Run Doc out of town!

[Spor_tees]

Meanwhile, we both know that if the Bengals ever left Cincinnati the NFL wouldn't give the city a second sniff...

Neither you nor I know any such thing. What we both do know is that it's all about money. If the town and people offered sufficient pocket-lining, the NFL would happily take their money. They'd put a team in Timbuktu if they were paid enough.

Exactly! Cincy would get another team in no time for a couple of reasons. First, Bengals jerseys, merchandise, and game tickets sell. Secondly, Ohio is known for its football. Lastly, PBS. One of the major factors the NFL looks at in determining if an NFL franchise is awarded to a city is the stadium they will play in. PBS has won numerous awards for its architecture and all its enmities.

Honestly, maybe what would work for the city of Cincinnati would be if Mike Brown left and the city was awarded another franchise where it was publicaly owned like the Green Bay Packers.

[HairOnFire]

Meanwhile, we both know that if the Bengals ever left Cincinnati the NFL wouldn't give the city a second sniff...

Neither you nor I know any such thing. What we both do know is that it's all about money. If the town and people offered sufficient pocket-lining, the NFL would happily take their money. They'd put a team in Timbuktu if they were paid enough.

I think a better example would be the urban toilet that is Jacksonville. But regardless of that fitting example I still think you're tap dancing around the truth. If we both know that it's all about the money then we both can conclude with a fair degree of certainty that this leaves Cincinnati on the outside looking in. After all, Cincinnati is currently pleading that they can't afford to keep their existing team, yet a new one would undoubtedly cost them two or three times as much. Maybe more.

What's a franchise fee cost these days?

No, without the Bengals Cincinnati's sporting future would be limited to cheering for full pulls and the occasional but always spectacular blown tractor motor.

Exactly! Cincy would get another team in no time for a couple of reasons. First, Bengals jerseys, merchandise, and game tickets sell. Secondly, Ohio is known for its football. Lastly, PBS. One of the major factors the NFL looks at in determining if an NFL franchise is awarded to a city is the stadium they will play in. PBS has won numerous awards for its architecture and all its enmities.

Honestly, maybe what would work for the city of Cincinnati would be if Mike Brown left and the city was awarded another franchise where it was publicaly owned like the Green Bay Packers.

It looks like somebody still believes in Santa Claus.

[HoosierCat]

After all, Cincinnati is currently pleading that they can't afford to keep their existing team, yet a new one would undoubtedly cost them two or three times as much. Maybe more.

Maybe, maybe not. Cincinnati isn't pleading that it can't afford the Bengals, it's pleading it can't afford a lease that for whatever reason you care to believe, simple incompetence or outright deception, is ludicriously slanted in the Bengals' favor. The stadium would, in fact, be a plus in a bid for any new team, since building a new pleasure dome is always part of the price of admission. But that cost has already been bourne.

Honestly, maybe what would work for the city of Cincinnati would be if Mike Brown left and the city was awarded another franchise where it was publicaly owned like the Green Bay Packers.

I think the NFL changed the rules so that publicly-owned teams are not allowed any more; GB was exempted.

[HairOnFire]

Cincinnati isn't pleading that it can't afford the Bengals, it's pleading it can't afford a lease that for whatever reason you care to believe, simple incompetence or outright deception, is ludicriously slanted in the Bengals' favor.

As interesting as it might be listening to Bengal fans express their support for the team moving to another city let's try to get back on track.

If the Bengals lease is ludiciously slanted so far in the Bengals favor, and every game is a sellout, yet the team ranks in the bottom third of revenues....then why shouldn't the Bengals receive some form of revenue sharing? The issue isn't about Mike Brown pleading poverty, as Daugherty stupidly claims, but the competitive disadvantage that results when the mere wealthy have to compete financially with the super wealthy.

