, 12:41 AM
This is true, but no example that you're going to cite (or at least in my memory banks) is going to involve both participants being so close in age. Immaturity and inexperience on both of their parts doomed the relationship right out of the gates. This thing was up in flames in no time. I don't believe that they could have co-existed in the same locker room.





Of course not, but that hardly proves anything. I watched a friend take a lesson in that one just recently. He hated his job/company but due to circumstances was suddenly promoted and offered a substantial raise. He went from wanting out, to focusing on taking care of business.

But even if that happened, I think Cutler and McDaniels would mix like oil and water. Maybe it would have worked on the field like Gannon and Gruden. But I think it would have looked more like June Jones and Jeff George. I think that by the end of the season, the entire locker room would probably hate both of them.

That's just my opinion though. It's a question that will never be answered.


Fair enough, and I'm not totally discounting the head-butting... I just believe it was used as a convenient excuse for Cutlerbus to pry out and seek greener pastures. (Pun intended.)

We'll see how green those pastures end up for them.


Even if people believe money wasn't remotely involved (which I think is ludicrous).... we clearly didn't offer him a contract upgrade.

Yet, Pat and the staff all talked about wanting him back in the fold.

Wouldn't a new contract have been a nice incentive?

But, they didn't offer one.

Why?

Only a couple of possible answers, really...

1. They saw something that scared them off of Cutler.
2. They don't have the money.

Otherwise, if you REALLY want a young "Pro Bowl" QB back... wouldn't you at least entertain the idea of a contract upgrade?

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 12:44 AM
I love this place. No discussion is complete without endless kindergarden snit fits over Cutler, Marshall, McDaniels, etc...not even one on money. Frankly I'm so tired of the entire thing I no longer care.

Back on May 12th I posted this link: http://www.westword.com/2002-01-03/news/pat-s-big-fumble/1

Like most things that require people be energetic enough to actually click it...it went largely unnoticed. No doubt it will again, which is unfortunate because the story here is probably the single most important one of this offseason. I did some checking after I read this, and dug into their facts.

I was stunned at what I found.

I not only think the team's in financial trouble, I think it's future in Denver might ultimately be in some jeopardy. Not only is Pat Bowlen not a mega-rich billionaire like so many people seem to think, by NFL ownership standards he's a guy on the corner holding up a will work for food sign. Bowlen was so cash strapped when he bought this team he had to borrow most of the piddling amount he paid for the Broncos under very unfavorable conditions. He's not the majority owner...only 30%...his family members own the rest. Bowlen is the face of the team but he doesn't even control the majority of the voting stock. His history of personal financial dealings is not impressive, and most of his money is family money, but more concerning...the team itself is shrouded in a heavy fog of shadowy holding companies, multiple corporate shields in different states, bizzare and secretive financial transactions that give the general appearance of a team hiding some serious financial issues. Even his lawsuit with Edgar Kaiser raised very disturbing questions about his financial solvency, and after reading the trial summary I'm astounded that Kaiser didn't win. Frankly I'm not convinced the judge wasn't biased in his favor because Kaiser had a case.

Bowlen's very questionable ethical/legal deal with John Elway in which he essentially tried to give Elway about 10% of the team in place of having to pay him...was rejected by John, probably on the advice of his lawyers. Elway turned down a deal worth far more than the cash he got from Bowlen, which to me raises major red flags on both the legal and fianancial fronts. I think Elway wanted no part of this ownershp group.

The main thing that's worked in Bowlen's favor is the new stadium, which is probably the reason this team's not already in more trouble. But even that seems in jeopardy. The Broncos dirty little secret is that they're no longer selling out all the time, despite what their official numbers say. This new corporate, finicky, tempermental fan base of company fat cats and their clients is not inclined to the fanatical worship of this team the old lunch bucket Mile High fans were. If this move with McDaniels goes south, I could see Bowlen selling this team within 5 years.

I'm sure I'll now be roundly flamed for this but 90% of you are to lazy to read this story, let alone do any digging to see for yourself. Shoot the messenger if you wish...but I didn't start the thread title.

TheReverend
06-24-2009, 12:48 AM
Fair enough, and I'm not totally discounting the head-butting... I just believe it was used as a convenient excuse for Cutlerbus to pry out and seek greener pastures. (Pun intended.)

We'll see how green those pastures end up for them.


Even if people believe money wasn't remotely involved (which I think is ludicrous).... we clearly didn't offer him a contract upgrade.

Yet, Pat and the staff all talked about wanting him back in the fold.

Wouldn't a new contract have been a nice incentive?

But, they didn't offer one.

Why?

Only a couple of possible answers, really...

1. They saw something that scared them off of Cutler.
2. They don't have the money.

Otherwise, if you REALLY want a young "Pro Bowl" QB back... wouldn't you at least entertain the idea of a contract upgrade?

Popps... I've posted your quote several times.

You CLEARLY state that Cutler was being deceptive and his problem with the organization was monetarily based.

There's no disputing that.

Problem is, I've completely disproved that.

Now you're spinning it to mean something else entirely.

Which is absurd.

You made the thread. You made the Original Post in which the thread is based on.

Sadly, your OP sucks... flat out.

Kaylore and I completely disagree on the Cutler situation. However, as you can clearly see, he distanced himself from your idea that this was contractually motivated... because we've seen it CLEARLY was not.

You, however, now try to spin your own words.

Which is just sad...

Popps
06-24-2009, 01:00 AM
Popps... I've posted your quote several times.

You CLEARLY state that Cutler was being deceptive and his problem with the organization was monetarily based.
.

Sure, I think there were other things involved other than him being a baby.

It might shock you that money tends to influence things in life a bit.

Live a little more life, then get back to me. You'll probably agree.

TheReverend
06-24-2009, 01:01 AM
And one more quick thing:

Popps,

You criticize people for liking someone who "didn't want to QB this team"

You throw him "high-fiving people in TN when he found out he got traded to Chicago" in people's faces.

If this was money motivated, as your OP suggests (ONCE AGAIN), why would he be excited to go to Chicago without a deal in place agreed to by his agent?

Answer:

You're an ignorant dumb-****... or you just play one on TV.

Clearly, you did not stay at a holiday inn express last night.

TheReverend
06-24-2009, 01:02 AM
Sure, I think there were other things involved other than him being a baby.

It might shock you that money tends to influence things in life a bit.

Live a little more life, then get back to me. You'll probably agree.

Holy ****, you're stupid. That's the premise of how many times I've disputed your ignorant OP.

Popps
06-24-2009, 01:04 AM
I love this place. No discussion is complete without endless kindergarden snit fits over Cutler, Marshall, McDaniels, etc...not even one on money. Frankly I'm so tired of the entire thing I no longer care.

Back on May 12th I posted this link: http://www.westword.com/2002-01-03/news/pat-s-big-fumble/1

Like most things that require people be energetic enough to actually click it...it went largely unnoticed. No doubt it will again, which is unfortunate because the story here is probably the single most important one of this offseason. I did some checking after I read this, and dug into their facts.

I was stunned at what I found.

I not only think the team's in financial trouble, I think it's future in Denver might ultimately be in some jeopardy. Not only is Pat Bowlen not a mega-rich billionaire like so many people seem to think, by NFL ownership standards he's a guy on the corner holding up a will work for food sign. Bowlen was so cash strapped when he bought this team he had to borrow most of the piddling amount he paid for the Broncos under very unfavorable conditions. He's not the majority owner...only 30%...his family members own the rest. Bowlen is the face of the team but he doesn't even control the majority of the voting stock. His history of personal financial dealings is not impressive, and most of his money is family money, but more concerning...the team itself is shrouded in a heavy fog of shadowy holding companies, multiple corporate shields in different states, bizzare and secretive financial transactions that give the general appearance of a team hiding some serious financial issues. Even his lawsuit with Edgar Kaiser raised very disturbing questions about his financial solvency, and after reading the trial summary I'm astounded that Kaiser didn't win. Frankly I'm not convinced the judge wasn't biased in his favor because Kaiser had a case.

Bowlen's very questionable ethical/legal deal with John Elway in which he essentially tried to give Elway about 10% of the team in place of having to pay him...was rejected by John, probably on the advice of his lawyers. Elway turned down a deal worth far more than the cash he got from Bowlen, which to me raises major red flags on both the legal and fianancial fronts. I think Elway wanted no part of this ownershp group.

The main thing that's worked in Bowlen's favor is the new stadium, which is probably the reason this team's not already in more trouble. But even that seems in jeopardy. The Broncos dirty little secret is that they're no longer selling out all the time, despite what their official numbers say. This new corporate, finicky, tempermental fan base of company fat cats and their clients is not inclined to the fanatical worship of this team the old lunch bucket Mile High fans were. If this move with McDaniels goes south, I could see Bowlen selling this team within 5 years.

I'm sure I'll now be roundly flamed for this but 90% of you are to lazy to read this story, let alone do any digging to see for yourself. Shoot the messenger if you wish...but I didn't start the thread title.


Hey, I'm not going to flame. It's an interesting response. I think you're leaping to some conclusions, but so be it. At least you thought it out.

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 01:06 AM
Hey, I'm not going to flame. It's an interesting response. I think you're leaping to some conclusions, but so be it. At least you thought it out.
Such as?

Anaximines
06-24-2009, 01:09 AM
Yeeees.... how could I forget that guy?

http://www.andrewmason.com/

Vaya con Dios

Popps
06-24-2009, 01:14 AM
Such as?

Well, I think the article was a thesis more than an observation. There's some compelling information that certainly lends credence to the notion that there are financial headwinds. If I thought the idea was impossible, I wouldn't have started the thread.

But, the article also claims to know a lot about Bowlen's state of mind, claims the fans "don't care," and says the team has "no heart."

How does the writer know that?

I also wonder where the financial issues fall in context with other ownership groups around the league?

But, I've lived in a city where a team has moved. (St. Louis./LA) I've also lived in a city where teams have had financial issues come and go for decades... and never went anywhere.

Beyond that, if the club IS in financial trouble, then they're doing exactly the right thing by curtailing spending and approaching things differently.

Again, I'm not ruling it out. In fact, this thread asks the question directly... was not extending Cutler/Marshall more $$ or logistical/tangible issues?

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 01:26 AM
Well, I think the article was a thesis more than an observation. There's some compelling information that certainly lends credence to the notion that there are financial headwinds. If I thought the idea was impossible, I wouldn't have started the thread.

But, the article also claims to know a lot about Bowlen's state of mind, claims the fans "don't care," and says the team has "no heart."

How does the writer know that?
What's any of that got to do with me leaping to conclusions? For that matter, what's any of this have to do with whether the team is in financial trouble or not? The heart of the team, Bowlen's state of mind, etc...are not the issue this article raises, and it's irrelevant to that question of financial solvency.
I also wonder where the financial issues fall in context with other ownership groups around the league?
As far back as 2002 they were carrying $30 million more than the NFL league allows in debt, and the NFL owners had to vote to allow it. I'd say the issues of corporate ownership, bad financial dealings with the original purchase and the bizarre history of trying to hide financial concerns coupled with them actually laying off office staff are a good indication things are not rosey.
Again, I'm not ruling it out. In fact, this thread asks the question directly... was not extending Cutler/Marshall more $$ or logistical/tangible issues?
Who cares? That pales in comparison to the real financial issues raised by the story I posted.

Popps
06-24-2009, 01:36 AM
Who cares? That pales in comparison to the real financial issues raised by the story I posted.

Fans care.

Beyond that, there may be considerable tells inherent in the way the team is conducting negotiations in these types of scenarios.

Or not.

But, it's relevant to the fans.

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 01:48 AM
Fans care.

Beyond that, there may be considerable tells inherent in the way the team is conducting negotiations in these types of scenarios.

Or not.

But, it's relevant to the fans.
Only because the fans are utterly clueless about this issue. It's far more important to talk about boobs, who would hit this or that skank, Marshall being a whiney bitch, Bob's latest problems with his sexuality or how drunk a poster is. The issue in question is about Pat Bowlen's business dealings, the state of the corporate health, and one few people seem to even be aware of...namely that in the future, Edgar Kaiser may own the Broncos again. That should scare this board, but it's not since they're unaware of it.

Nothing about how the team is conducting negotiations with players amounts to a zit on an elephant's ass compared to the real story. You raised the question in your thread as to whether the team is in financial trouble or not. So why not address the question YOU raised instead of more of the same BS about Cutler's contract, etc...? As I noted...this was YOUR thread, not mine.

So now...since I don't think you've actually read the story...it would be a good time to do so.

Meck77
06-24-2009, 02:29 AM
-Bowlen is an oil guy.
-The stock market tanked.
-Real estate is down.
-Discretionary income for every football fan across the league is down.

Whether you are a billionaire, millionaire, or live pay check to pay check I don't know anyone that hasn't taken a hit? It's easy to sit back and give Pat flack for not giving Cutler a massive contract. However any smart businessman right now is cutting costs. Injured players are always on that list. Cut has a great arm but let's face it he has a physical illness that obviously wasn't worth investing if you are Pat Bowlen right now. I'm not so sure why that is so hard to understand for some fans. Cash flow is critical to any business right now and investing in long term cash flowing assets is the key to recovery.

cmhargrove
06-24-2009, 05:57 AM
Back to the original question - I think the roster changes have been more about purging the talent (or lack of). Pay guys who sell out, respond to coaching, and play team-first ball. That's why you cut guys like Webster, Robertson, and Bly instead of restructuring them. It's a question of value.

If we were cash strapped, why did we pay so much for Simms (back when we had Cutler), then make a run at Cassell (which cost much, much more than Cutler)?

I think we are wisely rebuilding the team ala Miami. There may be financial woes in Broncoland like everywhere, but Bowlen has always given a green light to make necessary changes. Didn't we sign more free agents this year than any other team?

Irish Stout
06-24-2009, 08:12 AM
The following is all unfounded speculation:

I have to imagine that the Broncos if not having income problems now are preparing for them. Last season the Broncos had problems selling all of the club level tickets, that will continue into this season. That means fewer fans in the stadium buying fewer programs, beers, and popcorn. The recession will also affect those fans in the stadium from spending as much as they might normally this year. Furthermore, jersey sales are bound to be way down since the #1 selling Broncos jersey the last couple of years was Cutler and all those people who bought an $80 jersey are now wondering if they'll ever buy a current players jersey. Really, with the new regime, you'd be hesitant to buy almost anyone's jersey because you just can't predict when Scheffler will ask to be traded or when McD might decide that Royal's trade value is higher than his on field Bronco value.

Further, there will be more blowback on other Bronco merchandise because of the shenanigans of this off-season. Again, due to the recession, there will be more people not buying hats, scarves, tents, etc... from the Broncos stores or things that are official NFL merchandise, because admit it its all WAY over priced.

Whether or not the team is currently financially hurting I think it would be safe to assume that they are tightening their belts in anticipation for less profits this current year.

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 01:37 PM
Bowlen isn't "just now" having financial problems...he's had them from day 1 since he bought the team. Most of the fan base doesn't seem to know this because for whater else one can say about Pat Bowlen, one thing that can't be disputed...he's beene extraordinarily adept at keeping this stuff from the media. If Jerry Jones had purchased the Cowboys the way Bowlen purchased the Broncos, the entire league would be shaking their heads in disbelief and Jones would be the subject of contempt not for his plastic face, his ego or his headline making deals with high profile players but for his financial mess. Bowlens purchase of the team and his subsequent financial dealings make it obvious he's been in trouble from the beginning. Check this out:

Bowlen bought the team for somewhere between $65-$77 million and here's how he did it.

