Sick this morning

[HoosierCat]

I understand your point, but to clarify - I believe Mike is entrenched in how he "runs" (please accept the use of this term in the loosest sense possible) this team, and no amount of enthusiasm or flurries of spending on mine or anyone's part will change that. If he gets more love or more money or both - he will simply view this as the rest of us coming to our collective senses and discovering what a wonderful fellow he has been all along - and business as usual will continue as usual.

I understand and I can't argue the point, except to say that Mike certainly hasn't proven amenable to change when faced with empty seats and hate mail. Strictly from the perspective of winning and not from the view of their wallets, fans don't have much to lose by showing up and writing love letters, either. It's really never been tried -- even during the heyday of the Lewis era when they were routinely selling out there was no ed to the anti-Mike stunts -- so why not give it a shot? Maybe the Grinch's heart will grow three sizes that day.

/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51qNBFBVtUE

[COB]

The solution grows closer daily, and is inevitable - he won't live forever.....

LMAO. I wonder how long Mike will hang in there. He seems pretty damn resiliant. He's no quitter, that's for sure.

[TJJackson]

SoaG and I will never sit down to a meal of roast beast :-)

I am well beyond the point of forgiving Mike, short of him handing over the keys of the franchise to me personally

(and yeah, 100% of my initial effort there would be to hire the best GM that money can buy)

I can recognize the occasional good move - setting aside his stubbornness for just long enough to sign the Carson trade deal for one, certainly - but the good has been the tip of a very large iceberg of utter suckitude that has sunk my Titanic year after year after no-end-in-sight year

[HoosierCat]

SoaG and I will never sit down to a meal of roast beast :-)

Believe me, I hear ya. And it's my fear that exactly the same is true on the other side, that Mike wouldn't leave you so much as a tin of Who Hash, which depresses me.

[COB]

MB doesn't really care about making money for the NFL. Ticket revenue now goes into a big pot split equally by the owners, so the impact of him not selling out is, financially speaking, peanuts.

That is the most remarkable thing I've learned this season. Did Mike Brown cast some kind of spell over the NFL to get this rule passed? It seems to play into his hands to such a degree that it's almost funny.

The county pays for his stadium, and the maintenance on his stadium, and upgrades on his stadium, and the other NFL teams have to share their ticket money when Mike's taking a giant crap at the gate. What exactly would he have to do to fail to make money? No wonder he's an imperious douchebag. He's f**king untouchable.

[cincyhokie]

Are Philly fans better than Bengals fans? They do fill the stadium.

/>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/13/eagles-fans-instructed-to-root-against-the-eagles/

[HoosierCat]

For COB: There's some stuff in this pdf:

/>http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nfl%20ticket%20revenue%20split&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CG0QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.vanderbilt.edu%2Fpublications%2Fjournal-entertainment-technology-law%2Farchive%2Fdownload.aspx%3Fid%3D1778&ei=FRjoTqWrNaj10gGslLHxCQ&usg=AFQjCNHRJEBC9h0RAnRTX9RC-Jf_mcmyoA

If you can't get that the relevant info from pages 17-18 (note: doc from 2006):

While the equal sharing of television broadcasting rights is relatively straightforward, the sharing of gate receipts is more complex and deserves further explanation. First, it is imperative to distinguish between “ticket revenue” from luxury boxes, which is “subject to gate receipt sharing among NFL teams,” and non-ticket luxury box revenue, which is not subject to revenue sharing, and is therefore coveted by owners as a source of supplemental unshared revenue.92 This distinction is based on the idea that luxury boxes can be sold in such a way that they are not considered part of normal ticket sales, and thus are not considered gate receipts subject to revenue sharing.

Next, it is important to establish the precise manner in which gate receipts subject to revenue sharing are actually shared among the individual franchises. The NFL Constitution provides, “The home club shall deliver to the League office the greater of $30,000 for each regular season and preseason game, or [forty percent] of the gross receipts after the following deductions . . . .”94 While this provision establishes a floor of $30,000 that must be shared by the home team for every game, in today’s market, forty percent of gross receipts will invariably exceed $30,000, thereby automatically triggering the forty percent option.95 Under the old system of gate receipt sharing, the ticket revenue for a particular game was shared roughly sixty-forty between the home and visiting team respectively with none of the ticket revenue reaching beyond the two teams participating in that particular game.

