oldschooler Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 [size="5"][b]Should Bengals hope for stoppage?[/b] [b]Daugherty: No NFL season in '11 might not be such a bad thing for this team[/b] [/size] [b]3:29 PM, Feb. 12, 2011 | [/b] Written by [email="pdaugherty@enquirer.com"]Paul Daugherty[/email] Nobody cares about billionaires fighting with millionaires over money. Jewelry-rattling only matters to those with the jewelry. So instead of numbing you with numbers, let's pose a question: Would the Bengals be better off if the NFL canceled its season next fall? Is that a preposterous question? Is it? Maybe. Is it any more preposterous than rich people taking turns blind-siding the fattest fatted calf in the history of sports? Consider: If there is no season next year, NFL owners still get TV money. That's right. Networks agreed to that in 2006, when the economy was good and the league hadn't had a play stoppage in two decades. The only cost to the owners is an extra year added to the end of the agreement. Players don't get paid. Players are responsible for their own medical care. No free trips to the team docs for an aspirin or a knee rehab. Let's recap: TV money coming in, no paychecks going out. No health insurance bills. Is there any reason Bengals ownership would have a problem with that? Consider the Carson Issue. Palmer appears serious about retiring. Until a new deal is reached, there can be no trades or free agent signings. In other words, the Bengals can do nothing about adding a veteran QB. Worst-case scenario for the Bengals: The lockout rolls through August, and a deal is struck just before the season is supposed to start. They open the year with Jordan Palmer at QB, in Jay Gruden's new offensive system nobody has ever practiced before. The Alamo had a better fate. Of course, the long-term ramifications are lousy. The Bengals already are losing fans. It's not a disenchanted trickle. It's more a rising tide. The acid taste of a season lost because of money would only increase the disaffection. It took Baseball years to rally from a strike. Football isn't baseball, but in this town it's not hard to see Bengals fans leaving and never coming back. Still, a season off might offer the club time to regroup and rethink who it wants to be. And did we mention the TV money keeps rolling in? The guess is, none of this happens. Not even the NFL and its owners are foolish enough to flush a season when the league's popularity has never been greater. The only reason to take it all seriously is because it is sports, and sports isn't life. It's far bigger than that. If we didn't think this issue was so important, we'd find it hysterical. Two days before the Super Bowl, commissioner Roger Goodell said, "Since 2006, we have not built a new stadium, and that is an issue for us.'' Translation: We haven't been able to shake down any taxpayers or blackmail any additional cities. All the markets large enough to support an NFL team are accounted for, and nobody – no-o-o-o-body – is going to vote to tax themselves to build a playpen for the rich and famous. Yes, that is indeed tragic. For the second consecutive year, more people watched the Super Bowl than any show in U.S. history. Four of the five highest-rated shows ever are Super Bowls. Ratings last fall were 13 percent higher than the year before. Sixteen teams – half the league -- are worth at least $1 billion, according to Forbes magazine. We love the NFL. It's crazy how much. The owners need more money. They say they need it partly to cover the expenses of building and maintaining stadiums. That doesn't apply in Cincinnati. Boy, does it never. Players fret the loss of health coverage. An honest concern, for most of us. NFL players aren't most of us. In 2009, the rookie minimum salary was $310,000. The average NFL salary was $1.1 million. Here's hoping they can finance a checkup. (Click the link for the entire article) [url="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110212/COL03/302120013/Should-Bengals-hope-stoppage-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Sports"]http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110212/COL03/302120013/Should-Bengals-hope-stoppage-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Sports[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 I have wondered the same thing.... Give Carson a year to sit to really think out this retirement thing without having to trade him? If he really loves football, how is going to give up something he has been doing every fall since he was a kid.... cold turkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooky Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 That was without question the most worthless article I've ever read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tigre Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Any excuse Doc can get to pen a diatribe against the Bengals, he will take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Paul is so anti-NFL/Football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 how completely ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1297602613' post='970322'] I have wondered the same thing.... Give Carson a year to sit to really think out this retirement thing without having to trade him? If he really loves football, how is going to give up something he has been doing every fall since he was a kid.... cold turkey? [/quote] a lockout for an entire season would destroy the game of football, effects that would hurt the game far far after carson is retired now or later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 [quote