Run Doc out of town!

[HairOnFire]

That said, they better have a playoff run this year or you will hear these complaints from more and more of the fan base again, and season tickets will start to not be renewed en masse when people finally see that Mike Brown's cover is a bit of a fraud that depends almost solely on luck and the stars aligning just right once in a while to keep fans like you with lower standards happy and content with mediocrity.

Frankly, so what? If Bengal fans are known for anything it's their habit of complaining about everything so the threat of more whining and bitching seems pretty hollow to me. Every draft is quickly discounted as the worst draft ever. Every seriously injured player was already destined to be a bust. Every step forward is bashed as too little and too late. Every drunken boater is described as a retrobate that only the Bengals would draft. In fact, on this very board you can read posts suggesting that the possibility of the Bengals having more draft picks next year is a bad thing.

And just as hollow is the threat that season tickets sales will suddenly fall off en masse. Granted, that idea must seem delicious to a "true fan" like you, but it's not going to happen. In fact, even a constant complainer like you seems powerless to follow through on your threats. You'll be here tommorrow, right? And no matter what happens you'll be here the day after that.

Same s**t different day.

Complain....threaten....do nothing.

[Riagogogoindanati]

So size really does matter, huh? I thought it was just the ladies who cared.

I leave you boys for a few weeks and look what happens!

Hair and I had a romp this AM...........not with eachother but with other people, of course.

JJ-size does matter any female telling you otherwise, either has never had any or she is a liar.

[Jet23]

Fishing for slaps on the back is all you are about Hairy. For reasons outlined in a previous post, you feel the need to cleverly (in your feeble mind) insult people, so that all the little sheep will tell you how great you are. You want people on this site to think you are cool. Why else would you bother to post where you live, what you do, and the manner in which you have sex?

I posted where I live, what I do, and mentioned the last time I had sex because you had offered some empty headed speculation about those things. Frankly, if you really don't care about those things then perhaps you'd be better off actually debating the subject of the thread instead of asking questions that I have no problem answering.

But you can't debate the issues, can you? You can't give an opinion on that subject matter until fellow fugtard, Paul Daugherty, tells you what to say, right?

BTW, I think there may be a few flaws in your theory that I "cleverly insult" people to make them like me. I mean c'mon, now that we've swapped insults you probably don't like me now any more than I like you.

Mike Brown is against the NFL subsidizing existing teams via loans, yet he is all for their communities granting ridiculous leases. Why? Because if he milked his community, everyone else should have to.

Mike Brown does not like the current revenue sharing structure, because it awards less money to teams with new stadiums. You see, Mike would rather just keep that windfall negotiated for him by his bestest employee.

Color me this Hairy. Any chance this conversation took place?

Bob: You know Mike, if I sneak this lease through, I will never get elected as assistant dog catcher in this town.

Mike: That's o.k. BOB, I got your back.

I'm not an attorney, but I'm pretty sure someone would be rooming with Tank Johnson on that one.

[HairOnFire]

Mike Brown does not like the current revenue sharing structure, because it awards less money to teams with new stadiums.

Hey, look at you. More than seventy posts into a thread and you're finally going to try debating the actual issue. I'm so proud of you, my fugtarded little man.

Now answer a few questions.

Why should other NFL owners pay less in revenue sharing to a small market owner whose team revenues already rank in the lower third only a few years after moving into a new stadium? In fact, after moving into PBS the Bengals ranked in the upper half of revenue producing teams for only two years...a period so short that it had no long-term impact on the teams business strategy.

Why is the lease agreement between a city and a small-market owner considered a valid reason for large-market owners REDUCING already low revenue sharing payments when the undistributed money isn't given to the city that signed the lease? Isn't the lease agreement simply an excuse for large-market owners to keep as much money as possible from small-market owners?

Mike Brown argues that revenue sharing is required because small-market teams have to pay increasingly higher percentages of their revenue stream for player salaries due to an ever rising salary cap that is supported by large-market teams seeking a competitive advantage. Can anyone dispute this?

Why does Paul Daugherty attempt to use the fact that MLB doesn't have a revenue sharing agreement as proof that it is undesirable or unwise? Isn't MLB perfect proof of a financial system so unbalanced that most teams start each season with no chance to advance to the playoffs soley to financial disadvantages that prevent them from competing with large-market teams? Worse, even when small-market teams do manage to compete their success is almost always short-term due to large-market teams raiding their young talent the first moment that talent is eligible for free agency.

