(09-03-2019, 12:29 AM)I_C_DeadPeople Wrote: So, why is the team a bottom third in revenue? Some Other small market teams are not

(09-03-2019, 03:11 AM)t3r3e3 Wrote: The league also has revenue sharing. With modern day media options the number one goal is to run a successful, competitive franchise. Do that and fans from all over the world will flock to the team.  The Seahawks, Saints, and Patriots were terrible in the 80’s and 90’s save for a couple of seasons.  Build a solid, winning franchise, and voila, fans coming out of the woodwork.  Mike Brown is too cheap to try to build a top tier organization.

(09-03-2019, 12:38 PM)Whatever Wrote: It's actually bottom 3 in revenue.  30th, to be exact.

There's a number of factors as to why.  Obviously, lack of on field success over the team's history is a big issue.  You had a down decade and the team never had a SB win to galvanize a generation of fans.  

Another big issue is competition.  Not only are they a small market team, but they are in the same state in the same conference as another NFL team. It's harder to grow the fanbase because they split airtime in a number of large in state tv markets.  They also have intense competition for merchandise dollars from Ohio State.  Most of their star players aren't that marketable, either.

Another reality is that while salaries are pretty much fixed across the board in the NFL, potential revenue is dictated by market.  No matter how good the Bengals are, they will never be able to charge the ticket, concession, souvenir, and parking prices that teams can charge in New York or LA.  Most people in the market just can't afford those prices.  

The NFL has revenue sharing, but there are still rich and poor teams. As an example, based on 2017 numbers the difference between the Cowboys with the most revenue and the Giants with the 3rd most revenue was more than the Bengals total revenue for the year.  The Bengals were $60 million short of league average.

We can argue that if he built a winner, revenue would increase, but it's a competitive industry where 31 other teams have the same goal.  Spending more doesn't necessarily mean the team will win more, and given playoff years where they couldn't fill PBS, winning more doesn't necessarily indicate a large upturn in income.  

(09-02-2019, 01:12 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: And the disparity in number of scouts compared to other teams.

He’s cheap. Let’s be honest. This thread was probably well intentioned, but it feels like a spin job...

(09-03-2019, 02:47 PM)I_C_DeadPeople Wrote: A huge factor who omitted was franchise value. The Steelers, who  are not really in a big market, have invested (not spent) in their team success and branding so their team value is like a $1B higher than the Bengals - this is due to the BRAND, not just the local market. Mikey is clueless in this regard. The more you can build the brand the more revenue that comes in. GB is a small market as well but they have a decades old brand and they keep investing in winning football. When you hire more and better scouts and better coaches you are investing in the team not spending. Mikey sees it as spending and he only 'gets away with it' so to speak because of revenue sharing. 

(09-03-2019, 05:39 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: hes not cheap from a contract standpoint... Hes not Super rich outside of football either.

(09-03-2019, 07:30 PM)Whatever Wrote: The Steelers can easily build their brand based on a couple of factors.  They won 4 Super Bowls back in the '70's which bought them a generation of loyal fans.  When the steel industry collapsed, those fans spread around the country and created pockets of Steeler fans all over.  They also currently have a HoF QB, which makes marketing much easier, as well as numerous other marketable stars through the years.

Green Bay is a similar situation to Pittsburgh, but their fanbase is literally invested in the team due to their grandfathered in ownership structure.  Honestly, they are not that well run of an organization, but they've had back to back HoF QB's that have helped keep them competitive when they haven't had a bunch of surrounding talent.  The Packers stunk for a long time from the end of the Lombardi era until the time they got Favre.  

A huge factor in franchise valuation is also whether the team owns it's own stadium or not.  

(09-02-2019, 02:53 PM)Synric Wrote: This isnt the 80s and 90s anymore. 

You dont have to send out a bunch of scouts to watch games because they are all online now. It doesnt take 15 scouts to sit in a room and watch game film it just takes a few good scouts.

(09-03-2019, 07:48 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The Packers aren't well run? Having back-to-back HOF QB's isn't just luck. They traded for one and drafted the other and it wasn't like Rodgers was the top pick of the draft.

Compare that to a Bengals team that hasn't won A SINGLE PLAYOFF GAME in 28+ YEARS.

