Boycott at the game

[xavierjohn05]

All,

I, like you, am fed up with this team and want change (coaching, ownership, something). I also am too cheap to refuse to use the tickets that I paid so much for. I am proposing that everyone go to the game (because we still love our Bengals and want them to win), but not buy anything, no food, no drinks (counting beer) and no merchandise. This way, considering we all already have our tickets we can still hit Mike Brown in the pocketbook. If we sell our tickets or give them away, someone else will go to the game and buy beer and food and fatten MB's wallet. I mean, $7 for a beer, he's got to be making at least $5 for the beer considering all the other expenses he has, and I know they sell tons of them.

Please do all your drinking during tailgating, or after the game. If we all go and don't buy anything that should start to get his attention. I for one have been doing this all year, I just want to get everyone else on board to help out.

Any takers?

[BengalszoneBilly]

Please do all your drinking during tailgating, or after the game.

Asking this is absurd. It'll never happen.

[preyer]

since he makes more money during five minutes of sleep than i will in ten years hard labour, i'm doubting the entire bengals fanbase will *ever* hurt him financially enough for him to care. your best, imo, is to stage a loosely organized protest at the games themselves and invite the media for some quick blurb for them to relate.

would it matter? not in the least. at least individual aspects won't amount to anything ~ what it would take is a highly organized protest and boycott co-ordinated by tens of thousands of fans, one involving maybe picketing, boycotting merchandise, and foregoing the games altogether, not to mention having one solid individual as the voice for all these people who are likely to be drunk at the time.

good luck with that.

and in the end, brown would likely just say the hell with it and move the franchise, getting the people of cincy to kiss his lilly white ass b/c they'd be afraid they'd never get another football team again from being a 'small market' (which, i don't know, doesn't seem quite right. i mean, we've got a newer stadium, after all, and obviously enough people willing to fill it, so i'm not quite sure what makes it 'small.' in my ignorant opinion, you field a winner and you're suddenly not quite so 'small' in my book). he could go into semi-retirement or get called back to hell, and does the people who'd take over excite you any more? lastly, and most perfect for the bengals and their fans, would for him to simply sell it.

if MB dies, perhaps selling it would be attractive. hm, MB... mike brown... or montgomery burns?! my gawd!

i wouldn't hope that by not buying their junk other people will take note and join the bandwagon. don't buy their junk because it's expensive and you could probably take your wife and/or girlfriend out for a really nice evening for the cost of a jersey. or, gasp, save your money for bills. all these trinkets and crappy china-made floozables is just simply junk. my wife owns a trophy and awards shop, she's just getting into shirts ~ she'll make you a custom article of clothing for a fraction of the 'official' price. well, maybe not her, she's afraid of 'copyright infringement' (pfft!), but you certainly can buy a cheap orange jersey and friggin' pay a few bucks for a custom transfer to show your support. officially licensed? hardly. i'll let you in on a secret: you're paying for the name tag. sure, they're nice, but $129.99 nice? hell no! most of this stuff is useless crap, and what's 'useful' such as a coffee mug, you can have made cheaper and nicer. people will buy expensive programmes and for what? to put away in a hutch shelf, under the blankets in a chest, or wedged between some books on the book shelf? at best, add it to some bengals shrine of junk? (obviously, signed jerseys or whatnot and footballs for display aren't what i'm talking about.)

the point is, don't save your money in protesting a bad team, save it because you have some common and financial sense. ask for a jersey for x-mas, at least that has some reasoning behind it. otherwise, the only jerseys worth a plug nickel are those worn by fathers and sons as a bonding... thing.

as an aside: i'm still in the years long process of convincing my wife to let me play around with fibreglass. i've always wanted to make stormtrooper suits, so i think that orange suit that guy wears is absolutely brilliant. given my druthers, you betcha i'd make 'game suits,' though mine would be a bit more custom.

anyway, even if the fans did have a major impact, you have to consider what MB's reaction would be and the ramifications of that man's actions. would the commissioner be suddenly compelled to force MB into doing more things to insure a better team? that's your target, imo. but, if he's not going to do anything about al davis, he's surely not going to do anything about mike brown.

let's say for the sake of argument that you and fifty thousand fans boycott the merchandise and beer. let's say MB gives a sh!t and you now have his ear. what, in your wildest fantasies, would you have happen?

[Ickey44]

I'll ask again, because I don't think anyone answered me in the other thread.....Aren't the Bengals in a lease to play in the stadium until somewhere around 2030? And if so, how can he just move the team?