Finally, I'm proud to report that I had sex again this morning...although I must admit it was just a pre-work quickie. No matter. Explain if you can how my sexual prowess became a matter of interest to JetBoy?

[Jet23]

Mike Brown does not like the current revenue sharing structure, because it awards less money to teams with new stadiums.

Hey, look at you. More than seventy posts into a thread and you're finally going to try debating the actual issue. I'm so proud of you, my fugtarded little man.

Now answer a few questions.

Why should other NFL owners pay less in revenue sharing to a small market owner whose team revenues already rank in the lower third only a few years after moving into a new stadium? In fact, after moving into PBS the Bengals ranked in the upper half of revenue producing teams for only two years...a period so short that it had no long-term impact on the teams business strategy.

Why is the lease agreement between a city and a small-market owner considered a valid reason for large-market owners REDUCING already low revenue sharing payments when the undistributed money isn't given to the city that signed the lease? Isn't the lease agreement simply an excuse for large-market owners to keep as much money as possible from small-market owners?

Mike Brown argues that revenue sharing is required because small-market teams have to pay increasingly higher percentages of their revenue stream for player salaries due to an ever rising salary cap that is supported by large-market teams seeking a competitive advantage. Can anyone dispute this?

Why does Paul Daugherty attempt to use the fact that MLB doesn't have a revenue sharing agreement as proof that it is undesirable or unwise? Isn't MLB perfect proof of a financial system so unbalanced that most teams start each season with no chance to advance to the playoffs soley to financial disadvantages that prevent them from competing with large-market teams? Worse, even when small-market teams do manage to compete their success is almost always short-term due to large-market teams raiding their young talent the first moment that talent is eligible for free agency.

Finally, I'm proud to report that I had sex again this morning...although I must admit it was just a pre-work quickie. No matter. Explain if you can how my sexual prowess became a matter of interest to JetBoy?

And that doesn't scream hypocrisy to you Hairy? The NFL shouldn't help other teams, they should just help me? Your lil bro wants all revenues to be shared across the board. Do you know how much some of these owners paid for their teams? Unlike Mikey, not every owner was gifted his golden goose. Why should he share in their profits, while assuming none of their risk? Give me, give me, give me. He is absolutely shameless. Maybe if Jerry and Danny would share some more of their loot, I could afford full-sized towels for the shower and my players wouldn't have to share jocks. I know, I know, that was in the past. Mike is muuuuuuch better now, because you have inundated me with all this proof that he has changed. That is what you belive right? Mike Brown was cheap, but now he's not. Is that right?

And seriously dude, enough about your alleged sex life. Assuming you are able to get the pages of your Penthouse Forum Letters mag. unstuck, I really don't need you plagiarizing one of your fellow degenerates on this site.

[HairOnFire]

And that doesn't scream hypocrisy to you Hairy? The NFL shouldn't help other teams, they should just help me? Your lil bro wants all revenues to be shared across the board.

Wrong, and then wrong again. Mike Brown has said he doesn't want revenue sharing for himself or anyone else. But it's unavoidable if the other owners won't agree to things like a hard salary cap.

[HairOnFire]

Do you know how much some of these owners paid for their teams? Unlike Mikey, not every owner was gifted his golden goose. Why should he share in their profits, while assuming none of their risk?

Where's the risk? Since the NFL/AFL merger has any NFL owner lost money on his investment?

As for the size of the investment, it's all relative. Dan Snyder paid over 500 million for the Redskins...and then watched as it increased to over 850 million dollars in value in just a few years....in large part because his team plays in one of the largest markets in the NFL, and in the largest stadium. Yet somehow I don't hear you complaining that Dan Snyder feels justified in charging fans parking and admission fees just to watch practices OR that his teams have done nothing but lose year after year after year. Regardless, try now to remember the words of the Steelers owner who agreed with Mike Brown's criticism of the NFL's revenue sharing agreement by pointing out that Pittsburgh isn't a growing market, and the failure to keep pace with the revenue streams of large-market teams makes it increasing difficult to compete.

[HairOnFire]

And seriously dude, enough about your alleged sex life.

You brought it up so I'd say it's fair game. Besides, I get a kick knowing that you were actually interested enough in me to speculate about my sex life.

In fact, I bet you're thinking about it right now, ehhh?

[Kazkal]

Gotta love the off season!

As for the Steelers,

Wasen't Rooney backing brown to media not long ago?