And despite the results of the vote Mike Brown isn't alone on this issue. Wayne Weaver voted against it for very likely the same reasons that Brown did. Weaver plays in a stadium that is less than ten-years old so he's getting the same pittance that Brown complains about. The other small market teams like Pittsburgh, Indy, and Buffalo that were mentioned? Well, the Colts and Bills play in older stadiums and as a result aren't subject to the qualifiers that limit how much revenue sharing they receive. As for the Steelers, here's a quote from their owner that Paul Daugherty conveniently ignored.

"There's no question we have a problem in the league that I'm very concerned about on a going-forth basis. I think the biggest problem with it really is the attitude of some of the high-revenue teams. I think the only way to say it is that they have a different attitude than some of the big-market people from the old days. My fear is that we start to approach things more like some of the other leagues than the way the NFL has approached it. To me, why change the business model that has been pretty successful? But some of these guys have a different approach to it and that worries me."

"We're in a market that's not growing. When you look at spendable income statistics in our market, the last time I looked we rank somewhere in the 50s in terms of household spending. We're in a market where we have to be concerned about things like this. We look at it as a very serious situation, both in terms of the standpoint of looking at it from a pissburgh situation but also a league-wide standpoint."

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Cincinnati isn't pleading that it can't afford the Bengals, it's pleading it can't afford a lease that for whatever reason you care to believe, simple incompetence or outright deception, is ludicriously slanted in the Bengals' favor.

As interesting as it might be listening to Bengal fans express their support for the team moving to another city let's try to get back on track.

If the Bengals lease is ludiciously slanted so far in the Bengals favor, and every game is a sellout, yet the team ranks in the bottom third of revenues....then why shouldn't the Bengals receive some form of revenue sharing? The issue isn't about Mike Brown pleading poverty, as Daugherty stupidly claims, but the competitive disadvantage that results when the mere wealthy have to compete financially with the super wealthy.

I'm not sure where I stand on sharing, but I will point out that you've fallen into the logical fallacy Brown uses to support his cause: namely, that profits don't necessarily correlate with revenues. The stadium deal doesn't add revenue to Mikey, but the fact that it's completely taxpayer-supported does mean that it's not a cost for him. So for that reason, while he and Weaver in Jacksonville might have similar revenues, Mike will make more profit because Weaver doesn't have as cushy a deal from the city, and he's still paying off a franchise fee to the NFL.

So let's talk profit, not revenue, then see where Mikey lands. Methinks he's not as poor as he claims.

[HoosierCat]

As interesting as it might be listening to Bengal fans express their support for the team moving to another city let's try to get back on track.

Shrug. Sure. As someone who doesn't live in Cincy I don't have any skin in that game. If they move it would be no big deal to me.

If the Bengals lease is ludiciously slanted so far in the Bengals favor, and every game is a sellout, yet the team ranks in the bottom third of revenues....then why shouldn't the Bengals receive some form of revenue sharing?

No one is arguing that they shouldn't, not even Doc. His point is that no matter how much is shared, the Bengals always want more. And indeed, Mikey is against the current subsidy system (as shown by his "no" vote) exactly because it doesn't give enough. What he wants is for all subsidies to be ended in favor of the NFL just sharing 100% of revenue, thus leveling the playing field. And while that would certainly work, like I said before it also seems to me to be a complete nonstarter.

[Jet23]

Cincinnati would NEVER get another franchise, which is why I voted for the stadium and would do it again. I did so, however, with the full understanding that I was helping to pad the pockets of one of the worst owners in all of sports. I believe that having an NFL franchise is invaluable. But, I certainly don't find the need to canonize the guy that exploited this fact. Apparently you do.

I doubt you fully understand anything, including how you wee-wee works...let alone a complicated stadium lease or tax laws. That said, the fact that you'd willingly repeat doing something that you can't stop complaining about just makes it painfully clear what a sad and pathetic creature you are. By your own admission much of your own feelings of self worth are based upon trying to link yourself in any way possible to someone elses property...an experiennce you claim is invaluable. Funnier still, none of this seems to give you any enjoyment.

