$309.2m

[CoachGeorge]

(07-27-2021, 02:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Sure, but the MLB plays their entire season within the confines of that single calendar year, so it makes sense for them to do that. MLB is wrapped up by the end of October.

The NFL doesn't finish their season until February of the year after they started the season.

I'm guessing the NBA also probably uses their own fiscal year as they also have a season that spans two calendar years.

Revenue streams are 24/7/365 for both.

But I just remembered something, the NFL got some weird reason is federally tax-exempt. They don’t need to bother. Unlike “real” businesses.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-27-2021, 03:07 PM)CoachGeorge Wrote: Revenue streams are 24/7/365 for both.  

But I just remembered something, the NFL got some weird reason is federally tax-exempt.  They don’t need to bother.  Unlike “real” businesses.

That's "The NFL" itself. Not NFL teams, owners, etc. So Rodger Goodell, the people who make the rules, the people who do the legal fights for the league as a whole, etc and such are. The 32 teams underneath the NFL banner and all the people who work for them are not.

[Essex Johnson]

(07-27-2021, 12:37 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That is how much teams got from national revenue for the 2020-2021 NFL year.
https://sports.yahoo.com/packers-report-record-nfl-payout-203045102.html

That means not counting jerseys, tickets, concessions, sponsors, whatever... every NFL team STARTED with $309.2m in their pockets from the get-go. The salary cap in 2020 was $198.2m. So even before any other sources of money coming in, Mike Brown could spend the full salary cap and still have $111m for non-player operating costs and his pockets.

Never let NFL owners cry poor.

So actually less money than most owners when you account for the plus stadiums, endorsements etc.. most teams have.  If I was an owner of bengals it would  not be very hard to move  the team and make big $$ , we will be lucky they stay after lease is up, most owners would take the $$ and run, if the Browns stay a credit to them.

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-27-2021, 04:25 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: So actually less money than most owners when you account for the plus stadiums, endorsements etc.. most teams have.  If I was an owner of bengals it would  not be very hard to move  the team and make big $$ , we will be lucky they stay after lease is up, most owners would take the $$ and run, if the Browns stay a credit to them.

You're leaving a ton out. 

While the Bengals do not make as much revenue from their stadium they also didn't pay a cent for it either.  Teams near the top, like the Cowboys, Giants, Jets, those are primarily privately funded stadiums.  Jerry Jones for example paid for over 600 million of the Cowboys stadium's cost.  There's also operations costs the Bengals have been spared as well.  Hamilton County has picked up the bulk of those expenses as well.

This is before we even get to the fact the Bengals would make more if they had a better product, and did a better job marketing it.  You're also looking at a snapshot of revenue when attendance was down.  If you were to pull our attendance revenue from, say, 2003-2007, or 2012-2105 you'd find we'd be close to the middle of the league.

I don't think you can say with any certainity that if you switched the Bengals with another team in another market that they'd see an identical amount of revenue as the current team does.  And the reverse is true as well.  If you plopped the Chiefs franchise down into Cincinnati, with everything exactly the same outside of the teams themselves, they'd make more money.

Lastly, to give the Bengals credit for if they elect to stay is downright offensive.  It would be borderline criminal for them to abandon this city after the sweetheart deal they were given by the county, and the return they've provided.  And if you think they're going to find some other magical market that's going to provide them tons of more money you're sadly mistaken.  Where would they go?  St. Louis?  Portland?  Omaha?  San Antonio?  Even if they did decide to make the move, it's going to require a lot of investment on their part.   A new city isn't going to gift them a stadium outright.  Those days are gone, especially now coming off Covid reaking havoc on cities and counties budgets.  There also going to expect investments into a practice facility and a modern front office.  All of this comes with an extreme cost when totalled up.

[*pally*]

Quote:This is before we even get to the fact the Bengals would make more if they had a better product, and did a better job marketing it. You're also looking at a snapshot of revenue when attendance was down. If you were to pull our attendance revenue from, say, 2003-2007, or 2012-2105 you'd find we'd be close to the middle of the league.

Isn't doing a better job of marketing exactly what Elizabeth Blackburn is trying to do? I know you don't care about that but putting bodies in seats, increasing revenue for stadium concessions and pro shop, increasing local fan involvement, etc is all part of the business of football. And that requires more than just a winning product

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-27-2021, 05:11 PM)pally Wrote: Isn't doing a better job of marketing exactly what Elizabeth Blackburn is trying to do?  I know you don't care about that but putting bodies in seats, increasing revenue for stadium concessions and pro shop, increasing local fan involvement, etc is all part of the business of football.  And that requires more than just a winning product

Sure, it all goes hand in hand.  Everything matters.  Although I would argue winning sets the tone more than the others.