(09-03-2019, 07:30 PM)Whatever Wrote: The Steelers can easily build their brand based on a couple of factors.  They won 4 Super Bowls back in the '70's which bought them a generation of loyal fans.  When the steel industry collapsed, those fans spread around the country and created pockets of Steeler fans all over.  They also currently have a HoF QB, which makes marketing much easier, as well as numerous other marketable stars through the years.

Green Bay is a similar situation to Pittsburgh, but their fanbase is literally invested in the team due to their grandfathered in ownership structure.  Honestly, they are not that well run of an organization, but they've had back to back HoF QB's that have helped keep them competitive when they haven't had a bunch of surrounding talent.  The Packers stunk for a long time from the end of the Lombardi era until the time they got Favre.  

A huge factor in franchise valuation is also whether the team owns it's own stadium or not.  

(09-03-2019, 07:46 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Because the Bengals are his sole business.

Most other owners made their billions in other industries and got into football as a prestige thing. For MB, this IS THE BUSINESS.

(09-04-2019, 12:34 AM)I_C_DeadPeople Wrote: Yes it is but he remains a shitty businessman.

(09-04-2019, 12:41 AM)McC Wrote: He's a shitty football owner.  But isn't the measure of a businessman how much money he makes?  And how easily he makes it?  

(09-03-2019, 12:38 PM)Whatever Wrote: It's actually bottom 3 in revenue.  30th, to be exact.

There's a number of factors as to why.  Obviously, lack of on field success over the team's history is a big issue.  You had a down decade and the team never had a SB win to galvanize a generation of fans.  

Another big issue is competition.  Not only are they a small market team, but they are in the same state in the same conference as another NFL team. It's harder to grow the fanbase because they split airtime in a number of large in state tv markets.  They also have intense competition for merchandise dollars from Ohio State.  Most of their star players aren't that marketable, either.

Another reality is that while salaries are pretty much fixed across the board in the NFL, potential revenue is dictated by market.  No matter how good the Bengals are, they will never be able to charge the ticket, concession, souvenir, and parking prices that teams can charge in New York or LA.  Most people in the market just can't afford those prices.  

The NFL has revenue sharing, but there are still rich and poor teams. As an example, based on 2017 numbers the difference between the Cowboys with the most revenue and the Giants with the 3rd most revenue was more than the Bengals total revenue for the year.  The Bengals were $60 million short of league average.

We can argue that if he built a winner, revenue would increase, but it's a competitive industry where 31 other teams have the same goal.  Spending more doesn't necessarily mean the team will win more, and given playoff years where they couldn't fill PBS, winning more doesn't necessarily indicate a large upturn in income.  

(09-04-2019, 12:41 AM)McC Wrote: He's a shitty football owner.  But isn't the measure of a businessman how much money he makes?  And how easily he makes it?  

(09-03-2019, 07:48 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: The Packers aren't well run? Having back-to-back HOF QB's isn't just luck. They traded for one and drafted the other and it wasn't like Rodgers was the top pick of the draft.

Compare that to a Bengals team that hasn't won A SINGLE PLAYOFF GAME in 28+ YEARS.

(09-03-2019, 11:27 PM)t3r3e3 Wrote: Yet Mike makes the coaches scout instead of coaching.  Tell the Ravens and Steelers that their large scouting departments are wasteful. Those titles and Playoff wins could have been easily gotten with half the staff.  Mike is a cheapskate, and is the primary reason the team has not experienced success.

(09-04-2019, 12:41 AM)McC Wrote: He's a shitty football owner.  But isn't the measure of a businessman how much money he makes?  And how easily he makes it?  

(09-04-2019, 10:10 AM)Whatever Wrote: The Packers traded for a backup QB that became a HoF'er and Rodgers famously fell into their lap.  They get roasted in the national media yearly for wasting a HoF QB by not surrounding him with enough pieces to contend for a championship and forcing Rodgers to carry the team on his back.  Better run than the Bengals doesn't mean well run.

(09-04-2019, 10:21 AM)THE PISTONS Wrote: They've won Super Bowls in the last 20 years with 2 different QB's. You don't luck into that.