To the best of my knowledge, the Bengals can't move until 2031 unless the city lets them out of their lease. And I don't see that happening, because the tax-payers are paying for it either way....

[preyer]

that's interesting, i've never heard that one. i suspect there might be clauses to that, or that date might possibly be some kind of extention based on meeting certain criteria... okay, i'm talking out my arse here, but my point being that the bengals are privately owned and that must count for something, no? i always thought one of the conditions, too, was the bengals fielding a 'competitive' team, whatever that word means to a legal eagle. we know what it means to MB.

if it's a lease, it can be broken. of course, when you're talking millions of dollars it's not as easy as all that, but spending years in court battling an injustice might not happen if a settlement could be reached. hell, who knows what backdoors and whatnots are in it, i'm sure it's half as thick as a bible, especially considering it was a brand new stadium.

no, you just can't pick up a franchise and leave dodge on a whim. nor do i think you can force a private business to ultimately stay if they're hellbent on getting gone ~ it might take years to do so, but if that's what they really want....

it's an interesting question, wish i knew more.

[gregstephens]

no, you just can't pick up a franchise and leave dodge on a whim.

I'm sorry...does the 1983 Baltimore Colts, or Art Modell, ring any bells?

[preyer]

the colts moved after their lease expired and the city didn't want to build a new stadium. maryland threatened to keep the team by eminent domain, but they weren't fast enough in passing the legislation. rat modell, scumbag as he may be, also wasn't given a new stadium or even the improvements that he asked for: he had essentially been given the old one in the first place for a $1/yr. as long as he did the maintenance and such that the city couldn't afford. he was basically the indians' landlord (they shared the same stadium), but they (the indians) got their new stadium and seriously hurt rat's profit.

i should have been clearer: today, given the past possibilities of an owner 'just leaving' (and that idea needs to be accompanied with caveats), i'm sure there are points built into the contract that might make it unattractive for MB to leave. how much did the stadium cost? $453M or something like that? i have to imagine the city worked some clauses into the contract for their own protection.

mike brown does not in essence own the stadium, nor is his lease up. i think comparing his situation with rat modell's and/or the colts are far enough apart not to lump them all together as a matter of fact.

[Dimster28]

for me, if bengals moved to different city, i dont care abt it as i am bengals fan becz of tiger being my favorite animal since i was little kid, i do not even 1% care abt cincinnati a bit, in fact i never understand how can anybody support team just becz of they live in or near the city, if i was supposed to do that then bears would be my team, oh digusting lol

but if bengals moved to different city and change its mascot like what houston oilers did, and change to titans, that will pissed me off

[preyer]

it makes good sense to support the local, or at least nearest, team. obviously, it's easier for you to see the bears play than tampa bay. also there's a sense of pride involved that what you've got in your home town/state is better than your neighbours. that is to say, it sucks to keep up with the joneses... but being the joneses is pretty sweet. and, of course, since the world revolves around the almight buck, there's that, too: i think in theory the better your city is able to make money the lower the taxes *should* be (as an aside, supposedly the ohio lottery gave hamilton county $31.3M from its education fund for FY07 ~ the story i hear is it's got to be spent a certain way, though). anyway, it boils down to convenience, pride and keeping your money invested relatively near you.

then there's just liking the team you grew up with. i'd venture to say most people who grow up christian remain christian their whole lives. i mean, no one in salt lake city woke up one morning and declared, 'i think i'm a muslim!' dad takes you out to the games, you watch them on t.v., and you want the same thing with your son (or you should). dad, now, he probably had a slightly different set of reasons for being a fan, not the least of which he could go to see his team and watch them on t.v. to follow them (assuming no black-out was in force) long before satellite t.v. and cable had total access to any team you wanted, instant feedback on the internet, whatever. no, dad operated from the sports section of the newspaper. and back in dad's day the bengals in particular might actually win a few games even under paul brown (who had a losing record).

you don't care about cincy? well, cincy cares about the bengals, and for far better reasons than just because they like tigers.

would a relocated team change its name from the bengals? the oilers in tennessee didn't make any sense. i imagine baltimore didn't want the baggage of the browns moniker, not to mention the ravens being a pretty cool name. they probably would eventually want to change their name if for no other reason than marketing new merchandise. true, indy kept the colts name, but that was a long time ago and i don't think the same reasoning applies, per se. being money hungry implies to me you'd keep it the bengals for a season or two, suck up the new city's merchandising dollar, then change the team name and force people to buy another jersey.