Mike Brown Votes Against the CBA - The Orange Mane

DomCasual · 03-09-2006, 01:27 AM

Classic. Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson are the only owners who voted against the CBA.

Is there a bigger joke of a franchise than the Cincinnati Bengals. Okay, are there five bigger jokes of a franchise than the Cincinnati Bengals?

Say you're an owner that spends as much as you can on players every year. You lobby to get a new stadium to increase revenues, then unpopularly sell the naming rights to the stadium - to increase revenues. You go out and get local tv stations into bidding wars to be able to claim local tv rights to your product - to increase revenues. You basically run it as a business.

Then you have Mike Brown, who traditionally puts the cheapest product on the field every year. He has the team headquarters under a freeway overpass. For years, players see playing for his franchise as Siberia. And when it comes to naming his stadium, he bypasses the tens of millions of dollars he can get and insists on having it named after his dad.

Yet other owners have to supplement this moron's business decisions with their hard work. Essentially, every team's top line is the same, but while some teams spend much more to try and make their product better, guys like Mike Brown shovel as much into their pockets as they can, at the expense of the League and their fans.

And then when it comes to vote on the CBA, he goes against the will of his very generous business partners and votes against it.

I may be simplifying a little, but not by much. The guy is a joke.

bengalsown · 03-09-2006, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DomCasual

Classic. Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson are the only owners who voted against the CBA.

Is there a bigger joke of a franchise than the Cincinnati Bengals. Okay, are there five bigger jokes of a franchise than the Cincinnati Bengals?

Say you're an owner that spends as much as you can on players every year. You lobby to get a new stadium to increase revenues, then unpopularly sell the naming rights to the stadium - to increase revenues. You go out and get local tv stations into bidding wars to be able to claim local tv rights to your product - to increase revenues. You basically run it as a business.

Then you have Mike Brown, who traditionally puts the cheapest product on the field every year. He has the team headquarters under a freeway overpass. For years, players see playing for his franchise as Siberia. And when it comes to naming his stadium, he bypasses the tens of millions of dollars he can get and insists on having it named after his dad.

Yet other owners have to supplement this moron's business decisions with their hard work. Essentially, every team's top line is the same, but while some teams spend much more to try and make their product better, guys like Mike Brown shovel as much into their pockets as they can, at the expense of the League and their fans.

And then when it comes to vote on the CBA, he goes against the will of his very generous business partners and votes against it.

I may be simplifying a little, but not by much. The guy is a joke.

The Bengals have always spent right up against the salary cap.

In fact, in 2004, the Bengals spent $4 million less than the Broncos:

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/footb...aspx?year=2004

2003, they had one of the highest payrolls:

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/footb...aspx?year=2003

And it's funny that people are now criticising naming a stadium after one of the great innovators in all of football.

Besides, the Bengals wouldn't make much money from selling the naming rights anyways.

Quote:

Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding agreed to last September by the Bengals and the county, the first $5 million garnered from naming rights was to be part of the Bengals' $44 million contribution to the project. The next $11.67 million was to go to the Bengals. Anything beyond that was to be split, with the county getting 30 percent and the team receiving 70 percent.

When Brown decided to put his father's name on the stadium, he had to make up the $5 million difference out of his own pocket.

And since when did teams have local TV contracts? Are you talking about having a show every week with the coach? Because they do that. Teams can't sell TV rights to local TV channels, because they have already been purchased

And how is a franchise that went 11-5 last season considered a joke?

Were you laughing when you were embarassed on Monday night football in 2004?

I know I was.

Merlin · 03-09-2006, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bengalsown

Were you laughing when you were embarassed on Monday night football in 2004?

You know you root for a pathetic team when your claim to fame is having beaten another team 2 yrs ago in a regular season game. Don't worry, you got your good yr last season, so you probably will stink again this one, especially since your QB will be going through playing-rehab most of the season. We'll take our team with our loss 2 yrs ago, and you can keep yours with its history of stench.

bronco_diesel · 03-09-2006, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DomCasual

And when it comes to naming his stadium, he bypasses the tens of millions of dollars he can get and insists on having it named after his dad.

i don't know about the rest of the post - but i respect a guy not willing to sell out for money over his dads name. i think that is classy.

if i were in the same position, i wouldn't do it either...not for money, and especially not for commercial money

watermock · 03-09-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco_diesel

i don't know about the rest of the post - but i respect a guy not willing to sell out for money over his dads name. i think that is classy.

if i were in the same position, i wouldn't do it either...not for money, and especially not for commercial money

