(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. 

(03-28-2017, 02:08 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: 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.

(03-28-2017, 07:11 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Yep...and in the NFL it shows in the playoff stats. Something like 80% of the teams have won 5+ playoff games over the last 25 years.

So while it is easier to make  the playoffs and win a game or two...generally the same teams have represented the AFC in the Super Bowl for the past 20 years. Steelers, Patriots, Colts, Ravens, Broncos, and Oakland (going back to 2001).

So parity gets you to the dance...good management gets you to the Championship.

(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?

(03-28-2017, 08:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: The point of this thread is moot as the relocation fee is not subject to revenue sharing and does not affect the cap.

(03-28-2017, 08:50 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The Packers, home to the NFL's smallest single market, made like $30m in profit in 2014. That's pure profit, after all their expenses, including paying for stadium upgrades/repairs, and buying land around the stadium.

So there's no way that Mike Brown makes less than that seeing as how he doesn't really need to spend money on the stadium or land around it and is a bigger market. Then you figure that the cap in 2014 was $133m, and the cap in 2017 is $167m. That's $34m more, and the FO gets nearly an equal amount of that to match the increase (50/50 split).

So there's 0 chance that Mike Brown is walking away with less than $50m in profit from 2017 and that's an extremely conservative floor. Don't let Luvnit's many-year-long attempt at trying to tell people how poor Mike Brown is, actually convince anyone.

(03-28-2017, 09:30 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Oh...they may make more profit than that even.

Forbes has their Player expenses at $185 million.

Then Revenue at $329 million and operating income at $60 million.



https://www.forbes.com/teams/cincinnati-bengals/

(03-28-2017, 10:14 PM)Au165 Wrote: Correct, but still moot. The point is people say they don't bring big name guys in because of money, which is false. They don't bring them in because the way they do cap accounting which is not impacted at all by non shared revenue. If it was shared revenue it would impact the cap number i.e. going up, but since it doesn't I once again repeat this has nothing to do with anything.

(03-28-2017, 10:14 PM)Au165 Wrote: Correct, but still moot. The point is people say they don't bring big name guys in because of money, which is false. They don't bring them in because the way they do cap accounting which is not impacted at all by non shared revenue. If it was shared revenue it would impact the cap number i.e. going up, but since it doesn't I once again repeat this has nothing to do with anything.

(03-29-2017, 11:55 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I really think a big part of why they don't bring big names in has to do with the small scouting department and being burned by guys like Odom and Bryant.

(03-28-2017, 09:32 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Interestingly enough...taxpayers have paid $920 million to keep the Bengals in Cincy since 2001.

 Money well spent as you have witnessed a grand total of 0 playoff wins! 

So IF the Bengals try to get a new stadium in 2026...PBS could close without having ever witnessed a playoff win! That's crazy to think about!

Precisely,  it's more than the amount The Bengals spend but how smartly they spend it, as well.  The Redskins spend close to the salary cap limits and all they have to show is is 5 playoff berths with 2 wins in the 17yrs since Snyder has taken over.

(03-29-2017, 12:27 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Revenue sharing and the fact that the salary cap is based on total revenue basically makes the premise of the OP a moot point.

One interesting thing I'd like to know would be how much the members of the Brown family pay themselves.

The Bengals Team makes money...but that profit stays with the Bengals. The ownership would take salaries to make their money.

(03-29-2017, 12:33 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: At the end of the day, that profit does go to the owners.  They may leave some, take some as year end bonus, but it is Mike Brown's money.

(03-29-2017, 12:54 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Which is a conflict of interest in some ways. GM's go out and improve the team as they see fit.

When the owner is the de facto GM...there is a little more incentive to keep expenses lower to increase profit.