My point is basically that you can't pull the stadium revenue from 2018, when attendance was already starting to heavily decline, and use that to say this is s poor market, or that the Bengals would be better off elsewhere.  That's not fair.  You also can't take a city like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, or Green Bay and act like they're magically superior either.  They're not. 

The Bengals aren't going to find some magic town where they'll make boatloads of more money, at least not without significant investment and changes of their own.  And if there were a town that was willing to pay out more than others, that's probably going to mean them selling the team and an investment group from that area buying them.

I'm sorry, I'm pretty sensitive about people taking shots at this city or bemoaning the lack of support.  This is a great sports town, and I think it competes well with many of the other similar markets.  To act like the Bengals are somehow doing us a favor, or we should be grateful is they stay really irks me.  

[Essex Johnson]

(07-27-2021, 04:46 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: You're leaving a ton out. 

While the Bengals do not make as much revenue from their stadium they also didn't pay a cent for it either.  Teams near the top, like the Cowboys, Giants, Jets, those are primarily privately funded stadiums.  Jerry Jones for example paid for over 600 million of the Cowboys stadium's cost.  There's also operations costs the Bengals have been spared as well.  Hamilton County has picked up the bulk of those expenses as well.

This is before we even get to the fact the Bengals would make more if they had a better product, and did a better job marketing it.  You're also looking at a snapshot of revenue when attendance was down.  If you were to pull our attendance revenue from, say, 2003-2007, or 2012-2105 you'd find we'd be close to the middle of the league.

I don't think you can say with any certainity that if you switched the Bengals with another team in another market that they'd see an identical amount of revenue as the current team does.  And the reverse is true as well.  If you plopped the Chiefs franchise down into Cincinnati, with everything exactly the same outside of the teams themselves, they'd make more money.

Lastly, to give the Bengals credit for if they elect to stay is downright offensive.  It would be borderline criminal for them to abandon this city after the sweetheart deal they were given by the county, and the return they've provided.  And if you think they're going to find some other magical market that's going to provide them tons of more money you're sadly mistaken.  Where would they go?  St. Louis?  Portland?  Omaha?  San Antonio?  Even if they did decide to make the move, it's going to require a lot of investment on their part.   A new city isn't going to gift them a stadium outright.  Those days are gone, especially now coming off Covid reaking havoc on cities and counties budgets.  There also going to expect investments into a practice facility and a modern front office.  All of this comes with an extreme cost when totalled up.

You left out the big point, most ownership is not loyal to the hometown, they are loyal to making money.. did I miss something the NFL itself is loyal to making money,  pretty simple answer 

[Stewy]

(07-27-2021, 02:33 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: What is this supposed to be telling me?  It's stadium revenue from 2018.  You claimed that small market teams were going to suffer more as a result of lost attendence due to Covd and everything that comes along with it.  Bigger markets like the Jets and Giants lost more in typically seen revenue than smaller market teams like Bengals.

If anything, Covid leveled the playing field for a lot of these markets.  They all suffered, and were brought down to comparable and lowered amount.

Try reading the actual link.  It's about estimated revenue losses due to no fans in the stands.  It uses older numbers as a base, as it should, as it was a predictor, not actual losses.

Are you twisting things to try  to make yourself look right as usual or did you not actually click on the link?

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-27-2021, 06:09 PM)Stewy Wrote: Try reading the actual link.  It's about estimated revenue losses due to no fans in the stands.  It uses older numbers as a base, as it should, as it was a predictor, not actual losses.

Are you twisting things to try  to make yourself look right as usual or did you not actually click on the link?

I did read it.  I suggest you do the same.  It says right in the article that bigger market teams will lose OVER HALF of their revenue while smaller market teams will lose LESS THAN 1/3.

It's not rocket science.  Covid and lack of attendance affected everyone.  The more revenue you typically generated from ticket sales and everything else that came with them, the more your revenue dropped.  The only teams that had a bit of advantage were teams that were an areas where they were more opened up.  But that has nothing to do with market size.

I really don't understand what is so confusing here.  What teams generally made in the past is irrelevent to the conversation; we're talking about what they made during 2020.  The idea, which you first floated, was that Covid made smaller market teams suffer more.  That's simply not true.