That's all fine and dandy, but then he wants other teams that have named stadiums to prop him up? Noone like Mile High named after an incompetent financial institution, but it helped pay for the stadium. Why should we and other teams prop up an owner so daddy can be on the stadium name? Why not make a historical museum like Bowlen did that honors many different people?

watermock · 03-09-2006, 07:38 AM

Colorado Sports Hall of Fame
Located just inside Gate 1 on the west side of INVESCO Field at Mile High, the Colorado Sports Hall of Fame is open Tuesday through Saturday in June, July and August and Thursday through Saturday the rest of the year, from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Visitors can learn about and view memorabilia of past and present Colorado athletes and also arrange for a tour of the stadium (see above). The Museum is also available to rent for birthdays and private events. Hours are subject to change and are based on stadium availability. For more information, please call 720.258.3888 or visit www.coloradosports.org.

Hogan11 · 03-09-2006, 07:45 AM

Mike Brown is the reason why I can't take the Bengals as more than a two to three year (at best) serious threat in the AFC. Only Bidwell ranks lower when it comes to owners in the NFL.

bronco militia · 03-09-2006, 07:47 AM

Mike Brown has the sweetest deal in the NFL with a brand new stadium that was 100% publically funded. With the New deal, I wonder if he'll have to sell the naming rights to try and maintain his profit margin?

wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

bronco militia · 03-09-2006, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hogan11

Mike Brown is the reason why I can't take the Bengals as more than a two to three year (at best) serious threat in the AFC. Only Bidwell ranks lower when it comes to owners in the NFL.

could be, or the fact that their Franchise player may have suffered a career ending injury on the 1st play of their 1st playoff game in 15 years...

the franchise cursed

Hogan11 · 03-09-2006, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco militia

could be, or the fact that their Franchise player may have suffered a career ending injury on the 1st play of their 1st playoff game in 15 years...

the franchise cursed

Brown is a real lickbag....he'll implode the team sooner or later.

bendog · 03-09-2006, 08:08 AM

I think cinny may be less cursed than buffalo

Under the new deal, the bottom 17 teams in revenue will not contribute to the pool, which will be funded with the top five teams contributing the most; the second five less; and the third five less than them.

Still, two of the lowest-revenue teams voted "no."

"I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it."

That 45 minutes followed a series of daylong caucuses and finally came out of a fusion of plans that Tagliabue said was forged by nine teams.

watermock · 03-09-2006, 08:31 AM

Well now it's done one way or another. 102 seems reasonable to me considering the new TV deal, I thought it would be around 106 or 8.

What gets my goat is they never talked about the Pensions. I guess it isn't an issue. Or minimum salary...I never heard a peep.

watermock · 03-09-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Under the new deal, the bottom 17 teams in revenue will not contribute to the pool, which will be funded with the top five teams contributing the most; the second five less; and the third five less than them.

Only in America can you be rewarded for incompetence...except maybe Canada, altho they kicked our ass yesterday.

DomCasual · 03-09-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco_diesel

i don't know about the rest of the post - but i respect a guy not willing to sell out for money over his dads name. i think that is classy.

if i were in the same position, i wouldn't do it either...not for money, and especially not for commercial money

Sure, but at what cost? With revenue sharing - especially revenue sharing post-CBA extension, it isn't neccesarily Mike Brown that has to pay for the stadium name. It's Pat Bowlen, and Jerry Jones, and Daniel Snyder, and Robert Kraft. So, while Mike Brown's desires as to who it gets named after may be novel, it's easy to make those decisions when you don't have to foot the bill.

It would be like me going to my neighbors and demanding that my front yard be named Athena Field after my recently-deceased English Bulldog, and then demanding that they all chip in to pay for a plaque and signage to announce it as such. That's just not the way it works.

DomCasual · 03-09-2006, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watermock

That's all fine and dandy, but then he wants other teams that have named stadiums to prop him up? Noone like Mile High named after an incompetent financial institution, but it helped pay for the stadium. Why should we and other teams prop up an owner so daddy can be on the stadium name? Why not make a historical museum like Bowlen did that honors many different people?

Exactly! Well said.

DomCasual · 03-09-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bendog

I think cinny may be less cursed than buffalo

Under the new deal, the bottom 17 teams in revenue will not contribute to the pool, which will be funded with the top five teams contributing the most; the second five less; and the third five less than them.

Still, two of the lowest-revenue teams voted "no."

"I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it."

That 45 minutes followed a series of daylong caucuses and finally came out of a fusion of plans that Tagliabue said was forged by nine teams.