1) 1984- While Bowlen's other businesses are already losing money he buys 60.2% of the Broncos and pays a ridiculous $100,000 down at closing...the equivilent of putting less than $100 down to buy a 2009 Cadillac Escalade.

2) Bowlen agrees to pay Edgar Kaiser $26 million plus assume another $20-30 million in debt and also agrees to give Kaiser the ROFR (Right of First Refusal) if he ever re-sells the team, a contratual consideraton that may mean Kaiser one day owns the Broncos again despite the court ruling against him for the past stock transfers Bowlen engaged in.

3) 1984- Bowlen creates a holding company in Texas called Texas Northern Productions Inc., later called Bowlen Sports Inc. and transfers ownership of the team to TNPI to avoid Canadian tax liability. TNPI is owned by PDB Enterprises, which is owned by PDB Sports Holdings, a Nevada corporation which is owned jointly by Bowlen, his 3 siblings and a trust fund in his mother's name.

4) 1985- PDB Enterprises buys the remaining 39.2% of the team from minoirty partners John Adams and Tim Borden. Bowlen can't afford the deal outright so he gets multiple loans from Denver banks and also obtains financing from Adams and Borden that later allows them to double the price...effectively charging Bowlen a 100% increase on the principle of the shares.

5) 1985- One year after signing the deal, Bowlen can't afford the payments so Kaiser gives him an extention on $13 million he owes, costing Bowlen an extra $100,000 a month in interest. Bowlen doesn't have the money so he gets it from his family.

6) 1986- PDB Sports Holdings is sold to Hambledon Sports Holdings, another Bolwen family company in Canada which assumes another $3.75 million the Bowlen family owes to another family corporation, Hambledon Estates Ltd. (HEL)

7) 1987- Bowlen builds 60 luxury sky boxes at Mile High Stadium, then sells them to a private management firm for a quick profit. He uses the cash to finish paying off Adams and Borden but sacrifices the future income from the sky boxes, effectively damaging the team's future revenues. This becomes one of the primary reasons he needs the city of Denver to build a new stadium. By 1997 the Broncos are in the bottom 1/3 of the league in profitability and post net operating loses of $12 million that year on revenues of just $3 million.

8) Bowlen swaps a small amount of stock in HEL for stock in Hambledon Sports Ltd. and transfers team assets...including all shares in Bowlen Sports Inc...which owns 60% of the Broncos...for a measly $7.9 million promisory note. With further stock swaps and cancelling out of promisory notes, Hambledon Sports now ownes through it's subsidiaries, all of the Broncos. Pat Bowlen now owns just 30% of the team. His siblings and his mother, apparently the largest stock holder, now own the rest. The NFL league office considers the deals transfer of ownership, not a family gift and Bowlen files the stock transfer as such.

9) 1985-1999- Over a 14 year period at least 15 corporate entities in Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and Canada have now owned pieces of the Broncos, most of them single purpose companies with no other business, which effectively shields the team from taxes, corporate lawsuits, creditors claims, bankrupcies and claims against other Bowlen family holdings merged into these corporations. In other words, it's a massive shell game meant to protect Bowlen family interests from paying money they owe but don't have.

10) 1998- Cash strapped and faced with paying Elway signifcant deferred money in his contract, Bowlen offers Elway stock in Bowlen Sports Inc. and a future exectuve role with the team instead. BSI's equity minus debt is worth an estimated $300 million once the stadium is built. Conditional upon the new stadium being approved, Bowlen offers Elway a 10% stake in the franchise. Voters are never told Elway stands to gain from the passage of the stadium bond and Elway becomes a cheerleader for the new stadium in the process. The deal states Elway need pay only $15 million for $30 million in stock, most of which the team already owes him. Basically Bowlen offers him the stock for nothing if the stadium vote passes. The deal also offers Elway ROFR for future stock sales and the right to buy into any other NFL team Bowlen buys into. Bowlen denies the deal existed at the time.

11) 2002- The NFL considers the Elway deal a violation of league rules and fines the team $1 million plus a draft pick. Ironically Elway decilnes to excercise his option for stock in the team, effectively turning down shares now worth an estimated $100 million, a clue as to how his lawyers viewed the potential legal entanglements he might be incuring if he pursued the opportunity.

What's the point of all this NOW...years later? The point is, since he got his stadium and increased the team revenues, Bowlen's spent like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse, going for free agent busts every year...the Travis Henry's and Dale Carters of the world...which turned out to be a huge financial mistake. It's obvious this guys no Paul Allen in terms of his worth and he's made very poor financial decisions in the past which has quietly put the teams future ownership in doubt. If Bowlen's made these kind of financial decisions in the past, and knowing what we know about his FA buying sprees, it stands to reason the current evidence that the team is in some financial difficulty is a powerful indicator that Bowlen's money problems still exist. Nobody offers to give away tens of millions in stock options in lieu of present salary compensation for the hell of it. Bowlen couldn't afford the team when he bought it, he's gone far our of his way to shield the family fortune from creditors and lawsuits with his weird corproate shell game and he's obviously vastly over stretched his financial position on multiple occassions in his pursuit of owning this billion dollar toy.

We'd better hope Kaiser kicks the bucket before Bowlen does sell this team because the next time around...if there is a next time...Kaiser still has a legal right to buy the Broncos. I doubt anybody would consider that a good thing.

gyldenlove
06-24-2009, 02:15 PM
Some of the roster moves we made clearly were cash saving, such as the Dre Bly cut.

I don't think the Cutler debacle really had anything to do with finances.

It looks like right now the team is preparing for a downturn in income due to the financial situation and the upcoming CBA renewal by keeping operating costs down. Obviously with a loss of a big seller like Cutler in terms of merchandise and the teams willingness to let players walk, sales will be down and with the financial situation the loss of income will be even worse.

I believe the new CBA will contain several expense reducing clauses in terms of player salary which should help, but the uncertainty of it all, and especially the uncertainty of maybe facing an uncapped year means that the team is quite cautious. The new CBA could bring with it a lowering in the salary cap which could make it hard to keep contracts signed at the old cap around, especially recently signed contracts that can't be renegotiated due to bonus accelration.

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 02:42 PM
I don't think the Cutler debacle really had anything to do with finances.
Consider this: McDaniels primary rep...and possibly the thing that got him this job...was winning without a high priced QB in the lineup. Which do you think would incure 1) more fan wrath, and 2) decreased confidence in the team ownership's financial stability...letting him go over an apparent dispute that positions Cutler as a skulking drunken ingrate or a guy wanting a fat paycheck after consecutive pro bowl appearances?

One thing I've learned by looking at Bowlen's past business dealings; nothing he says can be taken at face value. That has nothing to do with Cutler, and everything to do with Bowlen's past history covering 25 years with the team. It does however...lend itself to extreme skeptism in the present situation that the team's finances are stable.

Popcorn Sutton
06-24-2009, 02:52 PM
Butt, butt, Cutler wanted a new contract!....

He's playing for less than BM. Da Bears aren't paying his SB.

When are you going to learn to factor in signing bonuses? This notion that Cutler was playing for less than Simms this year is ridiculous and now Brandon Marshall? Since when did Simms or Marshall sign a 6 year - 48 million dollar contract? Cutler already got paid... his salary is ONE part of his compensation.

Hotrod
06-24-2009, 03:01 PM
Obviously paying 2 HC's makes perfect sense if we have money problems :nono:

Poops come on man :)

summerdenver
06-24-2009, 03:24 PM
Bowlen isn't "just now" having financial problems...he's had them from day 1 since he bought the team. Most of the fan base doesn't seem to know this because for whater else one can say about Pat Bowlen, one thing that can't be disputed...he's beene extraordinarily adept at keeping this stuff from the media. If Jerry Jones had purchased the Cowboys the way Bowlen purchased the Broncos, the entire league would be shaking their heads in disbelief and Jones would be the subject of contempt not for his plastic face, his ego or his headline making deals with high profile players but for his financial mess. Bowlens purchase of the team and his subsequent financial dealings make it obvious he's been in trouble from the beginning. Check this out:

Bowlen bought the team for somewhere between $65-$77 million and here's how he did it.

1) 1984- While Bowlen's other businesses are already losing money he buys 60.2% of the Broncos and pays a ridiculous $100,000 down at closing...the equivilent of putting less than $100 down to buy a 2009 Cadillac Escalade.

2) Bowlen agrees to pay Edgar Kaiser $26 million plus assume another $20-30 million in debt and also agrees to give Kaiser the ROFR (Right of First Refusal) if he ever re-sells the team, a contratual consideraton that may mean Kaiser one day owns the Broncos again despite the court ruling against him for the past stock transfers Bowlen engaged in.

3) 1984- Bowlen creates a holding company in Texas called Texas Northern Productions Inc., later called Bowlen Sports Inc. and transfers ownership of the team to TNPI to avoid Canadian tax liability. TNPI is owned by PDB Enterprises, which is owned by PDB Sports Holdings, a Nevada corporation which is owned jointly by Bowlen, his 3 siblings and a trust fund in his mother's name.

4) 1985- PDB Enterprises buys the remaining 39.2% of the team from minoirty partners John Adams and Tim Borden. Bowlen can't afford the deal outright so he gets multiple loans from Denver banks and also obtains financing from Adams and Borden that later allows them to double the price...effectively charging Bowlen a 100% increase on the principle of the shares.

5) 1985- One year after signing the deal, Bowlen can't afford the payments so Kaiser gives him an extention on $13 million he owes, costing Bowlen an extra $100,000 a month in interest. Bowlen doesn't have the money so he gets it from his family.

6) 1986- PDB Sports Holdings is sold to Hambledon Sports Holdings, another Bolwen family company in Canada which assumes another $3.75 million the Bowlen family owes to another family corporation, Hambledon Estates Ltd. (HEL)

7) 1987- Bowlen builds 60 luxury sky boxes at Mile High Stadium, then sells them to a private management firm for a quick profit. He uses the cash to finish paying off Adams and Borden but sacrifices the future income from the sky boxes, effectively damaging the team's future revenues. This becomes one of the primary reasons he needs the city of Denver to build a new stadium. By 1997 the Broncos are in the bottom 1/3 of the league in profitability and post net operating loses of $12 million that year on revenues of just $3 million.

8) Bowlen swaps a small amount of stock in HEL for stock in Hambledon Sports Ltd. and transfers team assets...including all shares in Bowlen Sports Inc...which owns 60% of the Broncos...for a measly $7.9 million promisory note. With further stock swaps and cancelling out of promisory notes, Hambledon Sports now ownes through it's subsidiaries, all of the Broncos. Pat Bowlen now owns just 30% of the team. His siblings and his mother, apparently the largest stock holder, now own the rest. The NFL league office considers the deals transfer of ownership, not a family gift and Bowlen files the stock transfer as such.

9) 1985-1999- Over a 14 year period at least 15 corporate entities in Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and Canada have now owned pieces of the Broncos, most of them single purpose companies with no other business, which effectively shields the team from taxes, corporate lawsuits, creditors claims, bankrupcies and claims against other Bowlen family holdings merged into these corporations. In other words, it's a massive shell game meant to protect Bowlen family interests from paying money they owe but don't have.

10) 1998- Cash strapped and faced with paying Elway signifcant deferred money in his contract, Bowlen offers Elway stock in Bowlen Sports Inc. and a future exectuve role with the team instead. BSI's equity minus debt is worth an estimated $300 million once the stadium is built. Conditional upon the new stadium being approved, Bowlen offers Elway a 10% stake in the franchise. Voters are never told Elway stands to gain from the passage of the stadium bond and Elway becomes a cheerleader for the new stadium in the process. The deal states Elway need pay only $15 million for $30 million in stock, most of which the team already owes him. Basically Bowlen offers him the stock for nothing if the stadium vote passes. The deal also offers Elway ROFR for future stock sales and the right to buy into any other NFL team Bowlen buys into. Bowlen denies the deal existed at the time.

11) 2002- The NFL considers the Elway deal a violation of league rules and fines the team $1 million plus a draft pick. Ironically Elway decilnes to excercise his option for stock in the team, effectively turning down shares now worth an estimated $100 million, a clue as to how his lawyers viewed the potential legal entanglements he might be incuring if he pursued the opportunity.

What's the point of all this NOW...years later? The point is, since he got his stadium and increased the team revenues, Bowlen's spent like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse, going for free agent busts every year...the Travis Henry's and Dale Carters of the world...which turned out to be a huge financial mistake. It's obvious this guys no Paul Allen in terms of his worth and he's made very poor financial decisions in the past which has quietly put the teams future ownership in doubt. If Bowlen's made these kind of financial decisions in the past, and knowing what we know about his FA buying sprees, it stands to reason the current evidence that the team is in some financial difficulty is a powerful indicator that Bowlen's money problems still exist. Nobody offers to give away tens of millions in stock options in lieu of present salary compensation for the hell of it. Bowlen couldn't afford the team when he bought it, he's gone far our of his way to shield the family fortune from creditors and lawsuits with his weird corproate shell game and he's obviously vastly over stretched his financial position on multiple occassions in his pursuit of owning this billion dollar toy.

We'd better hope Kaiser kicks the bucket before Bowlen does sell this team because the next time around...if there is a next time...Kaiser still has a legal right to buy the Broncos. I doubt anybody would consider that a good thing.

Thanks for the link and the summary footsteps. This is a great find.

Rock Chalk
06-24-2009, 03:33 PM
This is true, but no example that you're going to cite (or at least in my memory banks) is going to involve both participants being so close in age. Immaturity and inexperience on both of their parts doomed the relationship right out of the gates. This thing was up in flames in no time. I don't believe that they could have co-existed in the same locker room.



How is a young twenty something diabetic alcoholic even remotely close to a 33 year old in age?

You are 33 Isaac, think back to when you were 24. Big difference in maturity levels. HUGE difference. Many things happen to a person in their mid twenties and early thirties that changes their maturity level.

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 03:34 PM
Why are fans so reluctant to look at the bigger picture here?

Here we have an owner who bought a team he couldn't afford with almost nothing down during a time his other businesses were losing money, vastly overpaid with exorbitant interest rates and multiple bad financial deals to make it happen, severely leveraged the team's financial future just to complete his original purchase, borrowed almost the entire purchase price from the minority buyers, got suckered into absurd limitations by the former majority owner, lied to the fan base about his financial dealings, blackmailed the city of Denver to overcome his own financial mismanagement, offered what almost amounted to a bribe to a former player for his support to get his deal passed with the voters, created a corporate shell game involving up to 15 different companies in 4 states and Canada to hide his financial losses and avoid litigation, used fancy legal maneuvers to reneg on the conditions of his purchase contract, fudges the facts of his ownership in more than one court proceeding, has to borrow money from his mother's trust fund to remain solvent and may wind up selling this team to a guy who will surely handle it worse than he has.

But we're more interested in discussing Cutler's contract or other sidebar issues? ???

tonngo0
06-24-2009, 04:00 PM
I think Cutler didn't want to play in Denver because he knew McDaniels wasn't going to do whatever he wanted and so he forced his way out so he could get a team that treated him like a god again. I know Manning is the same way but the Mannings and the Brady's are the hardest workers in the offseason and aren't plastered the night before game day wherein they are fumbling the ball on the five yard line against a crappy team at home.

I usually respect your comments even I disagree with it, but I think this is just low to say fumbling the ball on the five yard line is too much ... why don't you mention that Elways lined up on the guard instead of the center then.

Popps
06-24-2009, 04:07 PM
I usually respect your comments even I disagree with it, but I think this is just low to say fumbling the ball on the five yard line is too much ... why don't you mention that Elways lined up on the guard instead of the center then.