Although it would appear that gate receipts should be shared according to the sixty-forty split, certain deductions afforded to the home team cause the visiting team’s share to diminish to thirty-four percent of gross receipts. The NFL Constitution establishes that in addition to deductions for federal, state, and municipal taxes on ticket sales, the home team is allowed a significant deduction for “stadium rental allowance equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the gross receipts after deducting the taxes.”97 As a result of these deductions, the home team ends up giving the League thirty-four percent of the gross receipts for each home game (forty percent of the eighty-five percent remaining after the deduction for the stadium rental allowance).

Under the old system of gate receipt sharing, which was in place through the 2001 season, the League would then remit the thirty-four percent directly to the visiting team that played in that particular game.

In 2001, however, the NFL adopted a resolution amending its Constitution with the following language, “beginning with the 2002 NFL season, all regular season and preseason game visiting team shares shall be pooled and shared equally among the 32 Member Clubs.”100 This amendment to the revenue sharing of gate receipts should increase the redistributive effect of the League’s revenue sharing system, and serves as a further indication of the NFL’s commitment to the “League Think” philosophy. Under the old system, a popular team like the Dallas Cowboys could take advantage of the sellout crowds that it helped draw to opposing stadiums by keeping the entire thirty-four percent of gate receipts for itself. Conversely, perennial cellar-dwellers like the Arizona Cardinals, who drew far smaller crowds while on the road, experienced a competitive disadvantage because their visiting team share (“VTS”) was undoubtedly smaller than that of the Cowboys. By pooling each team’s VTS, and then redistributing the total amount equally among the individual franchises, the 2001 modification of gate receipt revenue sharing should help ensure greater financial equality throughout the league.

In opposition to this redistributive effect, financially-minded owners like Jerry Jones would argue that individual teams should be able to take advantage of their marketability, and should not be forced to carry the burden of less marketable teams. Despite the apparent justification for such an argument, the redistribution of revenue from teams at the top to teams at the bottom has become necessary for the continued economic success of the League; especially because the current economic inequality in the NFL has reached such critical levels that the future viability of lower-revenue teams is in serious doubt.

[COB]

For COB: There's some stuff in this pdf:

/>http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nfl%20ticket%20revenue%20split&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CG0QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.vanderbilt.edu%2Fpublications%2Fjournal-entertainment-technology-law%2Farchive%2Fdownload.aspx%3Fid%3D1778&ei=FRjoTqWrNaj10gGslLHxCQ&usg=AFQjCNHRJEBC9h0RAnRTX9RC-Jf_mcmyoA

If you can't get that the relevant info from pages 17-18 (note: doc from 2006):

While the equal sharing of television broadcasting rights is relatively straightforward, the sharing of gate receipts is more complex and deserves further explanation. First, it is imperative to distinguish between “ticket revenue” from luxury boxes, which is “subject to gate receipt sharing among NFL teams,” and non-ticket luxury box revenue, which is not subject to revenue sharing, and is therefore coveted by owners as a source of supplemental unshared revenue.92 This distinction is based on the idea that luxury boxes can be sold in such a way that they are not considered part of normal ticket sales, and thus are not considered gate receipts subject to revenue sharing.

Next, it is important to establish the precise manner in which gate receipts subject to revenue sharing are actually shared among the individual franchises. The NFL Constitution provides, “The home club shall deliver to the League office the greater of $30,000 for each regular season and preseason game, or [forty percent] of the gross receipts after the following deductions . . . .”94 While this provision establishes a floor of $30,000 that must be shared by the home team for every game, in today’s market, forty percent of gross receipts will invariably exceed $30,000, thereby automatically triggering the forty percent option.95 Under the old system of gate receipt sharing, the ticket revenue for a particular game was shared roughly sixty-forty between the home and visiting team respectively with none of the ticket revenue reaching beyond the two teams participating in that particular game.

Although it would appear that gate receipts should be shared according to the sixty-forty split, certain deductions afforded to the home team cause the visiting team’s share to diminish to thirty-four percent of gross receipts. The NFL Constitution establishes that in addition to deductions for federal, state, and municipal taxes on ticket sales, the home team is allowed a significant deduction for “stadium rental allowance equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the gross receipts after deducting the taxes.”97 As a result of these deductions, the home team ends up giving the League thirty-four percent of the gross receipts for each home game (forty percent of the eighty-five percent remaining after the deduction for the stadium rental allowance).

Under the old system of gate receipt sharing, which was in place through the 2001 season, the League would then remit the thirty-four percent directly to the visiting team that played in that particular game.

In 2001, however, the NFL adopted a resolution amending its Constitution with the following language, “beginning with the 2002 NFL season, all regular season and preseason game visiting team shares shall be pooled and shared equally among the 32 Member Clubs.”100 This amendment to the revenue sharing of gate receipts should increase the redistributive effect of the League’s revenue sharing system, and serves as a further indication of the NFL’s commitment to the “League Think” philosophy. Under the old system, a popular team like the Dallas Cowboys could take advantage of the sellout crowds that it helped draw to opposing stadiums by keeping the entire thirty-four percent of gate receipts for itself. Conversely, perennial cellar-dwellers like the Arizona Cardinals, who drew far smaller crowds while on the road, experienced a competitive disadvantage because their visiting team share (“VTS”) was undoubtedly smaller than that of the Cowboys. By pooling each team’s VTS, and then redistributing the total amount equally among the individual franchises, the 2001 modification of gate receipt revenue sharing should help ensure greater financial equality throughout the league.

In opposition to this redistributive effect, financially-minded owners like Jerry Jones would argue that individual teams should be able to take advantage of their marketability, and should not be forced to carry the burden of less marketable teams. Despite the apparent justification for such an argument, the redistribution of revenue from teams at the top to teams at the bottom has become necessary for the continued economic success of the League; especially because the current economic inequality in the NFL has reached such critical levels that the future viability of lower-revenue teams is in serious doubt.

Holy crap. Any thoughts on whether Mike gets to deduct the 15% stadium rental allowance? League Think tells me he gets the deduction, and the other owners all hate him for it.

[COB]

This amendment to the revenue sharing of gate receipts should increase the redistributive effect of the League’s revenue sharing system, and serves as a further indication of the NFL’s commitment to the “League Think” philosophy.... By pooling each team’s VTS, and then redistributing the total amount equally among the individual franchises, the 2001 modification of gate receipt revenue sharing should help ensure greater financial equality throughout the league.

Cob reads the above passage, pushes back from the computer, stands up, stretches and announces, "That thar's comminism! And the only way to deal with comminists is the ol' Red White and Blue way!

/straps on dual holsters filled with gigantic handguns/

/genuflects to pictures of Clint Eastwood and Ronald Reagan hanging on wall/

"I hereby rename you the USSRFL, comminist football league of America!"

/pulls pistols, fires wildly into wall and ceiling until chambers are empty/

Ball and Chain yells from bedroom, "What is it honey? Is it your prostate?"

"***damn! I told you the doctor said there was nothin' wrong with my prostate. I'm 49 years old is all, he said I have to expect nights like that. Damn!"

Ball and Chain yells from bedroom, "Then stop reading about Mike Brown on Bengalszone. Only click on the yarns about the players or the games, don't click on the Mike Brown yarns."

/reloads/

"Yarns? Jesus f**king Christ, yarns? Fugga... hamburger helper fwoosh... comminist f**kin' rigged league for Steelers to win everything, shaaaa..."

/more indiscriminate firing into walls and ceiling/

[HoosierCat]

:lmao: communist yams! :lmao:

[COB]

For COB: There's some stuff in this pdf:

/>http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=nfl%20ticket%20revenue%20split&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CG0QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.vanderbilt.edu%2Fpublications%2Fjournal-entertainment-technology-law%2Farchive%2Fdownload.aspx%3Fid%3D1778&ei=FRjoTqWrNaj10gGslLHxCQ&usg=AFQjCNHRJEBC9h0RAnRTX9RC-Jf_mcmyoA

If Mike didn't write this thing, I hope he at least endowed a chair at Vanderbilt Law School for the guy who did write it.