What I heard last night was that the main reason they voted no was because they didn't like to portions set out for the lower market teams in revenue sharing. In other words, Mike Brown isn't receiving a big enough chunk from teams like the Broncos for things like naming his publicly-funded stadium after his dad.

bendog · 03-09-2006, 08:50 AM

I'm not sure we get a 100mil cap w/o the increased revenue sharing.

bendog · 03-09-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DomCasual

What I heard last night was that the main reason they voted no was because they didn't like to portions set out for the lower market teams in revenue sharing. In other words, Mike Brown isn't receiving a big enough chunk from teams like the Broncos for things like naming his publicly-funded stadium after his dad.

no doubt, but I like Wilson saying "well I'm just not smart enough to unnerstand." He's the Forrest Gump of the owners.

03-09-2006, 01:27 AM	#1
DomCasual The Dude abides. Shameless Homer Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Cocytus Posts: 13,206 Adopt-a-Bronco: Gus Frerotte	Mike Brown Votes Against the CBA Classic. Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson are the only owners who voted against the CBA. Is there a bigger joke of a franchise than the Cincinnati Bengals. Okay, are there five bigger jokes of a franchise than the Cincinnati Bengals? Say you're an owner that spends as much as you can on players every year. You lobby to get a new stadium to increase revenues, then unpopularly sell the naming rights to the stadium - to increase revenues. You go out and get local tv stations into bidding wars to be able to claim local tv rights to your product - to increase revenues. You basically run it as a business. Then you have Mike Brown, who traditionally puts the cheapest product on the field every year. He has the team headquarters under a freeway overpass. For years, players see playing for his franchise as Siberia. And when it comes to naming his stadium, he bypasses the tens of millions of dollars he can get and insists on having it named after his dad. Yet other owners have to supplement this moron's business decisions with their hard work. Essentially, every team's top line is the same, but while some teams spend much more to try and make their product better, guys like Mike Brown shovel as much into their pockets as they can, at the expense of the League and their fans. And then when it comes to vote on the CBA, he goes against the will of his very generous business partners and votes against it. I may be simplifying a little, but not by much. The guy is a joke.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-09-2006, 07:38 AM	#6
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	Colorado Sports Hall of Fame Located just inside Gate 1 on the west side of INVESCO Field at Mile High, the Colorado Sports Hall of Fame is open Tuesday through Saturday in June, July and August and Thursday through Saturday the rest of the year, from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Visitors can learn about and view memorabilia of past and present Colorado athletes and also arrange for a tour of the stadium (see above). The Museum is also available to rent for birthdays and private events. Hours are subject to change and are based on stadium availability. For more information, please call 720.258.3888 or visit www.coloradosports.org.

03-09-2006, 07:45 AM	#7
Hogan11 Rock-N-Roll Historian Let's take these SOB's out!!!!!! Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: W.NY.B.C. Posts: 21,300 Adopt-a-Bronco: Floyd Little	Mike Brown is the reason why I can't take the Bengals as more than a two to three year (at best) serious threat in the AFC. Only Bidwell ranks lower when it comes to owners in the NFL.

03-09-2006, 07:47 AM	#8
bronco militia Ring of Famer THE GREATEST Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: colorado springs, co Posts: 22,703	Mike Brown has the sweetest deal in the NFL with a brand new stadium that was 100% publically funded. With the New deal, I wonder if he'll have to sell the naming rights to try and maintain his profit margin? wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

03-09-2006, 08:08 AM	#11
bendog Marginally Continent David Bowens, he'd be an upgrade Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 19,935 Adopt-a-Bronco: David Bowens	I think cinny may be less cursed than buffalo Under the new deal, the bottom 17 teams in revenue will not contribute to the pool, which will be funded with the top five teams contributing the most; the second five less; and the third five less than them. Still, two of the lowest-revenue teams voted "no." "I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it." That 45 minutes followed a series of daylong caucuses and finally came out of a fusion of plans that Tagliabue said was forged by nine teams.

03-09-2006, 08:31 AM	#12
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	Well now it's done one way or another. 102 seems reasonable to me considering the new TV deal, I thought it would be around 106 or 8. What gets my goat is they never talked about the Pensions. I guess it isn't an issue. Or minimum salary...I never heard a peep.

03-09-2006, 08:50 AM	#17
bendog Marginally Continent David Bowens, he'd be an upgrade Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 19,935 Adopt-a-Bronco: David Bowens	I'm not sure we get a 100mil cap w/o the increased revenue sharing.