He probably didn't mention that because Elway is a Broncos legend and Cutler is just a little crap-stain in the big picture of this franchise.

Popps
06-24-2009, 04:09 PM
Why are fans so reluctant to look at the bigger picture here?

You're a little full of yourself, dude. Honestly. We get your position. We've read your article. You may want to hold off on the "no one sees the big picture but me" rhetoric.

We get it. The team has financial issues and may have more to come.

Is anyone flat-out denying that?

Those "side bar" issues you talk about relate to football.

This is a football forum, so people may discuss football from time to time.



Seriously. No one here seems all that impressed with you, so I'm not quite sure why you're so taken with yourself.

Give it a rest.

Tombstone RJ
06-24-2009, 04:29 PM
I love this place. No discussion is complete without endless kindergarden snit fits over Cutler, Marshall, McDaniels, etc...not even one on money. Frankly I'm so tired of the entire thing I no longer care.

Back on May 12th I posted this link: http://www.westword.com/2002-01-03/news/pat-s-big-fumble/1

Like most things that require people be energetic enough to actually click it...it went largely unnoticed. No doubt it will again, which is unfortunate because the story here is probably the single most important one of this offseason. I did some checking after I read this, and dug into their facts.

I was stunned at what I found.

I not only think the team's in financial trouble, I think it's future in Denver might ultimately be in some jeopardy. Not only is Pat Bowlen not a mega-rich billionaire like so many people seem to think, by NFL ownership standards he's a guy on the corner holding up a will work for food sign. Bowlen was so cash strapped when he bought this team he had to borrow most of the piddling amount he paid for the Broncos under very unfavorable conditions. He's not the majority owner...only 30%...his family members own the rest. Bowlen is the face of the team but he doesn't even control the majority of the voting stock. His history of personal financial dealings is not impressive, and most of his money is family money, but more concerning...the team itself is shrouded in a heavy fog of shadowy holding companies, multiple corporate shields in different states, bizzare and secretive financial transactions that give the general appearance of a team hiding some serious financial issues. Even his lawsuit with Edgar Kaiser raised very disturbing questions about his financial solvency, and after reading the trial summary I'm astounded that Kaiser didn't win. Frankly I'm not convinced the judge wasn't biased in his favor because Kaiser had a case.

Bowlen's very questionable ethical/legal deal with John Elway in which he essentially tried to give Elway about 10% of the team in place of having to pay him...was rejected by John, probably on the advice of his lawyers. Elway turned down a deal worth far more than the cash he got from Bowlen, which to me raises major red flags on both the legal and fianancial fronts. I think Elway wanted no part of this ownershp group.

The main thing that's worked in Bowlen's favor is the new stadium, which is probably the reason this team's not already in more trouble. But even that seems in jeopardy. The Broncos dirty little secret is that they're no longer selling out all the time, despite what their official numbers say. This new corporate, finicky, tempermental fan base of company fat cats and their clients is not inclined to the fanatical worship of this team the old lunch bucket Mile High fans were. If this move with McDaniels goes south, I could see Bowlen selling this team within 5 years.

I'm sure I'll now be roundly flamed for this but 90% of you are to lazy to read this story, let alone do any digging to see for yourself. Shoot the messenger if you wish...but I didn't start the thread title.

Let me just start off by saying the Westword is a liberal paper that specializes in arts and entertainment, not sports entertainment. It's a paper that specializes in opinions (this show is great, this art exhibit is good, this restaruant has good food, etc) and social commentary.

So, the paper has an agenda.

That being said, this article poses some profound issues with Bronco's ownership.

What Bowlen should do is go to Kaiser and say "dude, you want back in, I'll give you 20% ownership in the Broncos for $120 million cash." (that's assuming the value of the team is approximately $600m).

Bowlen then takes that cash and consolidates his own ownership. He buys out the other family members and puts the team under one single ownership entity which he controls.

Problem solved.

BroncoBuff
06-24-2009, 04:35 PM
Obviously paying 2 HC's makes perfect sense if we have money problems :nono:

Poops come on man :)

Wow, yeah .... that kinda finishes it.


/thread.

Grover
06-24-2009, 04:35 PM
I don't KNOW if the Broncos and Bowlen are having financial problems. But I SUSPECT that they are. I've read through the posts in this thread and I've read the long article that was referenced in one of the earlier posts.

So what I got is that Pat Bowlen is all about WINNING. And Pat also appears to be a gambler in business dealings and quite creative (or loose) depending on how you want to describe it.

What I do know is that Pat was willing to upset the apple cart by firing Shanahan, and willing to pay Shanahan his millions to sit at home and watch Family Feud reruns.

So why do this? Pat is all about WINNING. and WINNING will bring increased revenue. Pat needs the Broncos to be a fun, competitive, winning team again. He wants the same things the fans want. And he's risking millions to get it. After ten years with only one playoff victory, and mediocre seasons since 2005, Pat gambled that someone else could do a better job than Shanahan

Pat may be walking a tightrope, but he's proven to have fairly good balance.

Tombstone RJ
06-24-2009, 04:48 PM
I know Kaiser has a ligitimate beef with Bowlen due to his ROFR. But what's to stop Bowlen for saying to Kaiser "you want 10% of the team, give me $65 million cash." If Kaiser says "no" then Bowlen moves on to the next guy. And, what's to stop Bowlen from saying to the next guy "you want 10% of the team, give me $60 million cash."

Basically, Bowlen can give Kaiser ROFR and pretty much guarantee Kaiser won't buy because Bowlen is asking for a little more than what the team is worth.

Bowlen: "Yah, so you have ROFR Mr. Kaiser, that doesn't mean I have to offer you the team at the same price as other potential investors. Either pay a premium or go away."

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 04:54 PM
You're a little full of yourself, dude. Honestly. We get your position. We've read your article. You may want to hold off on the "no one sees the big picture but me" rhetoric.

We get it. The team has financial issues and may have more to come.

Is anyone flat-out denying that?

Those "side bar" issues you talk about relate to football.

This is a football forum, so people may discuss football from time to time.



Seriously. No one here seems all that impressed with you, so I'm not quite sure why you're so taken with yourself.

Give it a rest.
Seeking approval from an online group of sports junkies sounds more like your bag Popps...I could give a flying crap. I posted this stuff because it's ignored in here in spite of its implications to both the present and the future of the team.

But since you're more enthralled with the next 7,000 posts on Cutler's drinking habbits and Bob's latest sexual exploits, feel free to ignore it.

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 05:04 PM
Let me just start off by saying the Westword is a liberal paper that specializes in arts and entertainment, not sports entertainment. It's a paper that specializes in opinions (this show is great, this art exhibit is good, this restaruant has good food, etc) and social commentary.

So, the paper has an agenda.
I also read both the district court and the appelate court documents which detail the same thing the news report did minus the legal jargon. It's accurate, and regardless of the political slant of the news story, the fact is Bowlen has had a long history of significant financial difficulties we would scarcely ever associate with the mega rich who can afford to own an NFL franchise.
That being said, this article poses some profound issues with Bronco's ownership.

What Bowlen should do is go to Kaiser and say "dude, you want back in, I'll give you 20% ownership in the Broncos for $120 million cash." (that's assuming the value of the team is approximately $600m).

Bowlen then takes that cash and consolidates his own ownership. He buys out the other family members and puts the team under one single ownership entity which he controls.

Problem solved.
Actually I believe Bowlen has already consolidated his ownership by buying out his siblings...at least one internet story indicates that deal was in the works sometime after this story originated...whether or not that went through or not is unclear at this point, but that's not really the issue here.

His bigger issue is probably cash flow and debt, which in fact isn't necessarily helped by him assuming the larger equity position in the team. Kaiser was apparently already awarded 10% of the team in court, though if I look further I may find that decision vacated by other court actions...because there are a bunch of them, most of which the public is unaware of. Under terms of the original deal though, Kaiser has ROFR if and when Bowlen decides to see the team. His lawyers pulled his bacon out of the fire through a series of tricky legal arguments that managed to deny Bowlen was really selling the team since it was kept within the family, but that won't be the case next time if he sells to someone else.

Taco John
06-24-2009, 05:06 PM
Only because the fans are utterly clueless about this issue. It's far more important to talk about boobs, who would hit this or that skank, Marshall being a whiney b****, Bob's latest problems with his sexuality or how drunk a poster is. The issue in question is about Pat Bowlen's business dealings, the state of the corporate health, and one few people seem to even be aware of...namely that in the future, Edgar Kaiser may own the Broncos again. That should scare this board, but it's not since they're unaware of it.

Nothing about how the team is conducting negotiations with players amounts to a zit on an elephant's ass compared to the real story. You raised the question in your thread as to whether the team is in financial trouble or not. So why not address the question YOU raised instead of more of the same BS about Cutler's contract, etc...? As I noted...this was YOUR thread, not mine.

So now...since I don't think you've actually read the story...it would be a good time to do so.


I think that the frustration you're experiencing is that Popps came in here with an agenda to push when he's asking this question - and the article that you posted undermines that agenda. He wants to turn the situation into one where the Broncos aren't experiencing financial difficulties, and instead dumped Cutler (and Shanahan for that matter) strictly due to performance issues (ie. Bowlen/McDaniels saw something that they didn't like, and that's why they did/didn't take action). The narrative that the Broncos are in financial turmoil undermines that agenda by making it as much about money for Bowlen and the Broncos as it was for Cutler.

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 05:16 PM
I know Kaiser has a ligitimate beef with Bowlen due to his ROFR. But what's to stop Bowlen for saying to Kaiser "you want 10% of the team, give me $65 million cash." If Kaiser says "no" then Bowlen moves on to the next guy. And, what's to stop Bowlen from saying to the next guy "you want 10% of the team, give me $60 million cash."

Basically, Bowlen can give Kaiser ROFR and pretty much guarantee Kaiser won't buy because Bowlen is asking for a little more than what the team is worth.

Bowlen: "Yah, so you have ROFR Mr. Kaiser, that doesn't mean I have to offer you the team at the same price as other potential investors. Either pay a premium or go away."
Actually he does have to offer him the sale at the same price. That's what the district court judge allready ruled, and in fact Kaiser apparently already NOW owns that much...unless as I noted earlier, the decision was set aside later. I can't find anything stating it was, but as noted, there have been multiple court cases since the first one, with only the appelate decision really floating on the web so far as I can determine.

The team is valued by Forbes at a shade over $1 billion, so if Kaiser owns 10% he's got $100 million worth of equity. In any case, the issue is not what he owns or doesn't own now, but what legal rights he has if Bowlen, who now pushing 70...decides it's time to enjoy life without the burden of contracts and fan abuse. The real possibility exists that Kaiser could one day own this entire team once again.

To me that seems both newsworthy and something the fan base would want to be aware of, but according to Popps...that's just me grandstanding for attention. I guess you guys can decide if it's more important than discussing Burger King advertisements that simulate oral sex or weather Cutler's a drunk and Marshall's a woman beater or not. I say it is...

But that's just me.

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 05:18 PM
I think that the frustration you're experiencing is that Popps came in here with an agenda to push when he's asking this question - and the article that you posted undermines that agenda. He wants to turn the situation into one where the Broncos aren't experiencing financial difficulties, and instead dumped Cutler (and Shanahan for that matter) strictly due to performance issues (ie. Bowlen/McDaniels saw something that they didn't like, and that's why they did/didn't take action). The narrative that the Broncos are in financial turmoil undermines that agenda by making it as much about money for Bowlen and the Broncos as it was for Cutler.
Exactly.

Go figure...a guy posts a thread asking if the team's having financial issues, someone posts evidence that it is, and his respoponse is, "You're an attention seeker so give it a rest..."
Hilarious!

BroncoBuff
06-24-2009, 05:50 PM
Thanks for the link and the summary footsteps. This is a great find.

Definitely footsteps, good stuff ... thanks.

BroncoBuff
06-24-2009, 05:52 PM
Exactly.
Wait .... are you saying Popps has an agenda?

An agenda he forces down peoples' throats?

On penalty of loud hostile insulting attacks if they don't agree?



Please ......

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 05:56 PM
Wait .... are you saying Popps has an agenda?

An agenda he forces down peoples' throats?

On penalty of loud hostile insulting attacks if they don't agree?



Please ......
Kind of obvious huh?

Popps
06-24-2009, 10:05 PM
Kind of obvious huh?

Look footsteps. Let me try to dumb this down for you. You'll have to stop jerking off while looking at your own picture for a few minutes, O.K.? Try to pay attention.

I started a thread with a premise. That premise was, the Broncos may have financial issues affecting their current player-relations.

This would SEEM to jive with your "agenda" you've been ramming down our throats.

Yet, somehow... despite that my thread offers financial problems as conversation, you choose to say the same thing you've said 1000 times, and go on to call everyone else idiots and pat yourself on the back continually.

Beyond that, you the proceed to criticize people for discussing football issues on a football forum. (After calling everyone but yourself an idiot.)

Again, it seems that you're considered a douche-bag by about a 100:1 ratio around here. Now, that's fine... but also isn't really cause for your self-celebratory masturposting.

There were a ton of great responses to the thread, taking up all different angles and sides. Yours just wasn't one of them.

Please stop seeking our attention.

Popps
06-24-2009, 10:11 PM
How is a young twenty something diabetic alcoholic even remotely close to a 33 year old in age?

You are 33 Isaac, think back to when you were 24. Big difference in maturity levels. HUGE difference. Many things happen to a person in their mid twenties and early thirties that changes their maturity level.

Yea... early 20s and early 30s, VASTLY different things. VASTLY.

Beyond that, it appears McDaniels has been prepping for this job since early high school and began working positions beyond his age at a very young age.

So, McDaniels as a 34 year old is likely way beyond your average 30-something with regards to his career/professionalism. I think his job-title should tell one that.

It's funny, because in the corporate world... you've got endless examples of high powered CEOs (etc.) in their early-mid 30s. The NFL is just sort of catching up with the rest of the working world. There will be coaches of all ages, just like normal business.

McDaniels will be 34 this season, and I believe Tomlin was 34 when he took over. I don't recall a lot of issues with his age.

BroncoBuff
06-24-2009, 10:21 PM
Look footsteps. Let me try to dumb this down for you. You'll have to stop jerking off while looking at your own picture for a few minutes, O.K.? Try to pay attention.

I started a thread with a premise. That premise was, the Broncos may have financial issues affecting their current player-relations.

This would SEEM to jive with your "agenda" you've been ramming down our throats.

Yet, somehow... despite that my thread offers financial problems as conversation, you choose to say the same thing you've said 1000 times, and go on to call everyone else idiots and pat yourself on the back continually.

Beyond that, you the proceed to criticize people for discussing football issues on a football forum. (After calling everyone but yourself an idiot.)

Again, it seems that you're considered a douche-bag by about a 100:1 ratio around here. Now, that's fine... but also isn't really cause for your self-celebratory masturposting.

There were a ton of great responses to the thread, taking up all different angles and sides. Yours just wasn't one of them.

Please stop seeking our attention.

"Our" attention ... our?! Whadd'ya you, have a mouse in your pocket?

What a hostile, offensive post ... par for the course. I guess masturbation is just your latest sexually-oriented insult-pattern.


(And btw ... "jive" has nothing to do with it)

24champ
06-24-2009, 10:39 PM
I agree with Socal.

I don't think he is in a tight spot, but he could be soon enough if the Broncos don't do well this year. If the McDaniels experiment bombs out, I can see a new Owner making the next hire.

