Jump to content

Bengals say No Trades


Recommended Posts

Quote

Instead, they sat out the deadline, despite being the team with the most coveted assets, by far, and the most to gain, by far, and, at 0-8 and already playing to an empty stadium, nothing to lose. They weren't interested. No reason to even try to make a deal. Heck, some key members of the Brown family were on vacation in Switzerland (primary owner Mike Brown himself was back in Cincinnati) as calls were made around the league on the last day to make deals this year.


Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. On vacation in Switzerland on the weekend of the trade deadline.

On vacation. DURING THE SEASON. THE WEEKEND OF THE TRADE DEADLINE.

This sets into stark relief two horrible truths. the Brown family has absolutely no interest in fielding a winning football team, and even with the stands empty they don't have to. They can afford vacations to muther-fucking Switzerland. 

What else is there to say.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/bengals-suffer-more-self-inflicted-wounds-at-trade-deadline-despite-having-the-most-to-gain/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:


Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. On vacation in Switzerland on the weekend of the trade deadline.

On vacation. DURING THE SEASON. THE WEEKEND OF THE TRADE DEADLINE.

This sets into stark relief two horrible truths. the Brown family has absolutely no interest in fielding a winning football team, and even with the stands empty they don't have to. They can afford vacations to muther-fucking Switzerland. 

What else is there to say.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/bengals-suffer-more-self-inflicted-wounds-at-trade-deadline-despite-having-the-most-to-gain/

Well you didn't expect them to pay for a flight to Switzerland from the US, did you? Since I assume they took a 'business trip' to and from London, and personal flight to Switzerland much cheaper from London...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cat said:

Well you didn't expect them to pay for a flight to Switzerland from the US, did you? Since I assume they took a 'business trip' to and from London, and personal flight to Switzerland much cheaper from London...

Troy: Well, the trade deadline's coming up and...

Katie: If we fly to Switzerland straight from London, we can save almost $2K!

Troy: Ooooh, chocolate! 

Mike: Zzzzzzz... Hunh?

Katie: Nothing dad, go back to sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I_C_Deadpeople said:

There would be probably 10-15 teams that would go bye-bye or be perennial losers if that happened -> see MLB

 

Eh, they could still subsidize them enough to keep a team on the field.  Doesn't mean they have to reward owners who tarnish the brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

Eh, they could still subsidize them enough to keep a team on the field.  Doesn't mean they have to reward owners who tarnish the brand.

True enough. I am sure a lot of owners dislike the likes of Brown for riding their coattails. He brings nothing to the table other than fat and stubbornness. Correction - he has value in CBA negotiations as he protects his pocketbook. But other than that, he sucks off the teat like no other owner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Le Tigre said:

And you know this how? 

Mike Brown is the guy in group project who does no work but still gets the same A grade as the other members who did all the work. The NFL revenue model is based on shared TV revenue and merchandise sales. The Bengals are at bottom or near bottom of merch sales and are no TV draw. In addition, I doubt other teams want the Bengals in their stadium home games due to the lack of drawing power. The league revenues would increase overall if ALL of the teams put the brand investment effort into themselves. I can't think of another team that does less of this than this one. Jerry Jones has been outspoken about wanting more 'share' of the revenues because his team builds more brand recognition than others. 

 

Finally, how many league votes have been 31-1? or 30-2 when Ralph Wilson was voting.  Mikey contributes little to nothing to the revenue building but takes a full cut. And given most of the these owners are A type high stung people, it is very easy to conclude how Mikey is perceived. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, T-Dub said:

I wonder what the Brown Family Trust would do if the NFL revenue sharing system went away.  It didn't always work that way, there's no guarantee it lasts forever.

it should

 

19 hours ago, I_C_Deadpeople said:

There would be probably 10-15 teams that would go bye-bye or be perennial losers if that happened -> see MLB

so status quo for the Bengals 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, I_C_Deadpeople said:

Mike Brown is the guy in group project who does no work but still gets the same A grade as the other members who did all the work. The NFL revenue model is based on shared TV revenue and merchandise sales. The Bengals are at bottom or near bottom of merch sales and are no TV draw. In addition, I doubt other teams want the Bengals in their stadium home games due to the lack of drawing power. The league revenues would increase overall if ALL of the teams put the brand investment effort into themselves. I can't think of another team that does less of this than this one. Jerry Jones has been outspoken about wanting more 'share' of the revenues because his team builds more brand recognition than others. 