name='GoBengals' timestamp='1297637944' post='970382'] a lockout for an entire season would destroy the game of football, effects that would hurt the game far far after carson is retired now or later [/quote] Would really hurt FF leagues for sho, as Bengal fans we have been locked out for years, please don't ruin the only thing we have left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 [quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1297602361' post='970320'] [size=2][/size]Let's recap: TV money coming in, no paychecks going out. No health insurance bills. Is there any reason Bengals ownership would have a problem with that? [/quote] Umm....MORE MONEY? [quote] Two days before the Super Bowl, commissioner Roger Goodell said, "Since 2006, we have not built a new stadium, and that is an issue for us.'' [/quote] Bullshit. Cowboys Stadium opened in 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 [quote name='GoBengals' timestamp='1297637944' post='970382'] a lockout for an entire season would destroy the game of football, effects that would hurt the game far far after carson is retired now or later [/quote] Bullshit.... Football fans are diehard fans... Football is the most popular sport because it is more fun to watch... Fans will be pissed for a while but they will be back... Saying a lockout would "destroy the game" is WAY over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 "destroy" is harsh and maybe over the top. I think locking out and missing an entire season would do damage to the passion that people have for their NFL teams. Look at baseball. Sure people still go, watch on TV and follow. They always will. But look at the efforts baseball teams have to do to drum up interest and that atomosphere at games is still a drop in the bucket compared to the "glory days". The passion for that sport has died for a number of reasons not just the 1994 strike. I think that league has had to reduce the number of teams and could see the loss of another franchise within 10 years. But if your the NFL why open the door to allow another league to gain on you? To let it get to the point of missing a season and Superbowl would be insulting to your fans. The Superbowl today is so big, it doesn't rank with other sporting events. It ranks with Holidays. It's pratically religion and it's international. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted February 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Florio has a pic of PBS in the link ... [size="5"][b]As lockout looms, NFL cities should be exploring their legal options[/b] [/size]Posted by Mike Florio on February 14, 2011, 8:46 AM EST A reader raised an interesting, but far-fetched, question with us on Sunday: Should the fans look for a way to sue the NFL and the union to prevent a lockout? As fans, we really don't have any standing to tell the two sides to work out their differences. Sure, fans have the ability to make their displeasure known publicly, but we have no legal right to attend or watch pro football games. Then again, to the extent that most of the teams play in stadiums partially funded by taxpayers, perhaps we do. Cities and states justify paying for the construction of football stadiums based on the express understanding that playing games will bring millions of dollars into the area during football season, boosting employment and tax dollars. Last week, the NFLPA warned that a lost season would cause each community with a football team to lose $160 million. The State of Maryland reportedly [url="http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/blog/2011/02/report_cancelled_season_could_cost_maryland_38_million.html"][color="#d81718"]would lose $3.8 million in taxes[/color][/url] from the sale of Ravens tickets alone, in the event of a canceled 2011 season. And despite a looming lockout, the Bengals had no qualms about asking local officials [url="http://www.daytondailynews.com/dayton-sports/cincinnati-bengals/bengals-want-43m-from-county-over-decade-report-says-1068524.html"][color="#d81718"]to commit to spending $43 million[/color][/url] for maintenance and repairs at Paul Brown Stadium over the next 10 years. Our guess is that each NFL team loaded up the relevant leases and related documents with language permitting a work stoppage. But with 32 teams, there's a chance that one or more of the leases — and/or the laws of one or more of the states in which the NFL does business — contemplate that the free money for the construction of these stadiums carries with it an obligation to actually play the games. We're not saying that the league has liability to any of the cities or states in which publicly-funded stadiums were built. But we [i]are [/i]saying that the cities or states in which publicly-funded stadiums are situated should ask their lawyers to study the leases and any other documents relating to the construction of the local venue to determine whether a good-faith claim could be made for money damages in the event that the games aren't played there this year, due to the NFL locking the doors. Though the union has been banging the gong of collateral losses as a way to curry favor with the general public, the broader point is undeniable. The game has grown to a point where many people not directly employed by the NFL or one of its teams will be affected by a lockout. To the extent that teams finagled taxpayer money to build and maintain new stadiums that won't be used if this mess lingers, the representatives of the taxpayers may have the ability to recoup some of those losses. While the league likely would prefer that the lawyers employed by the various state and local governments