Popps
06-24-2009, 10:41 PM
Back to the original question - I think the roster changes have been more about purging the talent (or lack of). Pay guys who sell out, respond to coaching, and play team-first ball. That's why you cut guys like Webster, Robertson, and Bly instead of restructuring them. It's a question of value.

If we were cash strapped, why did we pay so much for Simms (back when we had Cutler), then make a run at Cassell (which cost much, much more than Cutler)?

I think we are wisely rebuilding the team ala Miami. There may be financial woes in Broncoland like everywhere, but Bowlen has always given a green light to make necessary changes. Didn't we sign more free agents this year than any other team?

Missed this post earlier, but a good one.

I think there may be financial headwinds, maybe big ones... but I'm leaning towards this being just running the business better.

It's interesting, because if you follow the financial markets these days, you see a lot of companies missing revenues but beating earnings. Some of that is lowered estimates, but a lot of it is just better business. Leaner, more efficient.

I'm not sure that a team has to be in the top few spenders every year to be successful. I don't want us to pull out of the game completely for impact players, but I'd like to see more strategic investments being made.

Big salaries to Bly, Boss Bailey and extending Williams to a massive contract just weren't financially sound.

As for Cutler/Marshall... it's likely a combination. I think there are mitigating circumstances. (Obviously, in Marshall's case.) I don't think you can look at not paying them purely as a measure of the team's financial problems... but if we're watching every penny, there's no question these decisions are made tougher.

OrangeRising
06-24-2009, 10:49 PM
Yea... early 20s and early 30s, VASTLY different things. VASTLY.

Beyond that, it appears McDaniels has been prepping for this job since early high school and began working positions beyond his age at a very young age.

So, McDaniels as a 34 year old is likely way beyond your average 30-something with regards to his career/professionalism. I think his job-title should tell one that.

It's funny, because in the corporate world... you've got endless examples of high powered CEOs (etc.) in their early-mid 30s. The NFL is just sort of catching up with the rest of the working world. There will be coaches of all ages, just like normal business.

McDaniels will be 34 this season, and I believe Tomlin was 34 when he took over. I don't recall a lot of issues with his age.

I guess that's why he gave his brother, an ASSISTANT HIGH SCHOOL COACH, a coaching job in the NFL.

Please. The guy is a ball boy a la Mangini right along with those Belichick control-freak personality traits. Oh forgot, Mangini was a towel boy.

My only hope is this is Wade Phillips, part II. In two years, Jeff Fishers' contract is up in Tennessee. I am hoping beyond hope, well..

DBroncos4life
06-24-2009, 10:54 PM
Yea... early 20s and early 30s, VASTLY different things. VASTLY.

Beyond that, it appears McDaniels has been prepping for this job since early high school and began working positions beyond his age at a very young age.

So, McDaniels as a 34 year old is likely way beyond your average 30-something with regards to his career/professionalism. I think his job-title should tell one that.

It's funny, because in the corporate world... you've got endless examples of high powered CEOs (etc.) in their early-mid 30s. The NFL is just sort of catching up with the rest of the working world. There will be coaches of all ages, just like normal business.

McDaniels will be 34 this season, and I believe Tomlin was 34 when he took over. I don't recall a lot of issues with his age.


Could you point out any minor changes Tomlin made when he took over coach of the Steelers?

24champ
06-24-2009, 10:58 PM
My only hope is this is Wade Phillips, part II. In two years, Jeff Fishers' contract is up in Tennessee. I am hoping beyond hope, well..

My hope is...


http://www.bloombiz.ro/assets/articole/2008/11/philippe.jpg

+

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06hAeD3bKtdE2/340x.jpg

= Win

Popps
06-24-2009, 11:01 PM
Could you point out any minor changes Tomlin made when he took over coach of the Steelers?



Tomlin, then 28, was used to the uneasiness his youth created. When the Buccaneers held a brief minicamp early in Tomlin’s tenure, he had known the players for two weeks. But he presented Lynch, a perennial All-Pro, a tape of 75 plays he thought he could improve on from the year before.

“At first, I thought, What’s up with this guy?” Lynch said. “But then I started reading the detail. He’d show a play, then have a long paragraph about what he thought I could do better. I learned a lot from him right away. That sold me on him.”

The Steelers were a veteran team one season removed from a Super Bowl title when Tomlin got the job Jan. 22, 2007, at age 34. The players were watching him closely. Tomlin ran an intentionally savage training camp to make the point that he was in charge and to help him determine the hardest workers.

Sounds a little familiar, huh?

DBroncos4life
06-24-2009, 11:06 PM
Tomlin, then 28, was used to the uneasiness his youth created. When the Buccaneers held a brief minicamp early in Tomlin’s tenure, he had known the players for two weeks. But he presented Lynch, a perennial All-Pro, a tape of 75 plays he thought he could improve on from the year before.

“At first, I thought, What’s up with this guy?” Lynch said. “But then I started reading the detail. He’d show a play, then have a long paragraph about what he thought I could do better. I learned a lot from him right away. That sold me on him.”

The Steelers were a veteran team one season removed from a Super Bowl title when Tomlin got the job Jan. 22, 2007, at age 34. The players were watching him closely. Tomlin ran an intentionally savage training camp to make the point that he was in charge and to help him determine the hardest workers.

Sounds a little familiar, huh?
So no system change? No ditching the Steeler way to bring in his way. No botched trades for some other QB that he had a bigger man crush on? No players wanting to jump ship and threating to hold out for more money? Man some rookie coaches just have all the luck.

Popps
06-24-2009, 11:11 PM
So no system change? No ditching the Steeler way to bring in his way. No botched trades for some other QB that he had a bigger man crush on? No players wanting to jump ship and threating to hold out for more money? Man some rookie coaches just have all the luck.

You may have missed the part about the Steelers being a quality team.... and us being a pile of dog-**** last year.

Hence, when you have a quality team... one that's been consistently competitive and won playoff games and SBs, you don't need to come in and clean house.

You would have preferred McDaniels left Slowick in place?

McDaniels saw a better QB to run his system and discussed a move. I don't blame him. Better yet, I thank him for trying to improve the team. As a by-product, a potential cancer was cut out. (Or, cut himself out.)

Hines Ward held out. So, yes.. they haven't been without normal NFL business.

They also cut some big name players to free up cap room. NFL business as usual.

DBroncos4life
06-24-2009, 11:15 PM
Other then working a team that was just coming off a SB win harder in the offseason what did he do? I mean come on man the Steelers have had a very good system in place for a number of years. Tomlin was smart enough not to rock the boat and working them "harder" paid off. Lets be real though he didn't have to clean house nor did he play a role in anyone leaving or forcing his way out depending on your stance. I bet Tomlin would even admit that he was left a very talented and very well coached team to work with.

footstepsfrom#27
06-24-2009, 11:18 PM
Look footsteps. Let me try to dumb this down for you. You'll have to stop jerking off while looking at your own picture for a few minutes, O.K.? Try to pay attention.

I started a thread with a premise. That premise was, the Broncos may have financial issues affecting their current player-relations.

This would SEEM to jive with your "agenda" you've been ramming down our throats.

Yet, somehow... despite that my thread offers financial problems as conversation, you choose to say the same thing you've said 1000 times, and go on to call everyone else idiots and pat yourself on the back continually.

Beyond that, you the proceed to criticize people for discussing football issues on a football forum. (After calling everyone but yourself an idiot.)

Again, it seems that you're considered a douche-bag by about a 100:1 ratio around here. Now, that's fine... but also isn't really cause for your self-celebratory masturposting.

There were a ton of great responses to the thread, taking up all different angles and sides. Yours just wasn't one of them.

Please stop seeking our attention.
Your a funny guy. Hilarious!

Popps I think you share Bowlen's short term memory loss. Here's what you asked to start this thread:
So, I'm curious to see what folks think around here, particularly anyone who can think beyond "McStoopidpoopoo," et al.

Is our organization encountering real money issues? It's been thrown around. If you think so, what's the basis?

Marshall pulled almost the exact about-face Cutler did, only at least Marshall admitted it's about money. (Mostly.) Cutlerbus tried to weasel out of it as being some sort of conflict of player/coach interest.

Interested to hear opinions, particularly anyone with any insight as to the financial workings of the team. It appears we'll run considerably under the cap this year? Have we done that in the past ten years? Never seems like it.

Were Cutler and Marshall just told that the till is empty, or are these just individual cases that involve circumstances that keep us from wanting to pay them? (Attitudes, arrests, etc?)

We certainly had no problem paying Casey W., despite some risk. (Age.)

Do you believe this team is in a real financial bind, and will it continue? Or, are we just trying to get the books back in order as we rebuild?
Let see...you said:

1) "Is our organization encountering real money issues?"
Check...answered that one.

2) "If you think so, what's the basis?"
Check...answered that one.

3) "Interested to hear opinions, particuarly anyone with insight as to the financial workings of the team."
Check...this is the only story posted on this board that qualifies as real "insight" on this issue.

4) "Do you believe this team is in a real financial bind, and will it continue?"
Check...answered that one.

I"m sorry if I've embarrased you on your own thread (not really) but if you're bothered by being called an idiot (I didn't actually say that) then maybe it's because you are one. You posted this thread, asked for answers to specific questions, then when you got those answers you proceeded to thread jack your own topic. Hilarious! Yeah...even though I didn't call anyone an idiot here...just cluless and disinterested...now that I think about it I think that does indeed make you an idiot. Because I stuck to the same topic you posted I'm somehow a douchebag though.

Fine...I realize you're not the intended reader for relevant facts since you're really...like Taco said...interested in just another Cutler-hate agenda.

The day you need to dumb something down for me is the day I'm in a box.

Popps
06-24-2009, 11:22 PM
I"m sorry if I've embarrased you on your own thread .

The only one you embarrassed was yourself by repeating your dull diatribe for the 1000th time, and then crying like a child when no one was paying attention to you.

Do me a favor, though... write another 15 paragraph post on it. I'm sure people will suddenly take interest. You know, since we all don't "see the big picture" like you.

:rofl:

Oh, hey... are we allowed to talk football, yet? Forgot to ask...

DBroncos4life
06-24-2009, 11:26 PM
You may have missed the part about the Steelers being a quality team.... and us being a pile of dog-**** last year.

Hence, when you have a quality team... one that's been consistently competitive and won playoff games and SBs, you don't need to come in and clean house.

You would have preferred McDaniels left Slowick in place?

McDaniels saw a better QB to run his system and discussed a move. I don't blame him. Better yet, I thank him for trying to improve the team. As a by-product, a potential cancer was cut out. (Or, cut himself out.)

Hines Ward held out. So, yes.. they haven't been without normal NFL business.

They also cut some big name players to free up cap room. NFL business as usual.

I think you maybe missing the part about how a quality team starts. No I wouldn't want McD to leave that trash in place but I didn't want McD in the first place and that starts at the top. To be fair if Denver was going to go with a coach that was O minded I think we should have stayed in house and promoted Bates that was my first choice. Regardless I think we went with the cool hip guy from NE because Pat thought it was the "in the now" pick. I wanted a D minded coach someone kind of like the DC from the Giants that learned under Coughlin.

Popps
06-24-2009, 11:26 PM
Other then working a team that was just coming off a SB win harder in the offseason what did he do? .

They had some fairly big personnel changes and drafted some players that played key roles.

He took control of a championship team at a young age and demanded respect. This isn't a Barry Switzer. Listen to these players and coaches talk about him. The guy deserves respect.

I'm older than him, and I can respect him. I'm not sure why people have such an issue with some folks being very proficient at a younger age than others.

Lets be real though he didn't have to clean house nor did he play a role in anyone leaving or forcing his way out depending on your stance. I bet Tomlin would even admit that he was left a very talented and very well coached team to work with.

Yes, he would... so in essence, his job was made easier for him than McDaniel's job will be. Too bad, but these are the facts. Hence, you can't blame McDaniels for implementing the system he has had major success with.... and retooling the worst defense on the planet.

Popps
06-24-2009, 11:30 PM
I I think we should have stayed in house and promoted Bates that was my first choice. .

But why? That may have been your first choice, but why should it have been his? We were in the middle of the league at scoring, and Bates likely had little or know knowledge of the system he was going to implement. (One that was much more successful than ours over the past several years.)

Why should he pander to the old staff's coaches if they don't advance the cause properly?

I think we went with the cool hip guy from NE because Pat thought it was the "in the now" pick. I wanted a D minded coach someone kind of like the DC from the Giants that learned under Coughlin.

I would have leaned towards a defensive oriented coach, as well.

But, by all accounts... McDaniels absolutely blew away everyone. He wasn't the top coaching prospect this year without reason. He reportedly knocked it out of the park in his interviews. You can tell the guy is a machine. Like him or not, he's a highly, highly motivated, detail-oriented guy with a plan that he's not going to be pushed off of.

Just like the last head coach Pat Bowlen correctly hired.

watermock
06-24-2009, 11:39 PM
He has torn apart the O, except for the line Dennison goodman and bates put together, and drafted 6 of 9 draft choices, including trading a potential top 8 pick for a nickle corner that played for a team, (T-Tech), that scored like the 98 broncos.

It's easy to get picks when your playing safety with a 20 point lead. See Cutlers picks.

DBroncos4life
06-24-2009, 11:43 PM
But why? That may have been your first choice, but why should it have been his? We were in the middle of the league at scoring, and Bates likely had little or know knowledge of the system he was going to implement. (One that was much more successful than ours over the past several years.)

Why should he pander to the old staff's coaches if they don't advance the cause properly?



I would have leaned towards a defensive oriented coach, as well.

But, by all accounts... McDaniels absolutely blew away everyone. He wasn't the top coaching prospect this year without reason. He reportedly knocked it out of the park in his interviews. You can tell the guy is a machine. Like him or not, he's a highly, highly motivated, detail-oriented guy with a plan that he's not going to be pushed off of.

Just like the last head coach Pat Bowlen correctly hired.

Middle of the road in scoring? We had the worst kicker % wise and 3 FGs made moves us from 16th in scoring to 11th. 7 RBs went on IR, that crap doesn't happen often. Infact we got a guy off the streets that worked for a cell phone company and he was our leading rusher the last week of the season. If you want to make this about McD then thats fine. If the guy was knocking it out of the park in his interviews then why come to Denver? You are so quick to point out our FLAWS we have in Denver then why would the best coaching prospect come here?

I've already pointed out that pretty much every media outlet said Denver was the best HC opening in the NFL because of the players we had here but its clear that McD didn't even like them so why did he come to Denver? Also Im pretty sure we didn't even interview Sprags so lord knows we don't know who would have been better for the job here in Denver.

watermock
06-24-2009, 11:48 PM
But, by all accounts... McDaniels absolutely blew away everyone. He wasn't the top coaching prospect this year without reason. He reportedly knocked it out of the park in his interviews. You can tell the guy is a machine. Like him or not, he's a highly, highly motivated, detail-oriented guy with a plan that he's not going to be pushed off of.

You mean he blew Bowlen away? Maybe he'd never seen a powerpoint presentation?

You mean how he could reel in Cutler to make less risky throws?

The offense was intact. So lets trade up for a blocking TE (when we have one making 10M), and spend 6 of 9 on offense.

Popps
06-24-2009, 11:54 PM
Middle of the road in scoring? .

16th. Certainly, we had some issues.

New England lost their Pro Bowl starting QB in week 1. I'd imagine that's as big or bigger than any challenge we faced.

They finished 8th in scoring.

So, all teams have woes. Some manage to overcome them.


If the guy was knocking it out of the park in his interviews then why come to Denver? You are so quick to point out our FLAWS we have in Denver then why would the best coaching prospect come here? .

