During free agency there was some thought that maybe the Bengals didn't pursue "big ticket" free agents because they aren't flush with cash.

Well, the recent locations will net Mike Brown over $50 million. That should get rid of any excuse next season if someone wonders if they have any extra cash laying around.

http://nyg.247sports.com/Bolt/NFL-owners-set-to-make-53-million-each-from-recent-relocations-51999633

(03-27-2017, 10:35 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: During free agency there was some thought that maybe the Bengals didn't pursue "big ticket" free agents because they aren't flush with cash.

Well, the recent locations will net Mike Brown over $50 million.  That should get rid of any excuse next season if someone wonders if they have any extra cash laying around.

http://nyg.247sports.com/Bolt/NFL-owners-set-to-make-53-milliony-each-from-recent-relocations-51999633

I don't think they have cash issues. MB is a great businessman.But, they can only spend to the cap and every team got that cash, not just the Bengals. It is a lot of money, but government will get 50% of it. Is anyone upset the Us Government, state of Ohio and city of Cincinnati just got a lot of money too?

(03-27-2017, 11:11 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I don't think they have cash issues. MB is a great businessman.But, they can only spend to the cap and every team got that cash, not just the Bengals. It is a lot of money, but government will get 50% of it. Is anyone upset the Us Government, state of Ohio and city of Cincinnati just got a lot of money too?

I don't think they have cash issues either.  There were some guys that I talked to that thought that since the Bengals were a small market team they may not have a surplus of cash to spend on big upfront signing bonuses.

I don't buy it for one minute.

(03-27-2017, 11:17 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: I don't think they have cash issues either.  There were some guys that I talked to that thought that since the Bengals were a small market team they may not have a surplus of cash to spend on big upfront signing bonuses.

I don't buy it for one minute.

Even if they did, teams get loans all the time for bonuses and huge contracts. A bonus can be pro rated over the ife of a contract so paying the player 100% upfront for a 5 year contract, they just get a 5 year loan.

Their worth 1.6 billion they made 329 million dollars last year in revenue and only spend 60 million. They have​ plenty of money there not going to go poor.

(03-27-2017, 11:25 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Even if they did, teams get loans all the time for bonuses and huge contracts. A bonus can be pro rated over the ife of a contract so paying the player 100% upfront for a 5 year contract, they just get a 5 year loan.

Why would an NFL team that cash stable take out a 5 year loan, the pay hundreds of thousands in interest? You contradict yourself in the above paragraph as well, what you say doesn't make sense.

(03-27-2017, 11:17 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: I don't think they have cash issues either.  There were some guys that I talked to that thought that since the Bengals were a small market team they may not have a surplus of cash to spend on big upfront signing bonuses.

I don't buy it for one minute.

People don't understand revenue sharing and how it works in the NFL.  The NFL is not MLB where you have the large market teams spending over $200 million while the Kansas City's of the world can't come close to that.

Some people understand cash flow and having a reserve fund for unexpected expenditures while some people think that if you have $100 in their wallet at any given time they too can live in Trump tower..
My girlfriend is one of those people who gets how money works.
She earns less than $15,000 a year and gets about $600 monthly from social security, but yet her net worth makes it look like she makes MUCH MUCH more.. Her house is valued at around $250k and is completely paid for. 
As she loves to tell people, they think she's a terrible housekeeper, but in fact during the divorce she kept the house. I'm one of the people who don't really care if I have a lot of money or not. Life still goes on and if I lose everything I own (I have lost everything several times) I can reacquire 'stuff' quickly ..
 I don't have access to the books of the Cincinnati Bengals, but if I did I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't tell the same story that seems common on these forums about MB only sitting on huge stacks of cash like Charles Dickens' Scrooge . 
Oh look! The ghost of xmas past!

The bottom line is every NFL team makes the majority of their money from the TV revenue. All of the NFL teams are making a huge profit. Not all NFL teams choose to cut into that profit and put it into the team in an attempt to win. There is a salary floor, but spending to the salary floor doesn't make teams go broke. The Bengals, and other franchises, choose to spend less than they could and that money goes nowhere but into their own pockets. It's a business.

On the other hand, you have some meddling owners who will do whatever they can to win, and that includes spend their own money.

(03-28-2017, 11:06 AM)grampahol Wrote: Some people understand cash flow and having a reserve fund for unexpected expenditures while some people think that if you have $100 in their wallet at any given time they too can live in Trump tower..
My girlfriend is one of those people who gets how money works.
She earns less than $15,000 a year and gets about $600 monthly from social security, but yet her net worth makes it look like she makes MUCH MUCH more.. Her house is valued at around $250k and is completely paid for. 
As she loves to tell people, they think she's a terrible housekeeper, but in fact during the divorce she kept the house. I'm one of the people who don't really care if I have a lot of money or not. Life still goes on and if I lose everything I own (I have lost everything several times) I can reacquire 'stuff' quickly ..
 I don't have access to the books of the Cincinnati Bengals, but if I did I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't tell the same story that seems common on these forums about MB only sitting on huge stacks of cash like Charles Dickens' Scrooge . 
Oh look! The ghost of xmas past!

I would actually be very shocked if the Bengals have less than $100 million in cash.  Mike Brown has owned this team for over 20 years, there's no way he didn't make (and stash) $5 million per year.

(03-28-2017, 12:12 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: I would actually be very shocked if the Bengals have less than $100 million in cash.  Mike Brown has owned this team for over 20 years, there's no way he didn't make (and stash) $5 million per year.

If you owned an NFL franchise and weren't able to pocket 5 million a year there would be something seriously wrong with your math skills say nothing about your money management skills..

(03-27-2017, 11:52 PM)OrangeLacroix Wrote: Why would an NFL team that cash stable take out a 5 year loan, the pay hundreds of thousands in interest?  You contradict yourself in the above paragraph as well, what you say doesn't make sense.

I was saying cash strapped teams do just that, they do take out loans for huge bonuses. They do it not because they want to pay interest, but because they don't in some cases have 20 million dollars laying around.

I also stated I did not feel the Bengals had cash issues a couple of times in this thread. But, 31 other teams and always someone who does not manage money as well as others.

(03-27-2017, 11:46 PM)J24 Wrote: Their worth 1.6 billion they made 329 million dollars last year in revenue and only spend 60 million. They have plenty of money  there not going to go poor.

I could not get the article so sorry if my question was answered it.
To clarify, revenue is not net profit. You mentioned revenue of $329 million and only 60 million in spend. How is that possible if the Bengals spent $145 million in salaries and bonuses for players alone?

Should the team be broke? I dare say not. Heck, the website has a full page dedicated to people's dogs dressed in Bengals gear. If you own a business and can get people to dress their dogs with your company logo and actually brag about it you deserve all the money that could possibly come your way. 
That ain't saying much for the people who actually dress their dogs that way, but that's another story for the discussion of mental illness. 

(03-28-2017, 12:18 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I was saying cash strapped teams do just that, they do take out loans for huge bonuses. They do it not because they want to pay interest, but because they don't in some cases have 20 million dollars laying around.

I also stated I did not feel the Bengals had cash issues a couple of times in this thread. But, 31 other teams and always someone who does not manage money as well as others.

Not to mention the fact that these guys don't pay the same interest as you or I do.  They are usually given extremely generous rates, so much so that it actually makes sense to take on the debt versus having the one time huge outlay of cash.

(03-27-2017, 11:17 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: I don't think they have cash issues either.  There were some guys that I talked to that thought that since the Bengals were a small market team they may not have a surplus of cash to spend on big upfront signing bonuses.

I don't buy it for one minute.

There is revenue sharing in the NFL and the salary cap is set to a percentage of the total revenue. The system assures that the Bengals have money to spend.

Being in a small-market is irrelevant in the NFL.

Now in Baseball and Hockey it does matter.

(03-28-2017, 01:04 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: There is revenue sharing in the NFL and the salary cap is set to a percentage of the total revenue. The system assures that the Bengals have money to spend.

Being in a small-market is irrelevant in the NFL.

Now in Baseball and Hockey it does matter.

No doubt, it certainly helps a lot to insure a profit for owners. But a small market team with 360 million in revenue (including NFL sharing of revenue) and a cap spend of $150 million makes far less than a team like Dallas with 1 billion in revenue and the same cap spend of 150 million because Dallas can't spend more than the cap limits, just like the small market teams

So this biggest expense (payroll for players) is close to being even in spite of big markets having much more revenue. They created revenue sharing because small market teams could not afford to spend as much the big markets without help from the NFL. This would have created a situation of billionaires buying championships which was not good long term for any owner and the league.

(03-27-2017, 11:11 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I don't think they have cash issues. MB is a great businessman.But, they can only spend to the cap and every team got that cash, not just the Bengals. It is a lot of money, but government will get 50% of it. Is anyone upset the Us Government, state of Ohio and city of Cincinnati just got a lot of money too?

First off yes think the government getting about 40 % of lottery winners money is a farce. But believe these rich tycoon NFL owners write off lots to not pay as much as they should. 

But not sure it is great business the way MB runs it. 

The NE Patriots sold for $175 million in 1994 and are now according to forbes the net worth is 3.4 billion dollars.

Could not find the net worth of the Bengals in 1994 but suspect it was close to the $175 million. Almost late for work so can not investigate. Even if only half it would still prove point. 

The Bengals have a net worth of 905 million which is 48 million less than last year ? 

Winning a SB would certainly increase the value of the team I believe, especially several SB's. 

Playing it safe in the NFL is foolish. You are guaranteed to profit but could hit the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if a dynasty is formed. 

He should roll the dice. The Patriots are proof. 

(03-28-2017, 12:22 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I could not get the article so sorry if my question was answered it.
To clarify, revenue is not net profit. You mentioned revenue of $329 million and only 60 million in spend. How is that possible if the Bengals spent $145 million in salaries and bonuses for players alone?

I read it wrong it was operating income that was 60 million still there not going broke by any means and any thing that suggest that is stupid.

(03-28-2017, 02:11 PM)Go Cards Wrote: First off yes think the government getting about 40 % of lottery winners money is a farce. But believe these rich tycoon NFL owners write off lots to not pay as much as they should. 

But not sure it is great business the way MB runs it. 

The NE Patriots sold for $175 million in 1994 and are now according to forbes the net worth is 3.4 billion dollars.

Could not find the net worth of the Bengals in 1994 but suspect it was close to the $175 million. Almost late for work so can not investigate. Even if only half it would still prove point. 

The Bengals have a net worth of 905 million which is 48 million less than last year ? 

Winning a SB would certainly increase the value of the team I believe, especially several SB's. 

Playing it safe in the NFL is foolish. You are guaranteed to profit but could hit the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if a dynasty is formed. 

He should roll the dice. The Patriots are proof. 

You just changed the conversation to reinvestment in people (players) and resources. I agree 100%, a winning team will definitely increase the value of a team/business. However, value (equity) is not cash now, it is huge for loans and investment purposes not only in this business, but possibly others for the bank to approve it, but the only way to get your equity (value) 100% is to sell the asset (team).