Wait, there's a chapter entitled, "THIRD AND LONG: THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF “LOCAL REVENUE” AND THE DESPERATE NEED FOR REVENUE SHARING REFORMS", so Mike definitely wrote it. It's in all caps in the table of contents, I LOL'd.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Holy crap. Any thoughts on whether Mike gets to deduct the 15% stadium rental allowance? League Think tells me he gets the deduction, and the other owners all hate him for it.

I'd bet on it. That '...and hate him for it' part is what will ultimately kill the competitive balance of the league. I skimmed that Vandy paper, but it seems that those assumptions only hold if the teams actually use the money to, you know, compete. If they line their pockets with it, at some point the "haves" will cut off the spigot. They'll decide they aren't getting a good enough return on their investment.

One other variable at play in terms of revenue sharing - most of the money made by teams over the last decade or so, maybe two, has not come in the form of operational profits. It has come in the form of franchise equity. As a result, the "haves" have been relatively content, I think, to throw a little operational cash at the "have nots" in the interest of making the league, and hence their franchises, more valuable. I think those days are done, for a lot of reasons I won't detail in a post. But suffice it to say, once franchise values level off, the "haves" will start expecting their investments to start generating cash, and won't be too interested in seeing the likes of Mike Brown stuff their cash in his pockets without enhancing the value of the league.

It will get very interesting when franchise value stagnation overlaps a CBA renegotiation.

[Sea Ray]

Let's be accurate on this one because it matters.

They're not crazy. They're stupid.

And they're hurting this team far more than they're hurting Mike Brown.

I wouldn't say that. In fact, I'd venture to say that fans ripping up their season ticket/luxury box renewal forms has already paid dividends. It wasn't until Mike Brown saw that very fact that he axed Bratkowski. If the fans blindly supported the team with no pushback, MB would have kept the guy. It was quite clear that he fired Bratkowski very reluctantly

[Sea Ray]

Hoosier, it sounds to me like the gate receipts are not spread 32 ways but that the home team gets to keep 60-68% of it

[HoosierCat]

Hoosier, it sounds to me like the gate receipts are not spread 32 ways but that the home team gets to keep 60-68% of it

Yeah, it looks like they are just pooling & splitting the visiting team share (which still benefits Mike since he shares in sellouts elsewhere without contributing one of his own). I could have sworn they changed it to include all gate revenue but I guess not.

[derekshank]

Let's be accurate on this one because it matters.

They're not crazy. They're stupid.

And they're hurting this team far more than they're hurting Mike Brown.

I wouldn't say that. In fact, I'd venture to say that fans ripping up their season ticket/luxury box renewal forms has already paid dividends. It wasn't until Mike Brown saw that very fact that he axed Bratkowski. If the fans blindly supported the team with no pushback, MB would have kept the guy. It was quite clear that he fired Bratkowski very reluctantly

If there was an external reason for Mike Brown firing Bratkowski, it had a lot more to do with trying to persuade Carson Palmer to come back than it did to appease the fanbase.

[walzav29]

Lets not forget that it was the worst publicized offseason ever. Green and Dalton turned out to be phenoms, and getting those picks for Palmer was a miracle. But there was humiliation after humiliation. Then the fact that they can't beat a good team. The schedule is soft. All they had to do was beat Pitt or Baltimore. They couldn't do it. The worst part is the fans that stay away are being proved right. I don't know if it's Marv or the practice bubble, but they are fading fast. Yes this year is a pleasant surprise but the majority of people didn't think they'd make the playoffs, and they don't look wrong. It's their own fault. Win and they will come.

[Sea Ray]

If there was an external reason for Mike Brown firing Bratkowski, it had a lot more to do with trying to persuade Carson Palmer to come back than it did to appease the fanbase.

I disagree and here's why: If the change at OC was meant to appease Carson Palmer then why did he choose a system that doesn't fit Palmer's game? Why would he think a west coast offense would temp Palmer to return? If he'd hired someone with close ties to Palmer like Norm Chow, I'd be more inclined to agree with you

[skyline]

If there was an external reason for Mike Brown firing Bratkowski, it had a lot more to do with trying to persuade Carson Palmer to come back than it did to appease the fanbase.