Easy.

Consider his other options. Jets? Oh boy. Not unless you enjoy the frying pan. The Browns? Yikes. Who else? The Lions?

We were widely thought of as the marquee job available. Pretty much a no brainer, considering even Shanahan himself called Pat the best owner in SPORTS, not just the NFL.

Popps
06-24-2009, 11:56 PM
He has torn apart the O.

Torn apart? The QB quit. Last I heard, the ownership/staff wanted him to come into the fold. Cutler refused.

"Tore it apart?"

I don't think so.

Marshall isn't suspended, so he wants a raise.

Shocking, right?

DBroncos4life
06-25-2009, 12:00 AM
16th. Certainly, we had some issues.

New England lost their Pro Bowl starting QB in week 1. I'd imagine that's as big or bigger than any challenge we faced.

They finished 8th in scoring.

So, all teams have woes. Some manage to overcome them.




Easy.

Consider his other options. Jets? Oh boy. Not unless you enjoy the frying pan. The Browns? Yikes. Who else? The Lions?

We were widely thought of as the marquee job available. Pretty much a no brainer, considering even Shanahan himself called Pat the best owner in SPORTS, not just the NFL.

NE also went from 18 wins to 11. Would you be pleased with 7 more losses then last year? I'm not liking the idea that you believe our HC would turn down the NYJ job because he would be scared by the pressure he would be facing by the New York media given the fact that he made pretty much made Denver the headline of the offseason (outside of Farve). If he can't live up the media and them attacking him how will he handle things if Denver doesn't win without Jay and Mike?

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 12:01 AM
The only one you embarrassed was yourself by repeating your dull diatribe for the 1000th time, and then crying like a child when no one was paying attention to you.
Actually I posted only 7 responses on this thread related to the actual facts of the story...and 6 more either responding to you or agreeing with other posters who think you posted this thread for another Cutler hate agenda instead of its stated purpose...I know that's still within 993 of your claim so this might be one of your stronger points. ::) Of course it's not true that NOONE was paying attention...you certainly are. Then again you feigned interest at first...more short term memory loss?
Hey, I'm not going to flame. It's an interesting response. I think you're leaping to some conclusions, but so be it. At least you thought it out.
So which is it Popps...interesting or not? You seem confused.
Do me a favor, though... write another 15 paragraph post on it. I'm sure people will suddenly take interest. You know, since we all don't "see the big picture" like you.
Well Popps in case you missed it some in addition to YOU already expressed an interest:
Thanks for the link and the summary footsteps. This is a great find.
That being said, this article poses some profound issues with Bronco's ownership.
I think that the frustration you're experiencing is that Popps came in here with an agenda to push when he's asking this question - and the article that you posted undermines that agenda.
Definitely footsteps, good stuff ... thanks.
Wait .... are you saying Popps has an agenda?

An agenda he forces down peoples' throats?

On penalty of loud hostile insulting attacks if they don't agree?

Please ......
And finally...this is from the 6 reps on I got on this thread:
Broncos Financial... 06-24-2009 04:49 PM Beantown Bronco You're on fire in this thread. I'm still amazed this issue gets as little traffic as it does.

See Popps...it's all good...others brighter than you also agreed with your initial opinion on this subject...the one you expressed BEFORE you made yourself look stupid by thread jacking your own topic and rejecting answers to the very questions you asked...answers from court documents, not fan speculation on Cutler's contract or any of the other junk you've now deviated towards to deflect attention back to your original agenda.

Any more bright ideas?

watermock
06-25-2009, 12:06 AM
I would say losing 2 25 Y/0 probowlers isn't exactly keeping things intact, would you?

Normal procedure is to start negotiations when a player is in his last year.

I can bring up Weigman. He's chicken feed, but had to threaten to retire to get attention.

Also, I want to see if Champs balls still hang before giving him 14 million.

BTW, Jay will cost the Bears 600k.

Less than Travis or Bly, or Boss.

Or Simms.

Or our LONG SNAPPER!

Popps
06-25-2009, 12:08 AM
So which is it Popps...interesting or not? You seem confused.


The subject, and everyone else's posts? Very interesting.

Your rambling dribble? Not so much.

Tell us again how we all don't "get the big picture," though. Really. Enlighten us.

Go for 20 paragraphs this time!

:spit:

Oh, and sorry we're talking about football and not your posts. I forgot to ask your permission.

DBroncos4life
06-25-2009, 12:09 AM
I don't think McD would come to Denver after seeing what Bob Kraft has done to NE football if he didn't think Pat could do the same for him in here.

hambone13
06-25-2009, 12:11 AM
The only one you embarrassed was yourself by repeating your dull diatribe for the 1000th time, and then crying like a child when no one was paying attention to you.

Do me a favor, though... write another 15 paragraph post on it. I'm sure people will suddenly take interest. You know, since we all don't "see the big picture" like you.

:rofl:

Oh, hey... are we allowed to talk football, yet? Forgot to ask...

Anyone who actually takes the time to read through the "data" that you implied you were hoping for in your OP, will quickly see who should be embarrassed. It's certainly not Footsteps. IMO, this thread is a fantastic example of how completely ridiculous and non-objective you truly are about driving your opinions down everyones throats. A Popps classic to be sure.

Popps
06-25-2009, 12:12 AM
I would say losing 2 25 Y/0 probowlers isn't exactly keeping things intact, would you? .

We haven't "lost" anyone.

Cutler quit because he's a bitch.

Marshall wants a raise. He may get one, or he may decide it's not a bright idea right now.

But, we haven't "lost" anyone. More so, McDaniels didn't "tear apart" anything.
Again, one guy quit, the other guy was apparently having a good relationship with the new staff before deciding to hold out for a raise. Business as NFL-usual.

I
I can bring up Weigman. He's chicken feed, but had to threaten to retire to get attention.s.

We made a great move re-signing him. Fantastic to keep the line in tact. Again, him asking for a raise is normal NFL business.


BTW, Jay will cost the Bears 600k.


Oh, we'll see about that.



Less than Travis or Bly, or Boss.

Agree, those were the kind of silly signings that led to a coaching change.

Popps
06-25-2009, 12:14 AM
objective you truly are about driving your opinions down everyones throats. A Popps classic to be sure.

Again, I've got no problems stating my opinion. I made it very clear that I believe Cutler wanted a raise, and that was part of his crybaby fit that led him out the door.

See, that's not an "agenda," that's called an opinion.

Perhaps you need a dictionary?

The topic of the thread was eloquently addressed by a number of quality posters, taking up a variety of opinions. Sorry you don't have anything to add.

DBroncos4life
06-25-2009, 12:18 AM
Again, I've got no problems stating my opinion. I made it very clear that I believe Cutler wanted a raise, and that was part of his crybaby fit that led him out the door.

See, that's not an "agenda," that's called an opinion.

Perhaps you need a dictionary?

The topic of the thread was eloquently addressed by a number of quality posters, taking up a variety of opinions. Sorry you don't have anything to add.

Well Jay Cutler hasn't gotten his raise from the Bears and yet he is in camp and not asking to be traded. Lewis hasn't tried to trade him either just saying. So his new HC hasn't talked to teams about trading him and he still hasn't recieved a raise and he still is in camp learning the new system......

hambone13
06-25-2009, 12:20 AM
Again, I've got no problems stating my opinion. I made it very clear that I believe Cutler wanted a raise, and that was part of his crybaby fit that led him out the door.

See, that's not an "agenda," that's called an opinion.

Perhaps you need a dictionary?

The topic of the thread was eloquently addressed by a number of quality posters, taking up a variety of opinions. Sorry you don't have anything to add.

I would call the majority of your posts selective pontification not quality opinions based on anything other than your Cutler hatred. Footsteps already took care of the quality with a very well thought out, objective, researched and well written train of thought. You should try it some time.

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 12:21 AM
The subject, and everyone else's posts? Very interesting.

Your rambling dribble? Not so much.
Gee Popps...I said "bright" ideas. That means something intelligent.

I already showed you once...I'm the one who responded to the SUBJECT that YOU POSTED. That was you that asked all those pointed questions I answered for you...right? Or did someone sneak in and use your computer?
Tell us again how we all don't "get the big picture," though. Really. Enlighten us.
That's OK Popps...I think now it's only mainly you...the numerous examples I just gave you of others on this thread who now do "get it" even if you don't should be enough. Besides...you've already proven you're interested in distancing from the questions you yourself asked in favor of your agenda so I see no reason to repeat what's already been said.
Oh, and sorry we're talking about football and not your posts. I forgot to ask your permission.
But Popps...it was YOU who wanted to talk about the Broncos finances...no? Of course that was before you realized where it would put your real agenda...so fine...go for more Cutler/Marshall hate, McDaniels vs. whomever, or whaterver else you wish.

We obvfiously do need more of that. ROFL!

Taco John
06-25-2009, 12:24 AM
Well Jay Cutler hasn't gotten his raise from the Bears and yet he is in camp and not asking to be traded. Lewis hasn't tried to trade him either just saying. So his new HC hasn't talked to teams about trading him and he still hasn't recieved a raise and he still is in camp learning the new system......


That's actually a pretty good point. I mean, if the issue is worth driving (and apparently it is), then it's worth acknowledging that Cutler didn't receive any extra money in the exchange. It's kind of a large hole in the point that is being pushed, so I'm pretty certain that it's going to be given zero creedence.

I miss the Orton guys. At least they were talking about a current Bronco.

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 12:24 AM
Anyone who actually takes the time to read through the "data" that you implied you were hoping for in your OP, will quickly see who should be embarrassed. It's certainly not Footsteps. IMO, this thread is a fantastic example of how completely ridiculous and non-objective you truly are about driving your opinions down everyones throats. A Popps classic to be sure.
Rep.

Key phrase is "anyone who actually takes the time"...I don't think he read it...so maybe he's just lazy instead of stupid.

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 12:28 AM
I would call the majority of your posts selective pontification not quality opinions based on anything other than your Cutler hatred. Footsteps already took care of the quality with a very well thought out, objective, researched and well written train of thought. You should try it some time.
Hmmm...good point, but don't hold your breath.

Popps
06-25-2009, 12:30 AM
That's actually a pretty good point. I mean, if the issue is worth driving (and apparently it is)

Actually was a small part of the topic, but a point a few seemed a bit too honed in on. But, so be it. It's my opinion.

T then it's worth acknowledging that Cutler didn't receive any extra money in the exchange..

Absolutely not. He's under contract. He was traded with a contract. So, of course there was no "extra money" thrown in for him. Why would the Broncos care about "extra money" for him?

Will he GET extra money? We'll see. I believe so, and if not... it'll be an issue very quickly.


I miss the Orton guys. At least they were talking about a current Bronco.

Lots of talk about Current Broncos going on here, and the thread asked a larger question.

Lots of discussion about Marshall, Casey W., etc.

Feel free to join in. I notice you posted about the player not here....

watermock
06-25-2009, 01:59 AM
Absolutely not. He's under contract. He was traded with a contract. So, of course there was no "extra money" thrown in for him. Why would the Broncos care about "extra money" for him?



Fact is, you maintaineed it was the primary motivator.

Of course this is not the problem, it never was.

Cutler is still feasting on his SB. And no, it isn't the Broncos problem, getting another franchise QB IS.

It's funny, all 3 probowl players had a problem. Weigman shouldn't of even been an issue.

BM is gone. No, he deoesn't have Bus Cook as an agent.

=Lots of talk about Current Broncos going on here, and the thread asked a larger question

Yes, the financial question, right?

You DO realize we signed a 36 y/o safety and a 30 y/o corner and Davis, who was benched, right? And a DT that has never broken the starting lineuo?

AND we spent 6 of 9 draft choices on O, right? And we traded a potential top 5 pick in '10 for a nickle corner, right?

On a T Tech team that played from ahead due to a great offense, right?

Cito Pelon
06-25-2009, 07:32 AM
I think Cutler didn't want to play in Denver because he knew McDaniels wasn't going to do whatever he wanted and so he forced his way out so he could get a team that treated him like a god again. I know Manning is the same way but the Mannings and the Brady's are the hardest workers in the offseason and aren't plastered the night before game day wherein they are fumbling the ball on the five yard line against a crappy team at home.

I think so too. They did spend some time together prior to the blowup and probably got a little wary of each other. Also, I think Cutler actually took it to heart when Bowlen said, "Jay's the man around here now". Which was foolish of Cutler to read too much into that statement.

TonyR
06-25-2009, 07:32 AM
...Also Im pretty sure we didn't even interview Sprags so lord knows we don't know who would have been better for the job here in Denver.

I think the FO did talk to Spags, at least informally. I recall the Jets spoke to him right before that and the reports were that they came away unimpressed.

DBroncos4life
06-25-2009, 07:46 AM
That's actually a pretty good point. I mean, if the issue is worth driving (and apparently it is), then it's worth acknowledging that Cutler didn't receive any extra money in the exchange. It's kind of a large hole in the point that is being pushed, so I'm pretty certain that it's going to be given zero creedence.

I miss the Orton guys. At least they were talking about a current Bronco.

I'm sure the Bears are going to ink him for a larger contract sometime but I think it will be next offseason. For them not to have a deal in place already like what the Skins did with Portis and us with Champ leads me to believe that this wasn't a money driven move like pops thinks. I still think it is something between Jay and McD.
Maybe Jay is a baby and couldn't hang with McD but at the sametime if thats a something that we are thinking about then why can't we look at McD and his ego? Personally Im worried that two of our best young players want out now that McD is coaching.

Cito Pelon
06-25-2009, 07:49 AM
It's an important issue. I'm glad you brought it up, Popps. It is very difficult to tell. Most recently, Bowlen announced that the team was doing "fine" financially, but it has also been noted by Bowlen himself that unlike some of the other owners in the league, the large majority of his income is based on profits from the football team. He isn't independently wealthy like the Hunt family or like a Paul Allen, for example.

A poster on this board, I think it might have been killericon said that he did have oil holdings in Canada and I seem to remember a remark that the investments were doing poorly. Ofcourse, the Broncos themselves made several cutbacks to support staff last year, most notably being Andrew Mason and Paul Kirk, as noted above, although I agree with BroncoBuff that its a stretch that "economics" forced them to can two guys who probably didn't make more than 150k combined. I suspect that relatively speaking the Broncos are feeling at least a little bit of a pinch, just like anyone in this recession. But I'm just not sure if there is substantial evidence out there that there is a real cash flow problem beyond that.

It is true that our spending practices have become tighter recently, but that was true even before the economy hit a free fall as Bowlen announced in Spring, 08 that we were going to change the philosophy of aggressive FA additions and focus on a more prudent strategy of drafting and finding bargains, while making only moderate investments in FA. I think there is a good case to be made that this was a sincere (and warranted) philosophical change in belief, not necessarily just a pretext for keeping more profit.

The argument has been made that Bowlen giving a thumbs down to Shanny's proposal for a new training facility also suggests financial problems. That might be true, but there's just as good of a counterargument out there. Dove Valley is a top notch facility and is also relatively new, so it doesn't seem like a massive new investment was necessary on the merits.

The answer to this obviously would lie in the NFL's revenue data. We might actually get a chance to get our hands on it in the near future, as the NFLPA has been continually requesting internal financial documents from the League in the ongoing labor dispute that is probably going to come to a head in the next year. So far the league and owners have rebuffed them. That does suggest on the surface that perhaps the league is not doing as badly as they have been representing to the union, but its still just speculation. For the Broncos specifically, I have noticed that they remain among the Top 6,7 in terms of team value in the annual Forbes rankings and that would appear to suggest that their revenue streams can't be doing too badly, considering the relatively new stadium and what appear to be lucrative local TV deals.

Overall, I suspect they are probably taking a hit, but its not a truly substantial one. That's just my speculation based on all these things, though.

We'll see.

I think the League has already opened the books, and that is their position. The current CBA has 60% of League revenues to the players guaranteed, so that means the Union already has access to total League revenues.

Obviously, this will be a tough negotiation with a new Union boss trying to establish himself, dude's a lawyer to boot. I heard the new Union boss on Mike & Mike a couple months ago and they touched on a possible rookie salary cap. The Union boss said to paraphrase, "That's between the teams and the rookies." To me that sounded like he was condoning collusion by the owners to reduce rookie salaries, and collusion by the owners was what brought on the last strike.

This could get messy. We'll see, I guess.

watermock
06-25-2009, 07:49 AM
Who was impressed???

Xanders??? WTF is that???

Remember how the interview process worked. It was 1 interview.1.

Joe Ellis was so impressed~WHO THE HELL IS JOE ELLIS OR XANDERS?

And Bowlen said he was taking back control.

Then he says there were mistakes and doesn't remember well.

THEN we have BM saying the same thing, and McBeavis and Bowlen another.

Get real.

watermock
06-25-2009, 07:52 AM
BTW, I'm the one that kept explaining this was not money driven AT THIS TIME.

cUTLER GETS PAID LESS THAN sIMMS THIS YEAR.

Cito Pelon
06-25-2009, 08:05 AM
This is true, but no example that you're going to cite (or at least in my memory banks) is going to involve both participants being so close in age. Immaturity and inexperience on both of their parts doomed the relationship right out of the gates. This thing was up in flames in no time. I don't believe that they could have co-existed in the same locker room.





Of course not, but that hardly proves anything. I watched a friend take a lesson in that one just recently. He hated his job/company but due to circumstances was suddenly promoted and offered a substantial raise. He went from wanting out, to focusing on taking care of business.

But even if that happened, I think Cutler and McDaniels would mix like oil and water. Maybe it would have worked on the field like Gannon and Gruden. But I think it would have looked more like June Jones and Jeff George. I think that by the end of the season, the entire locker room would probably hate both of them.

That's just my opinion though. It's a question that will never be answered.

Absolutely positively. It wasn't gonna work between those two, and that was one of the major reasons why I was ok with the trade.

Sure, if Cutler got a $100 million contract he might be a little more relaxed, but I agree with the oil & water comparison.

TonyR
06-25-2009, 08:18 AM
Who was impressed???

Xanders??? WTF is that???

Remember how the interview process worked. It was 1 interview.1.

Joe Ellis was so impressed~WHO THE HELL IS JOE ELLIS OR XANDERS?



There were at least a couple of interviews IIRC. And in addition to Bowlen and Ellis, Jim Goodman was involved in the process. But don't take my word for it...

A day after interviewing Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo in New York, the owner of the Denver Broncos met Sunday with New England Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels in the Boston area.
...
The Broncos' brain trust of Bowlen, chief operating officer Joe Ellis and personnel chief Jim Goodman will take a breather Monday before interviewing three more head coaching candidates at team headquarters: Dallas's Jason Garrett, Tampa Bay's Raheem Morris and Denver's Rick Dennison.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/01/04/broncos.coaching.search.ap/index.html?eref=si_topstories

Broncos owner Pat Bowlen sent COO Joe Ellis to Boston Thursday for a lengthy second interview with McDaniels, who, according to sources, was one of two finalists along with Vikings defensive coordinator Leslie Frazier.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3826234

Cito Pelon
06-25-2009, 08:22 AM
I love this place. No discussion is complete without endless kindergarden snit fits over Cutler, Marshall, McDaniels, etc...not even one on money. Frankly I'm so tired of the entire thing I no longer care.

Back on May 12th I posted this link: http://www.westword.com/2002-01-03/news/pat-s-big-fumble/1

Like most things that require people be energetic enough to actually click it...it went largely unnoticed. No doubt it will again, which is unfortunate because the story here is probably the single most important one of this offseason. I did some checking after I read this, and dug into their facts.

I was stunned at what I found.

I not only think the team's in financial trouble, I think it's future in Denver might ultimately be in some jeopardy. Not only is Pat Bowlen not a mega-rich billionaire like so many people seem to think, by NFL ownership standards he's a guy on the corner holding up a will work for food sign. Bowlen was so cash strapped when he bought this team he had to borrow most of the piddling amount he paid for the Broncos under very unfavorable conditions. He's not the majority owner...only 30%...his family members own the rest. Bowlen is the face of the team but he doesn't even control the majority of the voting stock. His history of personal financial dealings is not impressive, and most of his money is family money, but more concerning...the team itself is shrouded in a heavy fog of shadowy holding companies, multiple corporate shields in different states, bizzare and secretive financial transactions that give the general appearance of a team hiding some serious financial issues. Even his lawsuit with Edgar Kaiser raised very disturbing questions about his financial solvency, and after reading the trial summary I'm astounded that Kaiser didn't win. Frankly I'm not convinced the judge wasn't biased in his favor because Kaiser had a case.

Bowlen's very questionable ethical/legal deal with John Elway in which he essentially tried to give Elway about 10% of the team in place of having to pay him...was rejected by John, probably on the advice of his lawyers. Elway turned down a deal worth far more than the cash he got from Bowlen, which to me raises major red flags on both the legal and fianancial fronts. I think Elway wanted no part of this ownershp group.

The main thing that's worked in Bowlen's favor is the new stadium, which is probably the reason this team's not already in more trouble. But even that seems in jeopardy. The Broncos dirty little secret is that they're no longer selling out all the time, despite what their official numbers say. This new corporate, finicky, tempermental fan base of company fat cats and their clients is not inclined to the fanatical worship of this team the old lunch bucket Mile High fans were. If this move with McDaniels goes south, I could see Bowlen selling this team within 5 years.

I'm sure I'll now be roundly flamed for this but 90% of you are to lazy to read this story, let alone do any digging to see for yourself. Shoot the messenger if you wish...but I didn't start the thread title.

Some of that holds water, not all. Some items:

Bowlen sold the boxes at the old Mile High for cash, which was part of the reason he wanted a new Mile High with boxes he owned.

OTOH, Bowlen raised about $200 million of his own money to pay for new Mile High.

SoCalBronc pointed out above that the Broncos are one of the top teams according to Forbes for sale value.

The story was from 2002.

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 08:38 AM
Most of that holds water, not all. Some items:

Bowlen sold the boxes at the old Mile High for cash, which was part of the reason he wanted a new Mile High with boxes he owned.
I already noted that in another post.
OTOH, Bowlen raised about $200 million of his own money to pay for new Mile High.
The facts here come not only from the 2002 story, but were checked straight from the trial and appelate court decisions which ensued later, so they are in fact, accurate.

Define the phrase "his money". Most of his financing to buy the team in the first place came from his family and lenders, which included the sellers themselves. Frankly anything that exists out there right now on the internet about Bowlen's finances is suspect unless it's been verified by court documents. Forbes however, recently estimated his net worth as $50 million...putting him far below most NFL owners.
SoCalBronc pointed out above that the Broncos are one of the top teams according to Forbes for sale value.
So did I...a little over $1 billion...but that's not "his" money. It's the estimated asset value of the team, the stock of which is held by multiple family corporations which also have Bowlen family money mixed into their holdings, meaning that bad debt exists from other Bowlen business deals in oil and real estate which impact the net worth of these holding corporations. How MUCH debt is probably unknown at present, but strong evidence exists that the Bowlen shell game involving up to 15 different corporate shields in multiple states and Canada exists for the purpose of protecting the Bowlen family fortune from creditors and potential litigation. Couple this with the fact that NFL owners had to vote on allowing Denver to carry $30 million above the approved debt limit and that obviously raises serious questions about his financial solvency and his future ability to run this team at a profit.

Given what we know now about Bowlen's financial state throughout the years prior to the new stadium being built, it's highly unlikely Bowlen had $200 million to donate to the stadium. More than likely he obtained it through the same channels he did to buy the team, which is to say he's probably still leveraged to the hilt. In fact...though it now eludes me where...I believe I ran accross information while digging out this other stuff that indicated exactly that. If I have time I'll try to find it.

Cito Pelon
06-25-2009, 08:53 AM
. . . . .10) 1998- Cash strapped and faced with paying Elway signifcant deferred money in his contract, Bowlen offers Elway stock in Bowlen Sports Inc. and a future exectuve role with the team instead. BSI's equity minus debt is worth an estimated $300 million once the stadium is built.
. . . . .

What's the point of all this NOW...years later?. . . . . .

We'd better hope Kaiser kicks the bucket before Bowlen does sell this team because the next time around...if there is a next time...Kaiser still has a legal right to buy the Broncos.. . . . ..

Those are the salient points I bolded.

1) With equity minus debt of $300 million once the new Mile High was built, Bowlen got rid of his earlier shenanigans. If I'm wrong, tell me so.

2) If Bowlen did indeed have that $300 million in equity once new Mile High was built, then there is no point to go through the earlier shenanigans now since the article was written in 2002, but it is interesting to see all the shenanigans Bowlen went through.

3) I believe Kaiser completely and absolutely gave up any and all claims on ownership.

Of course, none of the above means Bowlen is out of financial difficulty. He did have to raise quite a bit of cash on his own to build the new Mile High. Something like $200 million IIRC.

This has been an interesting discussion. I'm interested to see if you have more current info. This could get very interesting.

Cito Pelon
06-25-2009, 08:56 AM
I already noted that in another post.

The facts here come not only from the 2002 story, but were checked straight from the trial and appelate court decisions which ensued later, so they are in fact, accurate.

Define the phrase "his money". Most of his financing to buy the team in the first place came from his family and lenders, which included the sellers themselves. Frankly anything that exists out there right now on the internet about Bowlen's finances is suspect unless it's been verified by court documents. Forbes however, recently estimated his net worth as $50 million...putting him far below most NFL owners.

So did I...a little over $1 billion...but that's not "his" money. It's the estimated asset value of the team, the stock of which is held by multiple family corporations which also have Bowlen family money mixed into their holdings, meaning that bad debt exists from other Bowlen business deals in oil and real estate which impact the net worth of these holding corporations. How MUCH debt is probably unknown at present, but strong evidence exists that the Bowlen shell game involving up to 15 different corporate shields in multiple states and Canada exists for the purpose of protecting the Bowlen family fortune from creditors and potential litigation. Couple this with the fact that NFL owners had to vote on allowing Denver to carry $30 million above the approved debt limit and that obviously raises serious questions about his financial solvency and his future ability to run this team at a profit.

Given what we know now about Bowlen's financial state throughout the years prior to the new stadium being built, it's highly unlikely Bowlen had $200 million to donate to the stadium. More than likely he obtained it through the same channels he did to buy the team, which is to say he's probably still leveraged to the hilt. In fact...though it now eludes me where...I believe I ran accross information while digging out this other stuff that indicated exactly that. If I have time I'll try to find it.

Very interesting. I was curious about where the money came from that Bowlen used to finance new Mile High.

BroncoBuff
06-25-2009, 09:02 AM
I don't think McD would come to Denver after seeing what Bob Kraft has done to NE football if he didn't think Pat could do the same for him in here.

Seriously? Ambition is a powerful motivator, I think he would've come if Edgar Kaiser still owned the team ... if Betty Crocker owned the team. I think we should all step back from the "Josh was in high demand" card ... he might've had another interview, but I remember several teams including the Rams didn't even interview him, and even Scott Pioli had no real interest. And Pioli obviously knows Josh very well ... Pioli was hired IIRC the same day or the day after Josh, but he definitely could've made his intentions clear to the chefs and Josh, if he liked McD he could have engineered a package deal, and then brough Cassel to KC.

When Pioli shows no interest ... and then he waited what, a month to hire Haley? That doesn't mean Josh is any less of a coach, but it does mean the guy who watched him come up every step of the ladder had no interest.

Tell the truth, Josh reminds me of Rick Neuheisel.

Popps
06-25-2009, 09:15 AM
I'm sure the Bears are going to ink him for a larger contract sometime but I think it will be next offseason. For them not to have a deal in place already like what the Skins did with Portis and us with Champ leads me to believe that this wasn't a money driven move like pops thinks. I still think it is something between Jay and McD.
Maybe Jay is a baby and couldn't hang with McD but at the sametime if thats a something that we are thinking about then why can't we look at McD and his ego? Personally Im worried that two of our best young players want out now that McD is coaching.

Problem is, there's been no indication that McDaniels "ego" has anything to do with these players leaving.

Cutler never stated it was a personality thing. He said he was upset that we considered another QB.

To the contrary, Marshall has been as on board as any player I've heard interviewed. In fact, he's gone out of his way to say that his holdout is only $-related.

So, while losing any talented players is a concern, it's important to understand what's actually happened, here.

Not one single player has had a negative word to say about the new staff. Not one. Jay Cutler claims to not like the actions of the new staff, but not a single player has come out publicly and complained, nor has there been a single instance of any former players complaining about McDaniels.

In other words, there is a whole lot of fire being talked about around here without a single puff of smoke.

BroncoBuff
06-25-2009, 09:15 AM
I made it very clear that I believe Cutler wanted a raise, and that was part of his crybaby fit that led him out the door.

Perhaps you need a dictionary?Well Jay Cutler hasn't gotten his raise from the Bears and yet he is in camp and not asking to be traded.That's actually a pretty good point. I mean, if the issue is worth driving (and apparently it is), then it's worth acknowledging that Cutler didn't receive any extra money in the exchange. It's kind of a large hole in the point that is being pushed, so I'm pretty certain that it's going to be given zero creedence.

Yeah, this "greedy Jay and Bus" conspiracy theory has been so thoroughly discredited, only the most blindly pro-management folks are still paying any attention at all to it. Why can't they just say what's obvious to any sane person, "I guess it wasn't about greed or a new contract."? A cardinal indicator of good character is the willingness to concede when you're wrong ... there's precious little of that around here.

He reminds me of Perez Hilton in that video ... all the facts are against you, but you just keeps attacking ... "perhaps you need a dictionary"?!

Kinda pitiful.

TonyR
06-25-2009, 09:30 AM
...I think we should all step back from the "Josh was in high demand" card ... he might've had another interview, but I remember several teams including the Rams didn't even interview him, and even Scott Pioli had no real interest. And Pioli obviously knows Josh very well ... Pioli was hired IIRC the same day or the day after Josh, but he definitely could've made his intentions clear to the chefs and Josh, if he liked McD he could have engineered a package deal, and then brough Cassel to KC.

When Pioli shows no interest ... and then he waited what, a month to hire Haley? That doesn't mean Josh is any less of a coach, but it does mean the guy who watched him come up every step of the ladder had no interest.

Lot's of speculation here, Buff. Here are some facts from early 2008:

New England Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels, who in only his second season in the position presided over a unit that established new league records for touchdowns and points scored, has decided he will not interview for any head coach vacancies this year, ESPN.com has learned.

Both the Atlanta Falcons and Baltimore Ravens this week sought permission from Patriots officials to meet with McDaniels about their respective openings. Under league rules, New England essentially had to honor the requests, since the interviews would have been for a head coaching position.

But McDaniels, who also serves as quarterbacks coach, did not have to agree to the interviews, and has decided in general not to pursue any head coach positions for the 2008 season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3179838


This from early 2009:

Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels interviewed yesterday for the Cleveland Browns' head coaching vacancy...

