oldschooler Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 [quote][size=5][b]Talk About Overpaid: Mike Brown Paid More Than Dan Rooney[/b][/size] Posted Jul 09, 2009 9:15PM By JJ Cooper (RSS feed) Filed Under: Bengals, Steelers, AFC North If the Bengals needed any more evidence that Mike Brown is lining his pockets at the expense of the team's success, here it is. [url="http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Mike+Brown/"][color="#0582eb"]Mike Brown[/color][/url] is one of the worst owners in the NFL. [url="http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Dan+Rooney/"][color="#0582eb"]Dan Rooney[/color][/url] is one of the best, but guess which one gets paid more? As has been reported for a while, Mike Brown has [url="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090424/SPT02/304250001"][color="#0582eb"]made a bonus of at least $1 million[/color][/url] in each of the past 18 years on top of his salary. Brown and four other members of his family [url="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090424/SPT02/304240022"][color="#0582eb"]earn salaries of at least $700,000 a year[/color][/url]. Altogether the family received $50 million from 1994-2000. Those salaries are for running one of the most inept franchises in football. The Bengals have had one winning season in Brown's 18 years of running the club. On the other hand, Rooney has made $2.2 million over the past year and a half, which <A href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/08/ambassadorship-opens-rooney-finances/">[color="#0582eb"]became public[/color] when he accepted the ambassador post to Ireland. To break that into a yearly salary it's $1.5 million. He will get a little less than $1 million as severance as he heads overseas. It's hard not to feel for Bengals' fans. They're stuck with an owner much more concerned with cashing checks and running a jobs program for his family than with winning football games. There are other Rooneys who work in the Steelers front office as well (Art Rooney II and Art Rooney Jr. both work on the staff), but the team's football operations are run by [url="http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Kevin+Colbert/"][color="#0582eb"]Kevin Colbert[/color][/url] and contracts are negotiated by [url="http://www.fanhouse.com/tag/Omar+Kahn/"][color="#0582eb"]Omar Kahn[/color][/url]. With the Bengals, most decisions are kept all in the family.[/quote] [url="http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/07/09/talk-about-overpaid-mike-brown-paid-more-than-dan-rooney/"]http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/07/09/talk-ab...han-dan-rooney/[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Harley| Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Queue the, "It's his team" responses. This is just another example of personal monetary reward first, team second. The intangible is his total disregard for public perception and how it reflects on the city and his customers. He either doesn't understand or doesn't care that a professional sports team is a "public trust." Unlike other businesses, citizens have an emotional and personall, vested interest. This, in combination with his inability to motivate and understand how to win, trickles down throughout the entire organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 [quote name='Harley' post='784636' date='Jul 10 2009, 02:06 PM']Queue the, "It's his team" responses. This is just another example of personal monetary reward first, team second. The intangible is his total disregard for public perception and how it reflects on the city and his customers. He either doesn't understand or doesn't care that [b]a professional sports team is a "public trust."[/b] Unlike other businesses, citizens have an emotional and personall, vested interest. This, in combination with his inability to motivate and understand how to win, trickles down throughout the entire organization.[/quote] Ummm... What? No it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phish Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 THis is a private business, he can make whatever he wants. What is with everyone raggin on people that own businesses today. No matter how bad or good the franchise is, he owns it, let him do as he pleases. Football isn't a right and is not considered an entitlement, unless i missed something somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 :hmm: , ...he's grossly underpaid compared to the players, ...he needs a raise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkansas Bengal Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Mike Brown is a LOSER. Whatever he makes is too much. If he's not the worst owner in professional sports, he's certainly in the top 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 [quote name='oldschooler' post='784618' date='Jul 10 2009, 11:06 AM'][url="http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/07/09/talk-about-overpaid-mike-brown-paid-more-than-dan-rooney/"]http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/07/09/talk-ab...han-dan-rooney/[/url][/quote] I wonder how much Heinz pays him for being their bitch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 [quote name='Arkansas Bengal' post='784651' date='Jul 10 2009, 03:26 PM']Mike Brown is a LOSER. Whatever he makes is too much. If he's not the worst owner in professional sports, he's certainly in the top 3.