 

Finally, how many league votes have been 31-1? or 30-2 when Ralph Wilson was voting.  Mikey contributes little to nothing to the revenue building but takes a full cut. And given most of the these owners are A type high stung people, it is very easy to conclude how Mikey is perceived. 

agreed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, I_C_Deadpeople said:

Mike Brown is the guy in group project who does no work but still gets the same A grade as the other members who did all the work. The NFL revenue model is based on shared TV revenue and merchandise sales. The Bengals are at bottom or near bottom of merch sales and are no TV draw. In addition, I doubt other teams want the Bengals in their stadium home games due to the lack of drawing power. The league revenues would increase overall if ALL of the teams put the brand investment effort into themselves. I can't think of another team that does less of this than this one. Jerry Jones has been outspoken about wanting more 'share' of the revenues because his team builds more brand recognition than others. 

 

Finally, how many league votes have been 31-1? or 30-2 when Ralph Wilson was voting.  Mikey contributes little to nothing to the revenue building but takes a full cut. And given most of the these owners are A type high stung people, it is very easy to conclude how Mikey is perceived. 

Then, of all NFL teams, the Raiders would be one of the most recognizable--yet are the worst valued franchise in the NFL. They sell much more gear than the Bengals...and yet don't produce the revenue either. From a business model, as you say, that would lend to a belief that they--along with LA Chargers FC--are non-contributors, and thus should be relegated?        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Troy Blackburn make the media rounds a couple of years ago complaining about the big market or new stadium teams not sharing their local revenue with the small market teams like the Bengals?

 

I guess Troy expects Stan Kroenke to give the Bengals a cut of his hot dog profits from his new self financed LA stadium?

 

I have noticed that since the last economic downturn most of the new stadiums have a lot less public funding than they used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Le Tigre said:

$750 million is the public price tag for the Raiders new pleasure palace--pretty sizeable it seems. 

True, that is a lot.....but the public part is coming from a small increase in the hotel room tax and the Raider's are still paying the leftover $1.3 Billion dollars for the stadium that is being shared with UNLV plus a $350 million relocation fee to the NFL.  So the "public" is paying less than 1/3 of the cost.  I think that Jerry Jones paid 2/3 of the cost of his stadium and Vikings was a 50/50 split.  Way better deals than the public received with the Bengals, Ravens and even the more recent Colts.  I think those days are long gone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, westside bengal said:

True, that is a lot.....but the public part is coming from a small increase in the hotel room tax and the the Raider's are still paying the leftover $1.3 Billion dollars for the stadium that is being shared with UNLV plus a $350 million relocation fee to the NFL.  So the "public" is paying less than 1/3 of the cost.  I think that Jerry Jones paid 2/3 of the cost of his stadium and Vikings was a 50/50 split.  Way better deals than the public received with the Bengals, Ravens and even the more recent Colts.  I think those days are long gone.

 

Good point. Hard to justify large public monies going into stadiums when the teams have multi billion dollar values. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, westside bengal said:

True, that is a lot.....but the public part is coming from a small increase in the hotel room tax and the Raider's are still paying the leftover $1.3 Billion dollars for the stadium that is being shared with UNLV plus a $350 million relocation fee to the NFL.  So the "public" is paying less than 1/3 of the cost.  I think that Jerry Jones paid 2/3 of the cost of his stadium and Vikings was a 50/50 split.  Way better deals than the public received with the Bengals, Ravens and even the more recent Colts.  I think those days are long gone.

 

Not as simple as that. Older article, but the deal specifics have not changed:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/14/in-raiders-stadium-deal-nevada-unable-to-impose-ne/

 

Clark County has to increase the hotel tax 1% to accommodate what the state is requiring it--and all Nevada counties--have to come up with for that "public part". Forcing private business and people to pony up a tax increase for a stadium? Gee, I seem to think I have heard people gripe for 20+ years about something similar someplace.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Le Tigre said:

Not as simple as that. Older article, but the deal specifics have not changed:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/14/in-raiders-stadium-deal-nevada-unable-to-impose-ne/

 

Clark County has to increase the hotel tax 1% to accommodate what the state is requiring it--and all Nevada counties--have to come up with for that "public part". Forcing private business and people to pony up a tax increase for a stadium? Gee, I seem to think I have heard people gripe for 20+ years about something similar someplace.    

LT, I am sure you are correct.  The exact details always seem to change over time.  But it really doesn't change the point I was trying to make.  Over the last 10 years or so the direction of stadium financing appears to be for the teams themselves to pay for a much larger probably majority portion of the new stadium costs than what they did previously.  My belief is that direction will continue for a while. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...