Last, I've never attempted to canonize Mike Brown. Far from it. However, without Mike Brown it's very likely that Cincinnati wouldn't have gotten an AFL franchise in the 60's. Or aren't you aware that his father used him as a frontman and legal advisor who scouted potential cities where the Brown family could become partial owners? In addition, without Mike Brown Cincinnati would never have gotten a chance several decades later to make financial promises it apparently no longer wants to honor. And since you admit that if the Bengals were to leave Cincinnati would never get another NFL franchise I'd say that buys the man some slack.

I don't undertand how my wee-wee works is what you're going with. You have been a Bengals fan since 1904 and you're going with a wee-wee joke. Couldn't you think of anything clever involving poop, farts or boogers? In true Hair fashion you don't let little things like the facts get in the way of a good arguement. By facts I mean W's & L's Mr. Wizard. But hey, thanks for not calling me a futgard. On a serious not, who do you like better Bevis or Butt Head? I know you don't come up with your material all by yourself...

[HoosierCat]

Just as a counterpoint to Mike, his former ally Ralph Wilson calls the newly approved plan a fair deal...

http://www.buffalonews.com/213/story/41443.html

[HairOnFire]

I don't undertand how my wee-wee works is what you're going with. You have been a Bengals fan since 1904 and you're going with a wee-wee joke. Couldn't you think of anything clever involving poop, farts or boogers? In true Hair fashion you don't let little things like the facts get in the way of a good arguement. By facts I mean W's & L's Mr. Wizard. But hey, thanks for not calling me a futgard.

I came up with the wee-wee joke because I'm trying to make my posts more kid friendly. Sadly, after our last exchange several of them wrote me asking what a fugtard was. I explained that it was someone so stupid that he didn't know what his penis was for, prompting 8-year old Steven Kinder from West Alexandria to respond..."Jet23 pees sitting down. Ha-ha!!!"

I wish I could disagree.

As for the idea that I'm ignoring facts in this debate, well....we're talking about revenue sharing, profits, and stadium leases, right? So you'd have to be simple-minded to insist that the issue is about W's and L's. In fact, it's reasonable to conclude that a failure to debate the real issue is ample proof that the person in question is probably incaple of understanding those issues. In short, a raving fugtard. (This is where you wave.)

[HairOnFire]

Just as a counterpoint to Mike, his former ally Ralph Wilson calls the newly approved plan a fair deal...

Why wouldn't he? Paul Daugherty may be too stupid to figure out the obvious, but I pointed out several posts ago Buffalo plays in a stadium that is more than 10-years old and as a result isn't subject to the qualifiers that effectively wipe out the bulk of shared revenue a team receives. And Wilson just happened to be in the group that determined what the qualifiers would be, right?

All you're pointing out is that Wilson got his share and is now placated. That wasn't true for Mike Brown, and as a result of the revenue sharing agreement one of the NFL's smallest markets will get relatively nothing in revenue sharing for several more years.

And if that seems fair to you simply because the Bengals negotiated a great lease then I'd say Paul Daugherty owes you a small doll made out of straw.

[Jet23]

I don't undertand how my wee-wee works is what you're going with. You have been a Bengals fan since 1904 and you're going with a wee-wee joke. Couldn't you think of anything clever involving poop, farts or boogers? In true Hair fashion you don't let little things like the facts get in the way of a good arguement. By facts I mean W's & L's Mr. Wizard. But hey, thanks for not calling me a futgard.

I came up with the wee-wee joke because I'm trying to make my posts more kid friendly. Sadly, after our last exchange several of them wrote me asking what a fugtard was. I explained that it was someone so stupid that he didn't know what his penis was for, prompting 8-year old Steven Kinder from West Alexandria to respond..."Jet23 pees sitting down. Ha-ha!!!"

I wish I could disagree.

As for the idea that I'm ignoring facts in this debate, well....we're talking about revenue sharing, profits, and stadium leases, right? So you'd have to be simple-minded to insist that the issue is about W's and L's. In fact, it's reasonable to conclude that a failure to debate the real issue is ample proof that the person in question is probably incaple of understanding those issues. In short, a raving fugtard. (This is where you wave.)