[/quote] See, ...now this is honest. I like this sentiment over some lame argument about how much somebody makes. The money aspect is a losers argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 MB makes his money yes, it is his perogative. As long as the Bengals continue to spend at or near the salary cap is is not something I'm going to worry about. Should he spend some of that money on more scouts or better coaches, probably, but the team did pretty good this offseason and I'm pretty happy with the coaches they have so whatever. He could probably spend that money on stadium improvements for the fans but since the only Bengals games I get to go to anymore are away games I really don't care about that either. The team he has assembled should be able to win many games this season and into the future so let the guy make what he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 [quote name='Arkansas Bengal' post='784651' date='Jul 10 2009, 02:26 PM']Mike Brown is a LOSER. Whatever he makes is too much. If he's not the worst owner in professional sports, he's certainly in the top 3.[/quote] At least he hasn't moved the team. And Mike might not be the brightest football mind around but if you look at what a professional sports owner really is, a businessman, he is probably one of the best. Think about it, he fields a perennial loser and still makes more money than the holy one Dan Rooney. He'll sell out this season and he has the city footing the bill for most of his facility - I only wish I had his money sense. Football is a game but money makes the world go round and Mike has made sure his family is financially secure for generations so in life he is a winner. As a fan I'd like to see somebody else calling the football shots but I can't fault the guy for working the system. Hate the game, not the player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 ...how much money does the Rooney family make from their racetracks in New York and Florida? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 [quote name='Cricket' post='784672' date='Jul 10 2009, 05:13 PM']...how much money does the Rooney family make from their racetracks in New York and Florida?[/quote] Shhh... The NFL is based around fair and impartial competition! Just ask any Shitsburgh fan. However as for the topic, MB is the full owner whereas I believe the Steelers are owned by a family partnership, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 [quote name='Lucid' post='784638' date='Jul 10 2009, 01:14 PM']Ummm... What? No it's not.[/quote] yea....that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|SF2| Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Is this AmeriKa? Its his team and business. He can do whatever the F he wants. Wish my dad had started an NFL franchise and given it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 [quote name='T-Dub' post='784694' date='Jul 10 2009, 08:02 PM']Shhh... The NFL is based around fair and impartial competition! Just ask any Shitsburgh fan. However as for the topic, MB is the full owner whereas I believe the Steelers are owned by a family partnership, right?[/quote] The Bengals are a corporation with most but not all shares owned by various members of the Brown family. It didn't list who the Brown family members are that make 700K per year but they are probably Katie, Troy, Pete, and Paul Jr. Paying them high salaries is a way for Mike Brown to convert corporate funds into family funds. His fellow shareholders are probably not too happy about it. (Knowlton was reportedly quite angry). The Steelers are owned by two families, The Rooney family owns 80% with each of Art Rooney Sr's 5 sons having 16%. The other 20% is owned by some other relatives who married Rooney's sister. The league has a rule that the owner representing the franchise has to have at least 30% ownership. The Rooney's were grandfathered in. The league also has a rule against owning gambling interests so Dan Rooney recently agreed to buy out his brothers to separate the gambling and football interests. As ambassador, I don't think he has to give up his controlling interest, just his day job as team president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|ArmyBengal| Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Another example of lazy journalism and I don't think this comparison is worth a damn. I'm no MB apologist nor fan, but I am a free market economist. His franchise, even an inherited one, is still his. Daniel M. Snyder (born November 23, 1965) is the current owner of the Washington Redskins American football team, Chairman of the Board of Six Flags Inc.[1], the world's largest amusement park and theme park operator, owner of the Johnny Rockets restaurant chain, and primary investor in Red Zebra Broadcasting, which is home to the Redskins Radio Network. Snyder has a [b]net worth of $1.3 billion[/b]. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Snyder"]/wiki/Daniel_Snyder[/url] Detroit Lions Ford became the sole owner of the Detroit Lions in 1964, purchasing the franchise for $4.5 million from Dick Richards.[4] He is often blamed for the Lions' abysmal record under his ownership.[5] The Lions were one of the most successful teams of the 1950s, winning championships in 1952, 1953 and 1957. However, the Lions have won only one playoff game since Ford became the sole owner of the team, and have never reached the Super Bowl.[6] He is notorious for keeping executives and coaches even after performance standards remain stagnant or diminish and strong consensus has emerged for firing them. In 2008, under Ford's stewardship, the Lions became the only team in NFL history to go 0-16. The Detroit Lions began playing at Ford Field in downtown Detroit in August 2002.[7 [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Clay_Ford,_Sr"]/wiki/William_Clay_Ford,_Sr[/url]. [b]#283 William Clay Ford Sr Net Worth: $1.2 billion[/b] Source: Manufacturing, Ford Motor Co Inherited I didn't find Mike Brown on any of the "richest" lists. As far as I can tell Mike Brown's income is from the Bengals. Ford nor Snyder need the income from their franchises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted July 13, 2009 Report Share Posted July 13, 2009 In the case of Ford, Snyder, Brown or Jerry Jones, their NFL team is a major component of their wealth. An NFL team is worth close to 1 Billion dollars. Forbes magazine valued the Bengals at about 900 million a year ago. There are a few owners like Paul Allen or Arthur Blank who are multi-billionaires apart from their teams but for most owners, the team is their largest asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Harley| Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 [quote name='Lucid' post='784638' date='Jul 10 2009, 02:14 PM']Ummm... What? No it's not.[/quote] Obviously you don't understand or are confusing public trust with publicly held. A professional sports team, bearing the name of the city or state it represents, is commonly referred to as a "public trust" since it has a direct correlation to the brand, image and economics of the city which within it operates. In some cases, as in Cincinnati, it's so interwined that it may be tied to taxation and city property. Unlike other businesses, its performance has an emotional tie to local citizens, which can be witnessed by publicly held, and sometimes city sponsored, pep rallies, dress up days in schools and specials in retail and hospitality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|ArmyBengal| Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 [quote name='Harley' post='785120' date='Jul 14 2009, 02:26 PM']Obviously you don't understand or are confusing public trust with publicly held. A professional sports team, bearing the name of the city or state it represents, is commonly referred to as a "public trust" since it has a direct correlation to the brand, image and economics of the city which within it operates. In some cases, as in Cincinnati, it's so interwined that it may be tied to taxation and city property. Unlike other businesses, its performance has an emotional tie to local citizens, which can be witnessed by publicly held, and sometimes city sponsored, pep rallies, dress up days in schools and specials in retail and hospitality.[/quote] I disagree. Can you reference your assertion that "A professional sports ... referred to as a public trust"? I think the term is inapropriately ascribed to professional sports teams particulary when stadium deals are at work. Business Dictionary definition of Public Trust Definition Trust created for the promotion of public welfare and not for the benefit of one or more individuals. Found this over at Amazon; don't know how to cut'n'paste from it. This debate has been going for many years. [url="http://books.google.com/books?id=18Kgy271gWIC&lpg=PA287&ots=ONl9hEJDHQ&dq=professional%20sports%20public%20trust&pg=PA287"]http://books.google.com/books?id=18Kgy271g...st&pg=PA287[/url] IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted July 15, 2009 Report Share Posted July 15, 2009 [quote]Obviously you don't understand or are confusing public trust with publicly held. A professional sports team, bearing the name of the city or state it represents, is commonly referred to as a "public trust" since it has a direct correlation to the brand, image and economics of the city which within it operates. In some cases, as in Cincinnati, it's so interwined that it may be tied to taxation and city property. Unlike other businesses, its performance has an emotional tie to local citizens, which can be witnessed by publicly held, and sometimes city sponsored, pep rallies, dress up days in schools and specials in retail and hospitality.