stuckincincy Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Cincinnati Enquirer 3/10/06: Brown: Deal bad for Bengals Players, high-revenue teams will benefit, owner says. BY MARK CURNUTTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../603100384/1066 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Bah, what does he know? He's just a senile old coot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbyte Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 This from the owner whose teams were always way under the cap because they refused to spend money on coaches players and scouts. This is an team with a part time staff in the offices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv's Neighbor Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Cincinnati Enquirer 3/10/06: Brown: Deal bad for Bengals Players, high-revenue teams will benefit, owner says. BY MARK CURNUTTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../603100384/1066 623323[/snapback] From a business point of view Paul Brown and Ralph are right! You have to remember that when all is said and done that they are businessmen but not in the same league with Snyder, Johnson, Paul Allen etc... My concern is that there is enough economic balance, with the new agreement, that will make the BILLS an attractive, viable business to attract the next owner(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofton80 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I am no fan of Brown but his comments are intriguing. Bengals owner Mike Brown got a shock when he arrived for work on Thursday. A printout from NFL headquarters outlined more details of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which the league owners passed in a 30-2 vote in Dallas on Wednesday. Brown and Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson were the only dissenters. Brown, who said the CBA is "tremendously costly" for low-revenue teams such as the Bengals, learned about the noneconomic features of the deal, which favors the players. Draft picks in rounds 2 through 7 can't sign a contract exceeding four years. And the loyalty clause Brown had built into player's contracts is dead. Players can no longer be subject to forfeiture of part of their signing bonuses for making derogatory comments about the team, coaches or management. "Now that has been given back in the negotiation," Brown said. "We did not know the details of that at the time we voted. "I think it's wrong to vote yes on a deal when you don't know what's in it. We did not know the noneconomic features of this deal. All of these noneconomic terms were considered of lesser weight than the (finances). The whole package should have been in front of us." Here's a more in-depth Q&A with Brown from the Dayton Daily News Q&A with Mike Brown Q. What makes it (the new deal) so challenging for the Bengals? A. The deal is tremendously costly. The high-revenue teams — although they were willing to shift money to the low-revenue teams — were not prepared to shift money in proportion to the amount the shifting costs onto us. This is a system that is based on the average. Teams pay player costs at the average. So if you're a high-revenue team (such as Dallas and Washington), you're paying less as a percentage of your income than you are if you're a low-revenue team. The low-revenue team will pay well in excess of 70 percent of its revenues to player costs. The high-revenue team will pay around 40 percent. Q. The big-market clubs seem to maximize their revenue potential. Do you? A. We think we do a good job within the constraints of our market. They (big-market teams) have a much greater amount of disposable income to appeal to than we have. If you go to some of these large markets, it's a multiple of 10 times or more than what we have in the Cincinnati market. So they should be able to make more, and they do. Do I think it's because they work harder? No. We work just as hard in the small markets. Q. What is disposable income? A. It would be the income available to spend on the products we sell, which is everything from tickets to (luxury) boxes to sponsorships, radio rights, and on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 This from the owner whose teams were always way under the cap because they refused to spend money on coaches players and scouts. This is an team with a part time staff in the offices. 623401[/snapback] Their cap money is $16 million, same as the Bills. As to the rest, you're more that 4 years behind the times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 From a business point of view Paul Brown and Ralph are right! You have to remember that when all is said and done that they are businessmen but not in the same league with Snyder, Johnson, Paul Allen etc... My concern is that there is enough economic balance, with the new agreement, that will make the BILLS an attractive, viable business to attract the next owner(s). 623418[/snapback] It's good to hear from Paul Brown, from time to time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts