TJJackson Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 16 minutes ago, HoosierCat said: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/27/nfl-private-equity-ownership-vote.html It will be interesting to see if Mike is willing to sell a piece of the team. he does need a new alternator on the Lumina, so....... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted August 28 Report Share Posted August 28 Well I guess we know how this will unfold for the Bengals. The vote was passed 31-1. I will give you one guess who the one team that voted against was... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted August 28 Report Share Posted August 28 Mike at every owners meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted August 28 Report Share Posted August 28 It was Katie upholding the family tradition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted August 29 Report Share Posted August 29 It’s tough being a Brown, owning the least valuable NFL franchise. https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinteitelbaum/2024/08/29/the-nfls-most-valuable-teams-2024/ Worth just a measly $4 billion. I dunno how he puts food on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted August 29 Report Share Posted August 29 Considering that 12 years ago he bought the team for $1 billion, I’d say that’s a pretty good return on investment. We all should be so unfortunate… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPHAR Posted September 3 Report Share Posted September 3 I'm surprised the NFL has not expanded. The franchise fees get split among the ownership groups. Considering what some of the newer owners paid, I'm sure they'd love a cash influx to settle some debts or return investment stakes. I don't think the Brown family has a billion in the Bengals. I don't think they had majority when Paul past away. I think Mike spent the 90s sucking money out of the team to secure tax issues, stadium issues, and buying shares of the team. They probably paid a couple hundred million for the team IF they own 100%. Can't remember if they do or don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted September 3 Report Share Posted September 3 The Brown family owns almost all of the team, iirc. I think there’s a couple percent held by some old friend of the family, but for all intents and purposes they own the whole shebang. I’ve seen the family’s net worth estimated in the $2.1 billion range. How much of that is liquid is anyone’s guess. Yeah, Mike spent the 90s buying back “shares” that Paul sold before his death as a scheme to avoid paying estate taxes. This let them pretend to be corporation, but the shares had to be sold back to the Brown family at a set price within a few years of Paul’s death. The IRS sued, of course, and the judge in the case ruled that it absolutely was a tax scam, but unfortunately for them was not actually illegal at the time. Some of the shareholders also sued, saying the set price didn’t reflect the increased value of the team, which was true, but that too got thrown out and they had to sell them back at the pre set price. And of course, Mike famously paid himself and his family members handsomely during the 90s, lots of fat salaries and bonuses while the team burned. NFL definitely wants to expand. Mexico City and London seem the two most likely spots to me right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted September 3 Report Share Posted September 3 Related: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/03/soaring-sports-team-values-pressure-owners-on-taxes-succession.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted September 3 Report Share Posted September 3 I would rather see expansion into other US cities than to countries outside of the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted September 3 Report Share Posted September 3 1 hour ago, ArmyBengal said: I would rather see expansion into other US cities than to countries outside of the US. It's possible I suppose but it's kind of challenging fitting many more in. For example, San Antonio, Austin and Fort Worth are all among the top 12 cities by population, but I don't think Jerrah or the McNairs would be very keen on three more Texas teams. San Diego is the 8th-largest city in the US and just lost its team. Would San Jose, being NoCal, fare any better than SoCal SD? I dunno. How about Columbus? I'm gonna bet Mike sees that as his (and, no doubt grudgingly, the Buckeyes') territory. Omaha? Salt Lake City? Des Moines? Man, if you thought it used to be hard to get FAs to sign in Cincy, wait until you get a call from f**king Omaha. Trust me, I've been there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPHAR Posted September 3 Report Share Posted September 3 I would guess international expansion would be the best for them. It gives them access to new media markets and companies to sell broadcast rights to. Any market in the US is already consuming the NFL at some level so the bump wouldn't be nearly as great. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted September 3 Report Share Posted September 3 Oh I get the challenge, along with their being enough talent to field additional teams. Omaha? Yeah, you can keep that city. It's not that's NOT a nice city, it's just in the middle of fucking nowhere. I lived in Sioux Falls, SD for 3 years and it felt desolate. Nice place, nice people, outdoorsy community, but nowhere. It's not that I'm irritated by it either. It's pointless. At some point, there will be permanent teams in various other countries. I just won't be a fan of it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted September 4 Report Share Posted September 4 On 8/27/2024 at 9:33 AM, HoosierCat said: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/27/nfl-private-equity-ownership-vote.html It will be interesting to see if Mike is willing to sell a piece of the team. You must be joking. There is no way Mike will sell part of the team. I think that’s why he voted no, doesn’t want the other owners getting a big cash infusion when he knows he won’t do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted September 4 Report Share Posted September 4 11 hours ago, COB said: You must be joking. There is no way Mike will sell part of the team. I think that’s why he voted no, doesn’t want the other owners getting a big cash infusion when he knows he won’t do it. I agree, it would be very unlike Mike to let anyone else in the door. But ultimately he may not have a choice. One thing that immediately occurred me when this news came out was that it just became a lot harder for the Bengals to argue they need $300-400-500 million or whatever in taxpayer money to upgrade the stadium. If anything, I think that's where the "no" came from: the NFL just kneecapped him in his stadium negotiations with the county. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted September 4 Report Share Posted September 4 Teams will have another way to come up with guaranteed money for high profile players as well. Something the Bengals have seemingly struggled with as well until all the naming rights deal. Remember when that was something they had never done before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted September 4 Report Share Posted September 4 The sports world is changing. The gambling money, private equity, etc. Mike really never adapted to the state of affairs from which the NFL is now evolving. The Bengals are getting left further in the dust. Mike can cling to that revenue sharing clause all he wants, these other owners are innovating and developing work arounds that are giving their organizations more and more financial advantages. And no one recognizes this quite like agents do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted September 4 Report Share Posted September 4 1 hour ago, ArmyBengal said: Teams will have another way to come up with guaranteed money for high profile players as well. Something the Bengals have seemingly struggled with as well until all the naming rights deal. Remember when that was something they had never done before? Yeah, they could use it to solve their "cash on hand" issues, but since a PE investment would be a one-time infusion versus an ongoing revenue stream, it would get depleted pretty quickly. I think the team would be on strong ground if it argued that PE money should be devoted to the capital budget versus the operational budget. Businesses that try to fund operations through one-time sources generally find that it's a bad plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted September 4 Report Share Posted September 4 I guess that's true as well. Like COB mentioned though, some team will innovate to such a degree where it becomes a financial advantage in a way that other teams haven't thought of. When opportunities are simply dismissed, they are lost. That's where a decade like the 90's happens. It's like the thinking that if you don't work on your business processes, you can bet someone else will be working on theirs and sooner or later you will get left behind. Don't do that... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPHAR Posted September 4 Report Share Posted September 4 Mega owners vs. Family has been a thing since the Salary Cap era. Metrics change or whatever. At the end of the day, the salary cap is what it is. Teams can go cash over cap but eventually they must pay the piper no matter what uninformed media wants to print. The salary cap is 48% of designated revenues not the full 100%. If you take a gander at the Cash spending there are mega owner Rams and Cowboys sitting at the bottom this year. Rams were dead last year along with Glazer family, Krafts, and whatever Commanders management group is funded by. It goes back to the Marvin Lewis year of not getting done. The bengals front office has been at the top of finding and building rosters for a longer time before Joe Burrow. You got to fire you best shot while you have the talent. Pending on what happens with Chase. That window could be extended for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPHAR Posted September 4 Report Share Posted September 4 37 minutes ago, ArmyBengal said: I guess that's true as well. Like COB mentioned though, some team will innovate to such a degree where it becomes a financial advantage in a way that other teams haven't thought of. When opportunities are simply dismissed, they are lost. That's where a decade like the 90's happens. It's like the thinking that if you don't work on your business processes, you can bet someone else will be working on theirs and sooner or later you will get left behind. Don't do that... There's only so long you can go cash over cap no matter who is providing the cash. The Rams predictably are at the bottom after buying a Superbowl. So are the Cowboys. Eventually the top spender in Cleveland will find themselves at the bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted September 4 Report Share Posted September 4 The point I’m making in this is that business processes always change. This is no different. Someone will find a way to use this to their advantage. If the mindset is we won’t do anything because of current thinking, future opportunities could be missed. Are you striving to move forward or are you stagnant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPHAR Posted September 5 Report Share Posted September 5 Bengals have moved forward plenty. I don't know why fans/media are determined to hold on to the 90s mindset. Maybe its time to revisit Ki Jana Carter drying off with a hand rag? Its fact the Bengals have voted "No" in the minority or lone wolf on several issues in the past and their point of view is latter accepted by the majority and even sometimes influence policy. Not all the time. Until the salary cap and revenue sharing platforms significantly change the rest is ALL hot air. The blow hard media that overwhelming are hacks with spout off when the Rams are buying a Superbowl "does the cap even exist?, the salary cap is a myth". Very few of them will point out when that same franchise is dead last in cash spending. Credit to the Rams though, because they haven't fallen off the cliff in terms of football W/L despite their spending levels. Truck Stop owner up in Cleveland is spending his ass off. We'll see if he has done a good job of building a football foundation when eventually his spending will decrease significantly. So far the Brown family has 2013,2015,2021,2022 Division Champ. 2021 AFC Champs. 2022 AFC runner up and Cleveland a big fat 0 since his ownership. All the ownership configurations they've since the reboot haven't produced a division champ since the return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted September 5 Report Share Posted September 5 I've never suggested the Bengals haven't moved forward. I'm speaking specifically to this point. Seeing as how this one involves money coming into the organization, it's different than say a rule change they voted against. I think the Bengals have good people in place and have built a much improved culture since coach Zac was hired. I won't say that's been the norm for them. I simply want them to continue down the path they have paved in recent years. The Browns will always be the Browns. The Watson deal will continue to be the noose around their neck. Spending does not always equate to moving forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted September 5 Report Share Posted September 5 Wanted to drop this here because it’s got some numbers I had not seen before. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/05/rising-nfl-valuations-massive-returns-for-owners.html Quote The NFL’s current television agreements with Comcast,Disney, Paramount and Fox, which began last season, are worth an average of $9.2 billion a year, 85% more than the previous deals. Add in the streaming deals with YouTube for NFL Sunday Ticket and with Amazon Prime for Thursday Night Football, and the NFL is guaranteed an average of $12.4 billion a year through 2032 — almost double the $6.48 billion a year it collected during its previous media rights cycle. On top of those bulk agreements, the league has been boosting its media revenue by selling additional streaming games. Last season, the NFL sold exclusive streaming rights to a Wild Card playoff game to Comcast’s Peacock streaming service for $110 million, according to a person familiar with the deal. The league sold three exclusive streaming packages for this season: two Christmas Day games on Netflix for a total of $150 million; a Wild Card game on Amazon Prime for $120 million; and an international regular-season game on Peacock for $80 million, according to the person familiar with the agreements. The league should get about $200 million for its commercial Sunday Ticket rights, which gets an array of NFL games into bars and restaurants, according to the person familiar with the matter. All of those agreements combined bring total media rights fees to $357 million per team, up from $325 million in 2023. The 32 teams share the national media deal revenue evenly, along with money from leaguewide sponsorship and licensing deals and 34% of gate receipts. In 2023, $13.68 billion, or 67%, of the NFL’s $20.47 billion in revenue was shared equally. When such large revenue sharing is combined with a salary cap that limits player spending to about 49% of revenue, teams in small markets such as Green Bay; Wisconsin; and Buffalo, New York, can compete with big-market teams in New York and Los Angeles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.