I disagree and here's why: If the change at OC was meant to appease Carson Palmer then why did he choose a system that doesn't fit Palmer's game? Why would he think a west coast offense would temp Palmer to return? If he'd hired someone with close ties to Palmer like Norm Chow, I'd be more inclined to agree with you

When has Mike Brown ever made a football decision to appease the fan base? Seems like a pretty laughable idea from where I'm sitting. Mike Brown is loyal. That much is clear. It seems like Brat finally wore out his welcome to a point that even Mike Brown had to admit that it wasn't working out. And, as usual, it took a season or two longer to happen than it should have, but this isn't anything new or surprising. It's not exactly a scandulous or exciting interpretation of the scenario, but I'd be willing to bet it's a lot more accurate.

As for the issue of fans, it's not unique to Cincy. The Titans are having exactly the same problem. It doesn't show up in the numbers because fans actually bought tickets. The fact is that even though they paid for them, they STILL aren't willing to show up. To remedy this, they are planning major upgrades to the stadium...new HD jumbotrons, etc. Not that any of this will work long-term if the team still can't win consistently.

[derekshank]

If there was an external reason for Mike Brown firing Bratkowski, it had a lot more to do with trying to persuade Carson Palmer to come back than it did to appease the fanbase.

I disagree and here's why: If the change at OC was meant to appease Carson Palmer then why did he choose a system that doesn't fit Palmer's game? Why would he think a west coast offense would temp Palmer to return? If he'd hired someone with close ties to Palmer like Norm Chow, I'd be more inclined to agree with you

First of all... I didn't say that Palmer was the reason MB made the move. Only that "IF" there was an external motivation, it wasn't the fanbase doing the motivating.

Secondly... Palmer not "fitting" into Gruden's system is neither entirely accurate, nor something that Mike Brown probably gave more than two seconds of thought to. Remember that even after hiring Gruden and making the decision to let Palmer retire, MB was said to have been interested in drafting Mallet.

[HoosierCat]

IIRC, the scuttlebutt back in early to mid-January was that Brat would hang on, but that they would bring in someone as "offensive consultant." This was the gig that Brad Childress supposedly declined. I would agree that Palmer quitting led to Brat being fired, but I don't think it was an attempt to lure Carson back. Rather, it was an admission that since Palmer had blown up the "continuity" strategy for dealing with the lockout, they may as well move on now.

[Sea Ray]

First of all... I didn't say that Palmer was the reason MB made the move. Only that "IF" there was an external motivation, it wasn't the fanbase doing the motivating.

Secondly... Palmer not "fitting" into Gruden's system is neither entirely accurate, nor something that Mike Brown probably gave more than two seconds of thought to. Remember that even after hiring Gruden and making the decision to let Palmer retire, MB was said to have been interested in drafting Mallet.

Why do you suppose MB waited so long to replace Brat? He easily could have announced the firing at the now infamous moribound presser where he and Marvin announced no changes for 2011. I think it was a fan revolt that led to Brat's firing and led to the decision to hire Marvin in the first place; which was a radical move for Mikey

[Sea Ray]

IIRC, the scuttlebutt back in early to mid-January was that Brat would hang on, but that they would bring in someone as "offensive consultant." This was the gig that Brad Childress supposedly declined. I would agree that Palmer quitting led to Brat being fired, but I don't think it was an attempt to lure Carson back. Rather, it was an admission that since Palmer had blown up the "continuity" strategy for dealing with the lockout, they may as well move on now.

At the very least MB was clearly very reluctant to fire Brat. It took alll of the above plus guys like Cedric Benson to get Brat fired

[membengal]

i f**kin hate the jets.

As of yesterday afternoon I f**king hate the Bengals.

But I'll probably get over it.

I have not gotten over it yet. Still pissed.

[HairOnFire]

Agreed. But all of the examples you have mentioned and the lack of attendance can be attributed to one factor. Winning games. And winning games is not the fans responsibility.

How many NFL teams have been eliminated from the playoffs already but have better attendance than the Bengals? Ten? And how many teams that have a poorer won/loss record than the Bengals can boast of better attendance? All of them, right?