Your words hurt Hairy. It's just like the time Jeff Zerlinden hid my lunch box and called me a dum-dum. You're right though, it is totally unfair to judge a GM on wins and losses. That way he would actually have to.......................................win! Holy crap, that is waaaaay too much to ask in your reality. I know, from now on we will use a brand new criteria to judge general managers. Hence forth, they will be judged by the number of favorable comments garnered from middle-aged half wits with penchants for sophomoric humor. Your younger brother would be a slam dunk Executive of the Year. I know, I'm a tractor pull watching, slack jawed futgard..blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Get a new gig Hairy, you're boring the hell out of me.

[HoosierCat]

All you're pointing out is that Wilson got his share and is now placated. That wasn't true for Mike Brown, and as a result of the revenue sharing agreement one of the NFL's smallest markets will get relatively nothing in revenue sharing for several more years.

Well, if that was actually Mikey's beef (and I'm not foolish enough to think it isn't a factor) that would be one thing. But he has not been grousing about the so-called qualifiers (aside from, like everything else, bein' agin' 'em); his argument has been that the revenue-sharing structure as currently constituted will kill the small market teams, and that the "subsidy" deal they just passed won't help, irrespective of whether he gets any of the pot or not.

[HairOnFire]

You're right though, it is totally unfair to judge a GM on wins and losses. That way he would actually have to.......................................win!

How stupid are you?

Most jobs involve doing more than one thing and as a result the person doing that job is judged in many ways. And along those same lines a won loss record doesn't count for spit in matters of lease negotiations and revenue sharing, and only someone with a childlike understanding of the issues would insist that it does. Again, that's you.

In addition, the matter of revenue sharing isn't being decided by the GM's of the NFL, it's being decided by team owners, and the issue is entirely related to finances. So again, your repeated insistence that a teams won/loss record has anything to do with the issue at hand is ample more proof that you're incapable of understanding the debate.

Last, I think it's stupid people like you that Paul Daugherty writes for. Seriously, how great a trick is it to take a pot shot or two at the rich guy that everyone already resents? How easy is it to inflame the masses...quickly getting some moron to copy and paste an article where Daugherty admits he's not qualified to have an opinion on this issue, yet he still gives one that says little more than rich guys are greedy.

Prompting guys like you to nod your empty heads in agreement and shake your clenched fists in anger at the man.

It's pathetic.

[HairOnFire]

Well, if that was actually Mikey's beef (and I'm not foolish enough to think it isn't a factor) that would be one thing. But he has not been grousing about the so-called qualifiers (aside from, like everything else, bein' agin' 'em); his argument has been that the revenue-sharing structure as currently constituted will kill the small market teams, and that the "subsidy" deal they just passed won't help, irrespective of whether he gets any of the pot or not.

In my opinion he hasn't claimed it will kill the small market teams....just that it's a competitive disadvantage. And he's not alone, as the remarks made by Dan Rooney make clear. Why Rooney voted for the deal under the current circumstances I have no idea, but I'll guess he did so simply because he felt it was the best deal that could be agreed upon, but not neccessarily one that solves the problem. But there's the rub because there really aren't many people interested in solving the problem, and the ones who are lack the power to force changes.

BTW, Mike Brown most definately has been griping about the qualifiers. It's precisely what prompted Daugherty's screed about him pleading poverty. But if Daugherty was actually interested in the truth he wouldn't need to ask the question about why teams like Indy and Buffalo voted for the agreement when Brown didn't. All you have to do is listen to what Mike Brown is claiming and then ask yourself if what he complains about is also true for those teams. And a fairly simple game of connect the dots shows that it isn't.

Not that Paul Daugherty cares. He's got papers to sell, and idiots to inflame.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Mike Brown is the worst football man in charge of a team in the NFL by far.

I'll see your Mike Brown, and raise you a Bill Bidwell.