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2009/01/03/browns_interview_patriots_mcdaniels/


A bit hypocritical of you to suggest that Popps has an anti-Cutler agenda while you clearly have an anti-McDaniels agenda...

Popps
06-25-2009, 09:34 AM
There were at least a couple of interviews IIRC. And in addition to Bowlen and Ellis, Jim Goodman was involved in the process. But don't take my word for it...

A day after interviewing Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo in New York, the owner of the Denver Broncos met Sunday with New England Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels in the Boston area.
...
The Broncos' brain trust of Bowlen, chief operating officer Joe Ellis and personnel chief Jim Goodman will take a breather Monday before interviewing three more head coaching candidates at team headquarters: Dallas's Jason Garrett, Tampa Bay's Raheem Morris and Denver's Rick Dennison.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/01/04/broncos.coaching.search.ap/index.html?eref=si_topstories

Broncos owner Pat Bowlen sent COO Joe Ellis to Boston Thursday for a lengthy second interview with McDaniels, who, according to sources, was one of two finalists along with Vikings defensive coordinator Leslie Frazier.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3826234

Good round-up.

On top of our ownership being blown away by McDaniels interview, it's not like it came as a surprise. He was largely considered one of the best, if not the best prospect out there. (And certainly the best young prospect.)

So, one of the best coaching prospects landing with what was considered the best job opening wasn't a big surprise...

McDaniels and Jason Garrett, the Cowboys' offensive coordinator, are two of the hottest young NFL head coaching prospects in the game. McDaniels turned down interview requests from the Falcons and the Ravens, but could draw interest from the Redskins after Super Bowl XLII.
Of course McDaniels was deflecting all talk of a possible head coaching job during the Patriots' media session on Wednesday.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2008/01/31/2008-01-31_pats_assistant_josh_mcdaniels_likely_to_-3.html#ixzz0JSYlntQW&D

TonyR
06-25-2009, 09:34 AM
...nor has there been a single instance of any former players complaining about McDaniels.


True, and the fact that a few former players, most notably Jordan and Gaffney, have joined the Broncos suggests they actually liked playing for him.

Popps
06-25-2009, 09:39 AM
A bit hypocritical of you to suggest that Popps has an anti-Cutler agenda while you clearly have an anti-McDaniels agenda...

And beyond that... when you come flat out and state your position, as I have on Cutler, it's not an "agenda."

People really need to learn the meaning of the word.

I think Cutler was a b**** who b****ed his way out of town, and yes... I ultimately think money probably played a part. (Is it always does.)

So, that's not hiding anything... I can't state my opinion any more clearly. Having an opinion on a single topic isn't an "agenda." It's an opinion.

However, that shouldn't detract from the topic, which asked the question on whether or not we have real financial issues, and whether Marshall's quick about-face after the meeting could have resulted in being told the well is dry. OR, were these two incidents just isolated and because of specific situations.

Beantown Bronco
06-25-2009, 09:39 AM
To the contrary, Marshall has been as on board as any player I've heard interviewed. In fact, he's gone out of his way to say that his holdout is only $-related.

Really? I haven't seen anything to that effect myself. I've seen lot's of assumptions, but no actual quotes. Don't get me wrong, here. If pressed, I'd agree that $ probably is the major factor, but I don't think he's "gone out of his way" to say this to anyone.

And you are forgetting the Broncos medical staff in all this. If anything, Marshall's camp has leaked their unhappiness about this group more than $.

Popps
06-25-2009, 09:51 AM
Really? I haven't seen anything to that effect myself. I've seen lot's of assumptions, but no actual quotes. Don't get me wrong, here. If pressed, I'd agree that $ probably is the major factor, but I don't think he's "gone out of his way" to say this to anyone.

And you are forgetting the Broncos medical staff in all this. If anything, Marshall's camp has leaked their unhappiness about this group more than $.


Watch the interviews from camp, and after Cutlergate. There are plenty of quotes out there. Let me know if you find a SINGLE quote of Marshall questioning the validity of the new staff in any way, shape or form.

Marshall and his agent have stated that they want a raise and hence for Marshall to stay in Denver.

There has not been a single shred of indication that it's anything more than money.

So, if YOU believe there to be a conspiracy, the onus is on YOU to provide evidence of your theory.

If you believe the moon is made of green cheese, it's up to YOU to provide proof of such... not up to the world to disprove a theory you came up with.

Beantown Bronco
06-25-2009, 09:55 AM
Watch the interviews from camp, and after Cutlergate. There are plenty of quotes out there. Let me know if you find a SINGLE quote of Marshall questioning the validity of the new staff in any way, shape or form.

You misread my post. I never said this.

I said LAST YEAR'S MEDICAL STAFF. Nothing about McDaniels. You're at the point where you are so on the defensive about him you're seeing things.

Popps
06-25-2009, 10:00 AM
You misread my post. I never said this.

I said LAST YEAR'S MEDICAL STAFF. Nothing about McDaniels. You're at the point where you are so on the defensive about him you're seeing things.

You quoted a post of mine stating that Marshall's holdout was $$$ related.

That came on the heels of discussion with others that the team was "torn apart" by McDaniels.

You introduced medical staff yourself, which has been conjecture, and I don't totally doubt that. Though, I don't recall hearing any direct quotes from Marshall or his agent. Even if there were, I'd suspect a large contract would soothe those concerns.

Beantown Bronco
06-25-2009, 10:01 AM
Marshall and his agent have stated that they want a raise and hence for Marshall to stay in Denver.

There has not been a single shred of indication that it's anything more than money.

His agent, Kennard McGuire, said it wasn't a ploy to seek a new contract.

Marshall has been openly critical of the Broncos' medical staff which, in his opinion, misdiagnosed his injury. He has been rehabbing in Orlando with an independent medical team.

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-broncos-marshall-trade-061509,0,7598812.story


and this link....lot's of references and quotes about his frustration with the medical staff. Not one quote about money.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/sports/19762223/detail.html

HooptyHoops
06-25-2009, 10:02 AM
Seriously? Ambition is a powerful motivator, I think he would've come if Edgar Kaiser still owned the team ... if Betty Crocker owned the team. I think we should all step back from the "Josh was in high demand" card ... he might've had another interview, but I remember several teams including the Rams didn't even interview him, and even Scott Pioli had no real interest. And Pioli obviously knows Josh very well ... Pioli was hired IIRC the same day or the day after Josh, but he definitely could've made his intentions clear to the chefs and Josh, if he liked McD he could have engineered a package deal, and then brough Cassel to KC.

When Pioli shows no interest ... and then he waited what, a month to hire Haley? That doesn't mean Josh is any less of a coach, but it does mean the guy who watched him come up every step of the ladder had no interest.

Tell the truth, Josh reminds me of Rick Neuheisel.

Man, did you just compare McDaniels to Neuheisel...I really do hope that you are wrong!!

DBroncos4life
06-25-2009, 10:24 AM
Problem is, there's been no indication that McDaniels "ego" has anything to do with these players leaving.

Cutler never stated it was a personality thing. He said he was upset that we considered another QB.

To the contrary, Marshall has been as on board as any player I've heard interviewed. In fact, he's gone out of his way to say that his holdout is only $-related.

So, while losing any talented players is a concern, it's important to understand what's actually happened, here.

Not one single player has had a negative word to say about the new staff. Not one. Jay Cutler claims to not like the actions of the new staff, but not a single player has come out publicly and complained, nor has there been a single instance of any former players complaining about McDaniels.

In other words, there is a whole lot of fire being talked about around here without a single puff of smoke.

There is no more indication that Cutler wanted to be paid more but you keep rolling it out there like its some kind of truth.

DBroncos4life
06-25-2009, 10:29 AM
Neither Cutler or Bus ever said they wanted more money from the Broncos. The only thing they ever said is that Jay felt like McD lied to him and that he couldn't trust him. Trust comes from character, which Cutler didn't seem to like about McD.

SonOfLe-loLang
06-25-2009, 10:41 AM
Neither Cutler or Bus ever said they wanted more money from the Broncos. The only thing they ever said is that Jay felt like McD lied to him and that he couldn't trust him. Trust comes from character, which Cutler didn't seem to like about McD.

Kind of ironic

BroncoBuff
06-25-2009, 10:57 AM
Lot's of speculation here, Buff. Here are some facts from early 2008:

But McDaniels, who also serves as quarterbacks coach, did not have to agree to the interviews, and has decided in general not to pursue any head coach positions for the 2008 season. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3179838

I didn't realize that ... fair enough.


This from early 2009: Patriots offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels interviewed yesterday for the Cleveland Browns' head coaching vacancy... http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2009/01/03/browns_interview_patriots_mcdaniels/
Okay, one other interview .... he was obviously a spectacularly successful coordinator, nobody can deny that .... but Pioli had no interest, that still bothers me. Pioli wanted Cassel, but not McD.

Hoopty ... this the part where he reminds me of Neuheisel. Both charismatic, highly successful, energetic guys. But seem to not have many fans after they leave places. Good example ... McD obviously made a bit of a run at Cassel, everyone knows he made some effort. And yet when Belichick talked afterward about the trade, he said he was aware of no other offers, which obviously means he didn't speak to Josh, at least not about Cassel.

If you follow that thread of logic, it's pretty persuasive .... Pioli had no interest, and apparently Josh didn't even speak to Belichick during the Cassel trade negotiations. That makes Josh sound like Neuheisel to me.


A bit hypocritical of you to suggest that Popps has an anti-Cutler agenda while you clearly have an anti-McDaniels agenda...
Yeah, true .... but to be accurate, I've ALWAYS been PRO-Josh as a coach, just anti-Josh as a GM.

BroncoBuff
06-25-2009, 10:58 AM
Neither Cutler or Bus ever said they wanted more money from the Broncos. The only thing they ever said is that Jay felt like McD lied to him and that he couldn't trust him. Trust comes from character, which Cutler didn't seem to like about McD.

Kinda seems Pioli might've had similar issues.

TonyR
06-25-2009, 11:10 AM
... but Pioli had no interest, that still bothers me. Pioli wanted Cassel, but not McD.

... McD obviously made a bit of a run at Cassel, everyone knows he made some effort. And yet when Belichick talked afterward about the trade, he said he was aware of no other offers, which obviously means he didn't speak to Josh, at least not about Cassel.

If you follow that thread of logic, it's pretty persuasive .... Pioli had no interest, and apparently Josh didn't even speak to Belichick during the Cassel trade negotiations.

On Pioli, your point is fair but it also should be pointed out that we don't know for sure. Perhaps the KC FO had other ideas. Perhaps Josh wasn't interested in KC or didn't want to work for Pioli. Maybe Josh and Pioli just don't like each other or get along.

On Cassel, this could also suggest that McD's interest in Cassel never truly got very far beyond the discussion/investigation phase.

TonyR
06-25-2009, 11:11 AM
.... but to be accurate, I've ALWAYS been PRO-Josh as a coach, just anti-Josh as a GM.

That is completely fair. I think you've been consistent in that position.

cutthemdown
06-25-2009, 11:15 AM
Neither Cutler or Bus ever said they wanted more money from the Broncos. The only thing they ever said is that Jay felt like McD lied to him and that he couldn't trust him. Trust comes from character, which Cutler didn't seem to like about McD.

Well to say it had nothing to do with money considering its the NFL is shortsighted. It always has something to do with money.

Trust is a 2 way street IMO. Bowlen did nothing to Cutler but Cutler still failed to respect him. How much trust can an owner have when he gives a guy millions and is then treated like that?

We will see if it is about money when Cutler and Bus Cook decide it's time to put the screws to the bears for a new deal. IMO if not for the bad publicity he would already be saying pay me more or I don't show.

At some point Cutler will break the bank and complete his goal of getting a new deal way before his rookie deal runs out.

DBroncos4life
06-25-2009, 11:29 AM
Well to say it had nothing to do with money considering its the NFL is shortsighted. It always has something to do with money.

Trust is a 2 way street IMO. Bowlen did nothing to Cutler but Cutler still failed to respect him. How much trust can an owner have when he gives a guy millions and is then treated like that?

We will see if it is about money when Cutler and Bus Cook decide it's time to put the screws to the bears for a new deal. IMO if not for the bad publicity he would already be saying pay me more or I don't show.

At some point Cutler will break the bank and complete his goal of getting a new deal way before his rookie deal runs out.

They could have very well have had a deal in place already just like Portis if they really wanted this to be about money. Also no one really believe the Bears won't give Cutler a new contract. They traded two first round picks and a third rounder for the guy. It would be a very bad PR move for them NOT to sign him so Bus could have taken them right there and then for WAY more money then he is making right now. Bus and Cutler had the upper hand in that area and still they haven't worked out a new deal that leads me to think that maybe money wasn't the driving force of the trade.

24champ
06-25-2009, 11:44 AM
Forbes however, recently estimated his net worth as $50 million...putting him far below most NFL owners.


What's going to happen when the NFL goes into uncapped years? How the hell are we going to compete with the Jerry Jones, Snyders, Paul Allens?

Beantown Bronco
06-25-2009, 11:49 AM
What's going to happen when the NFL goes into uncapped years? How the hell are we going to compete with the Jerry Jones, Snyders, Paul Allens?

The opposite will actually happen. Some of the rules coming into play next year (more tags for each team, to name one) will actually make it almost impossible for any decent players to hit free agency.

Popps
06-25-2009, 11:49 AM
Neither Cutler or Bus ever said they wanted more money from the Broncos. The only thing they ever said is that Jay felt like McD lied to him and that he couldn't trust him. Trust comes from character, which Cutler didn't seem to like about McD.

A lot of 23 year olds don't like a lot of things, especially when they're not getting their way.

Again, if there were "character" concerns about McDaniels, he likely wouldn't have advanced in his career as quickly as he has.

Beyond that, Jay Cutler has not made a single comment on his "character." Those are your words. Jay said the trade talks surprised him, and then demanded a trade.

This is on the heels of speculation that he had already demanded a trade before these events ever happened.

Again, let's not put words in people's mouths. If your opinion is that McDaniels has character issues, that's fine. As long as it's made clear that there is absolutely no supporting evidence that he's done anything other than his job, which is to try to improve the team. Sometimes feelings get hurt in that process.

Popps
06-25-2009, 11:52 AM
There is no more indication that Cutler wanted to be paid more but you keep rolling it out there like its some kind of truth.

Wrong.

I've rolled it out there like it's my opinion.

Again, I'm going to continue to try to help you folks out...

An opinion is what someone states THEY BELIVE TO BE TRUE.

Truth is truth.

An agenda is a campaign, and in this case... the implications to be that it's a hidden agenda. (Which is incorrect.)


See the difference?

Since none of us were involved in these meetings, we all are working largely on opinions based on mostly circumstantial evidence.

I'm stating in no uncertain terms that while I have no factual, tangible evidence that $$$ played a role in Jay's decision, I believe that it did... based on 30 years of watching the Broncos and based on Cutler's agent's high level of involvement and past history.

Hope that clears up the difference between my opinion, what we know is fact, and an agenda.

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 11:55 AM
What's going to happen when the NFL goes into uncapped years? How the hell are we going to compete with the Jerry Jones, Snyders, Paul Allens?
Cash flow and the debt load are the key issues. I think Pat's motives are geared to winning, but I wonder if he's got the stomach for this much longer. It seriously would not surprise me if he decides at 70 to unload the team. That's the truly worisome part...the devil you know vs. the devil you don't...and it could still be Kaiser since he's got ROFR for any sale outside the Bowlen family.

Bob's your Information Minister
06-25-2009, 11:59 AM
Bowlen has been drinking, snorting and gambling it all away...