[/quote] Many businesses are so important to the economic welfare of the city that they are intertwined with taxes and public property... You do realize the millions "paid" every year (in the form of tax relief) to keep P&G and Krogers in Cincinnati? You know the city provided public land in the forum of a parking garage for those companies as well? And that's not even counting the stoplights and other public works that the city puts in to make this a more attractive business environment for them. The Bengals don't get any special attention that any other multi-million dollar business would get.. It's up to the city officials to determine the economic impact of these businesses and respond accordingly. [quote]I disagree. Can you reference your assertion that "A professional sports ... referred to as a public trust"? I think the term is inapropriately ascribed to professional sports teams particulary when stadium deals are at work. Business Dictionary definition of Public Trust Definition Trust created for the promotion of public welfare and not for the benefit of one or more individuals. Found this over at Amazon; don't know how to cut'n'paste from it. This debate has been going for many years. <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=18Kgy271gWIC&lpg=PA287&ots=ONl9hEJDHQ&dq=professional%20sports%20public%20trust&pg=PA287" target="_blank">http://books.google.com/books?id=18Kgy271g...st&pg=PA287</a> IMHO[/quote] And Army already illustrated the definition of a "Public Trust".. The fact that people emotionally invest themselves in the product doesn't yoke these business owners with any special legal obligations. That would be like saying that because I started a "Crest Fan Club" with over a million members that we now deserve special treatment from P&G and that we have the right to make demands of the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Harley| Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 [quote name='Lucid' date='15 July 2009 - 10:52 AM' timestamp='1247665972' post='785200'] Many businesses are so important to the economic welfare of the city that they are intertwined with taxes and public property... You do realize the millions "paid" every year (in the form of tax relief) to keep P&G and Krogers in Cincinnati? You know the city provided public land in the forum of a parking garage for those companies as well? And that's not even counting the stoplights and other public works that the city puts in to make this a more attractive business environment for them. The Bengals don't get any special attention that any other multi-million dollar business would get.. It's up to the city officials to determine the economic impact of these businesses and respond accordingly. And Army already illustrated the definition of a "Public Trust".. The fact that people emotionally invest themselves in the product doesn't yoke these business owners with any special legal obligations. That would be like saying that because I started a "Crest Fan Club" with over a million members that we now deserve special treatment from P&G and that we have the right to make demands of the company. [/quote] Okay, when I originally posted this, I put "public trust" in quotes, thinking I was communicating as in but not literal. Regardless, I take the responsibility on that one and confirm it's not a public trust by true definition, as provided. What is surprising though, hasn't anyone heard a pro team called a public trust? On the sports pages or on the radio? Here's a quick example I found in 2 seconds and there's probably many more: http://a.abcnews.com/Sports/Business/Story?id=2651425&page=3 "Professional sport teams hold a public trust," he said. "They create a love, a passion between local citizens and the team. They breach that trust when they use that to get at my pocket book, and that is not right." The point I was making is this: There's a unique, emotional tie that citizens have with a privately held sports team that feel a sense of ownership, pride and connection. In turn, what is the unwritten responsibility of the owner in regards to the unique customer bond? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 [quote name='Harley' date='17 July 2009 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1247851417' post='785506'] Okay, when I originally posted this, I put "public trust" in quotes, thinking I was communicating as in but not literal. Regardless, I take the responsibility on that one and confirm it's not a public trust by true definition, as provided. What is surprising though, hasn't anyone heard a pro team called a public trust? On the sports pages or on the radio? Here's a quick example I found in 2 seconds and there's probably many more: http://a.abcnews.com/Sports/Business/Story?id=2651425&page=3 "Professional sport teams hold a public trust," he said. "They create a love, a passion between local citizens and the team. They breach that trust when they use that to get at my pocket book, and that is not right." The point I was making is this: There's a unique, emotional tie that citizens have with a privately held sports team that feel a sense of ownership, pride and connection. In turn, what is the unwritten responsibility of the owner in regards to the unique customer bond? [/quote] Just because someone on a news site uses the words doesn't make it any more accurate. I understand that people feel passionately about their teams. But it still should not infer some special obligation on the part of the ownership to cater to it. You could make the argument that it's a wise move since if treated properly, the consumers of your product will/do develop a "brand loyalty" far exceeding other types of products. But lets not get confused here. No one is forced to buy things from Mike Brown. If you feel slighted by his treatment of yo as a customer I would recommend you stop patronizing his business. It's kind of like having a favorite restaurant that you and your family always went to as a kid. But now a new owner has taken over, changed the menu, jacked the prices and lowered the quality. Now you have many special memories and attachment to this diner... but that doesn't mean that the owner owes it to you to change his ways. You do however have the right to stop going there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Lucid, I don't think you can really use the restaurant analogy when the Bengals are playing in a publicly funded stadium that they obtained by promising things to the public. Restaurant customers can eat elsewhere but not paying your taxes isn't a (legal) option. Mike Brown is a fairly obvious example of privitization of profit and socialization of cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 [quote name='sparky151' date='17 July 2009 - 05:08 PM' timestamp='1247861320' post='785536'] Lucid, I don't think you can really use the restaurant analogy when the Bengals are playing in a publicly funded stadium that they obtained by promising things to the public. Restaurant customers can eat elsewhere but not paying your taxes isn't a (legal) option. Mike Brown is a fairly obvious example of privitization of profit and socialization of cost. [/quote] You can't decide to not pay taxes to keep Krogers or P&G or any of the other institutions the city decides are integral parts of the economy and uses your tax dollars to keep them here... And you didn't even get to vote on any of that, or the parking garages, or the stoplights (which can cost close to a million dollars a piece once it is all said and done). You know why the Maisonette closed down right? They said the area around them had become too blighted for them to remain profitable. They had been lobbying the city for a ($40 Million??) makeover to renovate the area.. but they had also been receiving a stipend in the form of tax breaks from the city to stay there for a couple years. When the city rejected the renovation project and then also ended the tax break, the Maisonette closed it's doors. It's not that the city had a problem with tax breaks for businesses, it's a regular practice.. But they could no longer justify the price tag with the actual economic impact the restaurant provided. You probably know this already.. Which is why I'm having trouble understanding where you are coming from. And what did Brown "promise" again? Surely the voters of the city and our legislators weren't voting on a "promise". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Harley| Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 Lucid, I do hear what you're saying. But your two examples actually illustrate the difference. There are a million restaurants. You can pick and choose, and if they go out of business or lose you as a customer, no big deal, no reflection of the city or the masses. There isn't one CINCINNATI restaurant. As for P&G, schools aren't having P&G dress up days and pep rallies, nor are they having having P&G pep rallies at city hall. Not a lot of P&G jerseys being sold either. Any tailgate parties at the P&G stockholders' meeting? If P&G were to leave the city, it would be a huge deal because of job loss and the tax base. Economically, it would be really bad. When soP threatened to leave, these weren't the biggest worries. It was the emotional loss for the citizens and the pride and attachment they have to "their" team. This was so emotionally charged that they got a tax increase pushed through. And yes, a person can choose to not support the Bengals, financially or emotionally. This doesn't stop the team's impact on the city's brand and how others are still emotionally tied to the Bengals. So as black and white as you want to make it to be, it just isn't. A pro sports team envokes the emotion and pride of the citizens of the city whose name it bears - CINCINNATI Bengals. A pro sports team has a major impact on a city's brand, especially a small market like Cincy. As sad as it sounds, if you ask an outsider what they know about a city, at some point they will rattle off the team names. Even sadder, no one is confusing Cincinnati as the City of Champions, tied to its pro teams. So you see, it is very blurred - a privately held company that is so emotionally woven into the local fabric. I do believe there is a slightly different set of unwritten rules for owners. The Rooneys have done extremely well by Pittsburgh. You can't say the same for soP. And if really is no big deal as I suggest, Cincy really should have let soP move [u]his[/u] team, [u]not yours[/u], to Baltimore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.