[HairOnFire]

My vote goes for Dan Snyder. Few men can have every advantage at their disposal yet still find a way to muck it up year after year after year.

[Stripes]

My vote goes for Dan Snyder. Few men can have every advantage at their disposal yet still find a way to muck it up year after year after year.

If we're discussion relevant topics in the present in this thread, rather than blindly reaching back to 1995 for our argument material... I don't think anyone comes close to Dan Snyder for that title.

[Jet23]

You're right though, it is totally unfair to judge a GM on wins and losses. That way he would actually have to.......................................win!

How stupid are you?

Most jobs involve doing more than one thing and as a result the person doing that job is judged in many ways. And along those same lines a won loss record doesn't count for spit in matters of lease negotiations and revenue sharing, and only someone with a childlike understanding of the issues would insist that it does. Again, that's you.

In addition, the matter of revenue sharing isn't being decided by the GM's of the NFL, it's being decided by team owners, and the issue is entirely related to finances. So again, your repeated insistence that a teams won/loss record has anything to do with the issue at hand is ample more proof that you're incapable of understanding the debate.

Last, I think it's stupid people like you that Paul Daugherty writes for. Seriously, how great a trick is it to take a pot shot or two at the rich guy that everyone already resents? How easy is it to inflame the masses...quickly getting some moron to copy and paste an article where Daugherty admits he's not qualified to have an opinion on this issue, yet he still gives one that says little more than rich guys are greedy.

Prompting guys like you to nod your empty heads in agreement and shake your clenched fists in anger at the man.

It's pathetic.

Seriously dude, your unconditional love for Mike Brown is really starting to creep me out.

[ShulaSteakhouse]

You're right though, it is totally unfair to judge a GM on wins and losses. That way he would actually have to.......................................win!

How stupid are you?

Most jobs involve doing more than one thing and as a result the person doing that job is judged in many ways. And along those same lines a won loss record doesn't count for spit in matters of lease negotiations and revenue sharing, and only someone with a childlike understanding of the issues would insist that it does. Again, that's you.

In addition, the matter of revenue sharing isn't being decided by the GM's of the NFL, it's being decided by team owners, and the issue is entirely related to finances. So again, your repeated insistence that a teams won/loss record has anything to do with the issue at hand is ample more proof that you're incapable of understanding the debate.

Last, I think it's stupid people like you that Paul Daugherty writes for. Seriously, how great a trick is it to take a pot shot or two at the rich guy that everyone already resents? How easy is it to inflame the masses...quickly getting some moron to copy and paste an article where Daugherty admits he's not qualified to have an opinion on this issue, yet he still gives one that says little more than rich guys are greedy.

Prompting guys like you to nod your empty heads in agreement and shake your clenched fists in anger at the man.

It's pathetic.

Seriously dude, your unconditional love for Mike Brown is really starting to creep me out.

Me too.

His post above has so many inconsistencies and holes, I couldn't begin to go into them - not worth it. In fact i've already addressed them previously. Instead he resorts to calling you "stupid" and "childlike" - typically what one does to cover up his insecurities and lack of substance in debate.

It's also a fact the Bengals' have only had ONE WINNING SEASON IN 16 YEARS.

How ANYONE could make an argument that Mike Brown has done a great job, or that he is not responsible for any of that - completely eludes me and anyone one else out there who is willing to look at this objectively, and is not here to simply argue with people for the sake of just arguing.

No one's talking about "the distant past" here TDB - I'm including every season up until the last completed one.

No other NFL team has such a running record of losing - no one - not even Arizona or the Skins.

Furthermore you guys act like it's something to be proud of, that Brown is "not as bad" in your minds, as the two worst owners/Gm's in football.

Once again - nice standards you have!

[HairOnFire]

Seriously dude, your unconditional love for Mike Brown is really starting to creep me out.

Still can't get your arms around the issue?

I'm not surprised.

Regardless, since we're sharing our feelings about each other let me close by saying that I think you're a moron who gets his opinions straight from the newspaper.