TonyR
06-25-2009, 12:02 PM
...and it could still be Kaiser since he's got ROFR for any sale outside the Bowlen family.

Just curious because I don't know the history of Kaiser's ownership and why he sold, but why would he want to own the team again? If he does, why did he sell to Bowlen?

On another note, I wonder if there is any possibility that Stan Kroenke would sell his share of the Rams and buy into the Broncos? And would we want that?

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/24/fedex-ceo-not-interested-in-rams/

DBroncos4life
06-25-2009, 12:21 PM
Wrong.

I've rolled it out there like it's my opinion.

Again, I'm going to continue to try to help you folks out...

An opinion is what someone states THEY BELIVE TO BE TRUE.

Truth is truth.

An agenda is a campaign, and in this case... the implications to be that it's a hidden agenda. (Which is incorrect.)


See the difference?

Since none of us were involved in these meetings, we all are working largely on opinions based on mostly circumstantial evidence.

I'm stating in no uncertain terms that while I have no factual, tangible evidence that $$$ played a role in Jay's decision, I believe that it did... based on 30 years of watching the Broncos and based on Cutler's agent's high level of involvement and past history.

Hope that clears up the difference between my opinion, what we know is fact, and an agenda.

We all know your agenda is to make it clear that in your opinion Jay wanted more money, even though most posters and fans can see that Jay and Bus haven't even said a thing about a new contract to the Bears. I pointed out they have the cards, the Bears sold the farm to get Jay and yet he still is in camp right now playing with his contract that WE gave him. Jay has all but told us he didn't want to play for McD and yet you still keep saying its about money not the fact that Jay didn't care for McD.

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 12:23 PM
Just curious because I don't know the history of Kaiser's ownership and why he sold, but why would he want to own the team again? If he does, why did he sell to Bowlen?
He apparently sold out for financial reasons, turning a quick 100% profit in the face of mounting losses in his other business interests. In a letter he wrote to Bowlen prior to the lawsuit, he said he was, "not a happy seller". He obviously knows the team's value has increased dramatically since he sold out, so no doubt that's part of his motive, and may be he misses being part of the club of NFL owners as well. I think he'd probably like to just "win" against Bowlen as well. One thing that seems pretty certain...he doesn't seem like the type whose that interested in owning the team so he can win championships like Bowlen is.
On another note, I wonder if there is any possibility that Stan Kroenke would sell his share of the Rams and buy into the Broncos? And would we want that?
I don't know how advisable it is to have a single owner splitting attention between two franchises, but from what little I know about Kroenke he'd probably make a good owner...maybe Nugget fans have more insight there...but remember this...it doesn't matter if he's interested or not if Kaiser decides he wants back and and he can swing the finances since he has the ROFR. At last glance...this is maybe 3 years old...I saw Kaiser's net worth listed as $180 million...more than Bowlen but still well below the Paul Allens of the world.

24champ
06-25-2009, 12:42 PM
The opposite will actually happen. Some of the rules coming into play next year (more tags for each team, to name one) will actually make it almost impossible for any decent players to hit free agency.

What about our guys? Are we going to be able to afford multiple tags?

24champ
06-25-2009, 12:47 PM
Cash flow and the debt load are the key issues. I think Pat's motives are geared to winning, but I wonder if he's got the stomach for this much longer. It seriously would not surprise me if he decides at 70 to unload the team. That's the truly worisome part...the devil you know vs. the devil you don't...and it could still be Kaiser since he's got ROFR for any sale outside the Bowlen family.

Here's a scenario.

What if Bowlen has a buyer of the team, say Phillip Anschutz of AEG, will purchase the Broncos for 1.7 Billion. Well above it's worth, according to Forbes, and Kaiser comes in with a lowball offer of 800 mill.

What happens?

Beantown Bronco
06-25-2009, 12:49 PM
Here's a scenario.

What if Bowlen has a buyer of the team, say Phillip Anschutz of AEG, will purchase the Broncos for 1.7 Billion. Well above it's worth, according to Forbes, and Kaiser comes in with a lowball offer of 800 mill.

What happens?

Kaiser has to match the best offer.

Beantown Bronco
06-25-2009, 12:50 PM
What about our guys? Are we going to be able to afford multiple tags?

They really don't have that many key guys scheduled for FA in the next two years, so I wouldn't worry about it right now. All the key guys who could demand big money on the open market aren't scheduled for FA until AT LEAST 2011.

24champ
06-25-2009, 01:03 PM
Kaiser has to match the best offer.

Kaiser also has to be approved by the NFL board as well.

I highly doubt he has the capital to buy the team....

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 01:03 PM
Kaiser has to match the best offer.
Correct. Here's a bigger problem though; what if Kaiser decides to buy the team so he can move it? That might open another can of worms. The NFL's been hinting around about international expansion.

Vancouver Broncos anyone?

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 01:04 PM
Kaiser also has to be approved by the NFL board as well.

I highly doubt he has the capital to buy the team....
He has a lot more capital than Bowlen did or probably does.

24champ
06-25-2009, 01:09 PM
Interesting to read...really interesting article.

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/41124


Despite persistent rumors that Bowlen had his eye on the Los Angeles market, he’s adamant that he never would have moved the Broncos even if the vote had failed. “After 12 or 13 years in Denver, my heart wouldn’t have been in it somewhere else,” he says, adding that with a wife and five children living in Denver, he wouldn’t have started over in a new city. But he’s equally adamant that the team couldn’t have survived in Mile High Stadium. At some point, he says, he would have sold out to someone else with “a different agenda, a different approach,” and let them either fight the stadium battle or take the team elsewhere. “I would have moved on, gone back to Hawaii, done some more triathlons,” he says.

24champ
06-25-2009, 01:12 PM
He has a lot more capital than Bowlen did or probably does.

Question is not whether he has more capital than Bowlen...it's whether he can round up over a billion dollars to buy the team. Then again, I haven't seen what Kaiser's net worth is.

gyldenlove
06-25-2009, 01:14 PM
They really don't have that many key guys scheduled for FA in the next two years, so I wouldn't worry about it right now. All the key guys who could demand big money on the open market aren't scheduled for FA until AT LEAST 2011.

The two to worry about are Kuper and Harris, offensive linemen have been getting top dollar and with their play, they could both command deals in the 6- 8 million per year range on the free market.

I think we will do well to get both under contract before they reach the market and we have to compete, I believe both would be willing to take a hometown discount to stay if the situation is handled properly.

24champ
06-25-2009, 01:17 PM
Correct. Here's a bigger problem though; what if Kaiser decides to buy the team so he can move it? That might open another can of worms. The NFL's been hinting around about international expansion.

Vancouver Broncos anyone?

Vancouver doesn't have a stadium, so there goes that theory.

I'd be really worried if Ed Roski buys the team folks, he's an LA guy with a serious agenda to put a team in LA.

I'd rather see a Colorado resident like Kroenke or Phillip Anschutz to buy the team.

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 01:27 PM
Vancouver doesn't have a stadium, so there goes that theory.
You mean NOW they don't. But it could be anywhere...LA...Portland...San Antonio...point is, any future buyer might not be inclined to stay here.

24champ
06-25-2009, 01:32 PM
You mean NOW they don't. But it could be anywhere...LA...Portland...San Antonio...point is, any future buyer might not be inclined to stay here.

The NFL would reject that notion or plan.

Popps
06-25-2009, 02:25 PM
We all know your agenda is to make it clear that in your opinion Jay wanted more money

Wrong.

I'll try to help you again.

An agenda is when you have an overall plan to accomplish something.

I don't wish to accomplish anything by stating my opinion.

Catching on?

I think Cutler is a douche-bag. See, that's not an agenda. I'M TELLING YOU he's a douche-bag.

See the difference?

I can keep explaining the difference as long as you need me to.

I BELIEVE CUTLERBUS WANTED MORE MONEY AND THAT INFLUENCED THEIR DECISION.

I'm not hinting, I'm telling you.

Mmmkay?

though most posters and fans can see that Jay and Bus haven't even said a thing about a new contract to the Bears. .

He hasn't gone through a single practice. You think he's going to show up and demand a giant raise before taking a physical?

Jay has all but told us he didn't want to play for McD and yet you still keep saying its about money not the fact that Jay didn't care for McD.

Wrong.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying money was involved. I'm saying that Jay is a brat and his agent likely worked him over like he did Favre, and ****ed another situation up.
So, yes... money reared its ugly head, regardless if Jay had a sore mangina or not.

DBroncos4life
06-25-2009, 02:43 PM
Wrong.

I'll try to help you again.

An agenda is when you have an overall plan to accomplish something.

I don't wish to accomplish anything by stating my opinion.

Catching on?

I think Cutler is a douche-bag. See, that's not an agenda. I'M TELLING YOU he's a douche-bag.

See the difference?

I can keep explaining the difference as long as you need me to.

I BELIEVE CUTLERBUS WANTED MORE MONEY AND THAT INFLUENCED THEIR DECISION.

I'm not hinting, I'm telling you.

Mmmkay?



He hasn't gone through a single practice. You think he's going to show up and demand a giant raise before taking a physical?



Wrong.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying money was involved. I'm saying that Jay is a brat and his agent likely worked him over like he did Favre, and ****ed another situation up.
So, yes... money reared its ugly head, regardless if Jay had a sore mangina or not.
Really no agenda huh? Then why did you start another Jay Cutler Poll? Seems to me you can't let it go till you prove your point regardless of what thread its in.

BroncoBuff
06-25-2009, 02:53 PM
Wrong.

I'll try to help you again.

An agenda is when you have an overall plan to accomplish something.

I don't wish to accomplish anything by stating my opinion.

Okay, definitionally it's not an "agenda."

Then I guess it's an obsession.



So, yes... money reared its ugly head, regardless if Jay had a sore mangina or not.

Dude, money had nothing to do with this, no matter what the poll says ... facts have borne that out.

Popps
06-25-2009, 05:55 PM
Really no agenda huh? Then why did you start another Jay Cutler Poll? Seems to me you can't let it go till you prove your point regardless of what thread its in.

Oh, I thought it would be fun to test your theory of "most people" not believing finances were involved.

Beyond that, no agenda. You continue to confuse that with an "opinion."

footstepsfrom#27
06-25-2009, 06:04 PM
Question is not whether he has more capital than Bowlen...it's whether he can round up over a billion dollars to buy the team. Then again, I haven't seen what Kaiser's net worth is.
Not if he bought the team like Bowlen did. Pat put down $100,000 on what's estimated to have been a purchase price of $65-72 million...then he borrowed the rest of the money from banks, family, the lenders themselves and various leveraged stock transactions. Kaiser could very easily do the same thing or close to it.

lazarus4444
06-25-2009, 06:21 PM
What money woes? He still pays former employees till the end of their contracts when he doesn't need to (not talking about shannY). I don't think there are any issues with finances. Obviously we don't want to overspend like washingtion does but its not like we're keeping our payroll around 30mil a year or something.

OrangeRising
06-25-2009, 11:01 PM
That Westword article is pretty disturbing. With the bloated t-v deals, merchandising and all the rest, it's seems odd that stadium revenue would carry so much weight with Bowlens' finances.

Also, Bolwen indulged Shanahans' shop-til-you-drop FA gambles much longer than he should have.

Now it does seems that the organization has pulled way back financially and will attempt to build a competitive team on the cheap.

Oh well, one extreme to the the other might work.

24champ
06-25-2009, 11:20 PM
Not if he bought the team like Bowlen did. Pat put down $100,000 on what's estimated to have been a purchase price of $65-72 million...then he borrowed the rest of the money from banks, family, the lenders themselves and various leveraged stock transactions. Kaiser could very easily do the same thing or close to it.

You are right, except this time we are not talking about 60 million dollars to buy a football team. We are talking about over a billion dollars. It's not going easy to collect that kind of capital in a short amount of time. Especially if the economy doesn't pick up.

footstepsfrom#27
06-26-2009, 12:39 AM
You are right, except this time we are not talking about 60 million dollars to buy a football team. We are talking about over a billion dollars. It's not going easy to collect that kind of capital in a short amount of time. Especially if the economy doesn't pick up.
Nobody is going to put down a billion up front even if they have it. You don't pay cash when you could be drawing ROI for that kind of investment capital. Whoever buys the team...if it's sold...would buy it like you and I buy a house...on credit. Kaiser would simply use his existing capital and stock to secure financing, put something down, then secure loans against the asset value of the team and expected future revenues. I've seen wildly divergent revenue/profit projections on the Broncos ranging from $40 million to $179 million a year. That doesn't tell us anything since we don't know what kind of debt load is being serviced, but while Kaiser would be paying more, he'd also be allocating more based on the increased revenues of the team from when Bowlen bought it and his equity position would probably remain largely proportional to Bowlens...perhaps even better. That's what lenders will look it.

Does all this guarantee he could buy it? No...and in fact the NFL obviously has to approve it, but it's not beyond reason. If he was worth $180 million 5 years ago he might well be worth $250 million today. He might also follow Bowlen's other example, purchasing less than 100% of the team to begin with then moving to buy out the minority interest. He's already apparently got 10%...if he buys another 41% he's the majority owner.

This is the crazy world of the NFL...a guy can sell a team, finance the buyer, lose a court case to that same buyer based on the nuances of contract law, win back 10% of the equity he wanted, and then hold the Sword of Damocles over the heads of the fan base till he either buys back in or kicks the bucket.

TonyR
07-03-2009, 06:30 AM
Here's some more ammo on this topic...


Will The Bears Use 2009 Cap Space On Cutler?
Posted by Mike Florio on July 3, 2009 8:58 AM

Though neither Jay Cutler nor agent Bus Cook publicly have suggested that the Bears' first franchise quarterback since Sid Luckman would like to be paid like he's wearing a franchise tag, the reality is that, at some point before too long, the Bears will need to address Jay Cutler's long-term status.

For now, his compensation is relatively small, given that he received the bulk of his first-contract compensation in 2006, after the Broncos made him the eleventh overall pick in the draft.

But Cutler is due to receive a $12 million roster bonus in 2012. Though that payment might create no cap consequences when it's made because there could be no salary cap by then, there's a salary cap now. As Brad Biggs of the Chicago Sun-Times points out, the Bears still have $17.67 million available to spend this year.

And if they don't use it, they will indeed lose it, if 2010 unfolds, as many expect, without a new labor agreement -- and thus without a salary cap.

Biggs points out that Cutler is the best in-house candidate to receive a long-term deal that chews up much of that remaining cap surplus. And we agree. The problem, however, is that Cutler and Cook currently might want a lot more than what the Bears are willing to pay.

And it also could be that Cutler and Cook are content to wait, especially with Eli Manning and Philip Rivers in line for long-term deals that likely will push the quarterback market to new heights. Though Cutler risks having his potential value drop if he performs in Chicago like most quarterbacks have since Luckman, Cutler has plenty of confidence -- and we think that he thinks that after one season of playing for the Bears like he did for the Broncos he'll be in line to break the bank.

Besides, Cook has no reason to push for a long-term deal for Cutler right now. With Cook's other high-profile client, Brett Favre, due to return for another season, Cook's 2009 budget will easily be satisfied by that three-percent take of whatever Favre makes.

So keep an eye on this one. If the Bears don't end up giving Cutler a lot of money in 2009, it could be that he's angling for whole lot more in 2010, when the Bears and every other team likely will be unconstrained by a spending limit.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/07/03/will-the-bears-use-2009-cap-space-on-cutler/


http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2009/07/29_days_to_camp_bears_have_mor.html