focus on, you know, [url="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/10/nfl-prefers-that-super-bowl-ticket-lawyers-focus-on-world-peace/"][color="#d81718"]world peace[/color][/url], the NFL and its member teams have no qualms about filing lawsuits when they believe their legal rights have been violated. If the rights of the governments and the people they represent are violated by an abandonment of the 2011 season, those governments have every right to seek fair and just compensation. [url="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/14/as-lockout-looms-nfl-cities-should-be-exploring-their-legal-option/"]http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/14/as-lockout-looms-nfl-cities-should-be-exploring-their-legal-option/[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 [quote]And despite a looming lockout, the Bengals had no qualms about asking local officials to commit to spending $43 million for maintenance and repairs at Paul Brown Stadium over the next 10 years. [/quote] Hey Florio, didn't you just post a couple line above: [quote] Last week, the NFLPA warned that a lost season would cause each community with a football team to lose $160 million. [/quote] Why would the bengals have qualms? That number suggest over the next 10 years 1.6 billon would be contributed to the community. There has been alot of crying over the cost of Paul Brown Stadium over the year. This is just a simple reminder that having the Bengals and that facility provides benefit to the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 [quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1297652581' post='970431'] Bullshit. Cowboys Stadium opened in 2009. [/quote] Yes, Cowboys stadium opened in 2009 (May). However, funding from the NFL, architectural drawings, land purchase, the voting (area surrounding voters) for taxes took place well before then. Design was officially unveiled on December 12, [b]2006[/b] but in [b]2004[/b] (April) the Cowboys announce plans to build a $650 million stadium and voters approve the tax increase on November 2. Somewhere in the midst of funding and approval from the NFL is what Goodell might have meant when he said "Since 2006, we have not built a new stadium...'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 [quote name='Numbers' timestamp='1297694168' post='970464'] Yes, Cowboys stadium opened in 2009 (May). However, funding from the NFL, architectural drawings, land purchase, the voting (area surrounding voters) for taxes took place well before then. Design was officially unveiled on December 12, [b]2006[/b] but in [b]2004[/b] (April) the Cowboys announce plans to build a $650 million stadium and voters approve the tax increase on November 2. Somewhere in the midst of funding and approval from the NFL is what Goodell might have meant when he said "Since 2006, we have not built a new stadium...'' [/quote] Cool, thanks for the info. But it is galling to me the arrogance of such a statement by Goodell, as if new stadiums need to be built every year or something. They should last [i]decades[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 [quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1297707593' post='970489'] Cool, thanks for the info. But it is galling to me the arrogance of such a statement by Goodell, as if new stadiums need to be built every year or something. They should last [i]decades[/i]. [/quote] If you want to expand into non NFL cities. They kinda have to have a stadium. That is what his comment is geared toward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 The new New York stadium just opened too. Surely it broke ground after 06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 The Bengals have a pretty favorable lease in other respects so there's no particular reason to expect it, but the lease should require them to pay rent, even in the event of a strike/lockout. Most landlords still expect their tenants to pay rent, even if unemployed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 [quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1297709291' post='970494'] The new New York stadium just opened too. Surely it broke ground after 06. [/quote] Yes, the New Meadowlands stadium broke ground in 2007 but the process started around 2004 and the deal was approved by the politicians in 2005. Ground was supposed to be broke in Mar of 2007 but was delayed because of multiple revisements. 2010 NFL games are held. Sep 2007 Stadium finally breaks ground... March 2006 Giants and Jets revise billion dollar stadium deal Dec 2005 plans submitted April 2005 New Meadowlands Stadium Is Approved July 2004 Giants looking into new stadium [quote]The team will own and operate the new stadium and give the state $5 million a year in rent for the land and $1.3 million a year toward payments in lieu of taxes to East Rutherford. The state will take on long-term debt of $124 million on the existing building and make utility improvements of about $30 million. The authority is also giving the team more than 40 acres for expanded practice facilities and retail development.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 [quote name='scharm' timestamp='1297708371' post='970491'] If you want to expand into non NFL cities. They kinda have to have a stadium. That is what his comment is geared toward. [/quote] If that was the context then yes, of course any new team would need a stadium to play in. I didn't read it that way but am willing to be wrong. The NFL better be careful what it wishes for and if they are going to expand then do it very slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.