No one's talking about "the distant past" here TDB.

Actually, that's all you do. In fact, you did it again only four lines prior to claiming you weren't.

His post above has so many inconsistencies and holes, I couldn't begin to go into them - not worth it. In fact i've already addressed them previously.

If you aren't smart enough to poke holes in my arguments it means one of two things. One possibility is you're wrong. The other is you're right, but far too stupid to prove it.

[HairOnFire]

His post above has so many inconsistencies and holes, I couldn't begin to go into them - not worth it. In fact i've already addressed them previously. Instead he resorts to calling you "stupid" and "childlike" - typically what one does to cover up his insecurities and lack of substance in debate.

First, saying you could do something and then not doing it doesn't sound like substance to me. In fact, I'd say it was devoid of substance, and more than a little cowardly.

Last, I have absolutely no problem with name calling and apparently you don't either as you've called me names more than once. Granted, I just laughed and then responded in kind. Sadly, that reaction brings whining complaints from you. So forgive me for asking the obvious question but doesn't that make you a bit of a p***y?

[TJJackson]

Just so we're clear, Hair, is that the highest hostility setting you have, or can you crank it up another notch or two? :-)

Oh crap....I just realized I stepped into the field of fire......

Pray for me, ya'all. For me and my main man Reggie (<--- over there, on the left)

[HairOnFire]

Just so we're clear, Hair, is that the highest hostility setting you have, or can you crank it up another notch or two? :-)

Oh crap....I just realized I stepped into the field of fire......

Crank it up a notch? Sure, I can go to eleven if needed.

Perhaps we need to clear something up. We're talking about revenue sharing, right? We're not talking about anyones personal feelings for Mike Brown. And not only is a rehash of the teams won/loss record totally irrelevant, but so is the matter of which party did a better job of negotiating a lease. Because you can whine about that subject all you like but the NFL isn't giving the city of Cincinnati the money Mike Brown thinks he deserves for agreeing to stay in one of the NFL's smallest markets.

The issue is revenue sharing, and the only thing about Paul Brown Stadium that matters is the qualifier related to when it was built, not who paid for it.

If some of you are so fugtarded that you insist on defining unrelated issues by constantly reminding everyone about the Bengals won/loss record from a decade ago then you're just going to have to deal with the fact that I think you're being stupid and I have no problem saying it. And if you simply have to hear me bash Mike Brown without mercy then start an appropriate thread about a subject that directly relates to winning and losing, not team finances.

Fair enough?

[TJJackson]

Nice spinal tap reference :-)

[Jet23]

Just so we're clear, Hair, is that the highest hostility setting you have, or can you crank it up another notch or two? :-)

Oh crap....I just realized I stepped into the field of fire......

Crank it up a notch? Sure, I can go to eleven if needed.

Perhaps we need to clear something up. We're talking about revenue sharing, right? We're not talking about anyones personal feelings for Mike Brown. And not only is a rehash of the teams won/loss record totally irrelevant, but so is the matter of which party did a better job of negotiating a lease. Because you can whine about that subject all you like but the NFL isn't giving the city of Cincinnati the money Mike Brown thinks he deserves for agreeing to stay in one of the NFL's smallest markets.

The issue is revenue sharing, and the only thing about Paul Brown Stadium that matters is the qualifier related to when it was built, not who paid for it.

If some of you are so fugtarded that you insist on defining unrelated issues by constantly reminding everyone about the Bengals won/loss record from a decade ago then you're just going to have to deal with the fact that I think you're being stupid and I have no problem saying it. And if you simply have to hear me bash Mike Brown without mercy then start an appropriate thread about a subject that directly relates to winning and losing, not team finances.

Fair enough?

Revenue sharing is just the latest of a long line of excuses Mike Brown uses to distracts idiots like you. I'm telling you that Mike Brown is the worst General Manager in all of sports. Until you can name a general manager that is worse for Cincinnati than your lil bro, I suggest you shut your man pleaser.