[*Go Cards*]

Covid caused many businesses to be "in the red" this past year.

But NFL owners who live "in the black" can afford to take hit better than most.

Trust me if MB was losing money with regularity he would get out quickly as would anybody.

Am with OP that the Bengals could spend the cap yearly without losing cabbage.

[Whatever]

(07-27-2021, 04:46 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: You're leaving a ton out. 

While the Bengals do not make as much revenue from their stadium they also didn't pay a cent for it either.  Teams near the top, like the Cowboys, Giants, Jets, those are primarily privately funded stadiums.  Jerry Jones for example paid for over 600 million of the Cowboys stadium's cost.  There's also operations costs the Bengals have been spared as well.  Hamilton County has picked up the bulk of those expenses as well.

This is before we even get to the fact the Bengals would make more if they had a better product, and did a better job marketing it.  You're also looking at a snapshot of revenue when attendance was down.  If you were to pull our attendance revenue from, say, 2003-2007, or 2012-2105 you'd find we'd be close to the middle of the league.

I don't think you can say with any certainity that if you switched the Bengals with another team in another market that they'd see an identical amount of revenue as the current team does.  And the reverse is true as well.  If you plopped the Chiefs franchise down into Cincinnati, with everything exactly the same outside of the teams themselves, they'd make more money.

Lastly, to give the Bengals credit for if they elect to stay is downright offensive.  It would be borderline criminal for them to abandon this city after the sweetheart deal they were given by the county, and the return they've provided.  And if you think they're going to find some other magical market that's going to provide them tons of more money you're sadly mistaken.  Where would they go?  St. Louis?  Portland?  Omaha?  San Antonio?  Even if they did decide to make the move, it's going to require a lot of investment on their part.   A new city isn't going to gift them a stadium outright.  Those days are gone, especially now coming off Covid reaking havoc on cities and counties budgets.  There also going to expect investments into a practice facility and a modern front office.  All of this comes with an extreme cost when totalled up.

PBS was built in an era where cities were footing the full bill or close to it for NFL stadiums.  Not to mention Mikey had the county over the barrel because the county had broken the Riverfront stadium lease by withholding payments to the team.  Mike threatened to move the team to Cleveland unless he got a new taxpayer funded stadium, which was the standard at that time.  Honestly, from a business standpoint, he would have been better off doing that and renaming the team the Browns because the Browns have been a bigger joke than the Bengals ever since their return, but still destroy us in revenue, ticket sales, merch, etc.  Then, he had to fight the county in court for no other reason than "we don't like the contract we just agreed to."

Kind of a chicken and egg argument.  Fans want things like expanding the scouting department and an indoor practice facility to improve the on field product.  However those things cost money and when you're at the bottom of the league in revenue, it cuts down on the money you have to to spend for those things.  Besides that, again, the Browns have been a worse product since their return and still kill the Bengals in revenue.  The Bengals had to have corporations step in and buy up chunks of tickets to keep the playoff game against the Chargers from being blacked out.  That's sad.  The whole "they'd sell more tickets if they won more" rationale is grossly overstated when you look at tangible numbers from when the team has been good vs bad.

Juxtaposing two teams isn't realistic, especially when one of those teams has been to back to back SB's.  If the Bengals moved, their revenue is going to go up due to being the new hot ticket in town, which means higher ticket prices, which means more gate revenue.  The Bengals have some of, if not the, lowest ticket prices in the league, so literally almost any other major metropolitan market would be a step up.  You also get a huge influx of merch revenue from people in the new home market.  I'll guarantee you that if the Bengals moved to Portland, San Antonio, St. Louis, they wouldn't be sweating blackouts for home playoff games.

Mikey wasn't given a sweetheart deal.  Hamilton County screwed him.  You can't be mad at a guy for screwing people who are screwing him.  If you are, you should have elected smarter and/or more ethical politicians.  They've broken the PBS lease on numerous occasions, too.  Does anyone honestly think that if the Bengals leave any of the other 31 owners are going to relocate to Cincinnati, especially if they're footing the bill for a new stadium?  Get real.  No other owner is going to do that.  The way the county operates, they're likely to give a team land to build a stadium on, then decide they want to be paid for it and take them to court.  

[WeezyBengal]

I'm pretty sure the Bengals didn't make a ton of money last year due to COVID.

[Au165]

Just a clarification, the salary cap is not the amount of money spent by a team on players but rather an accounting tool for the league to get some sort of level playing field. For instance, the large signing bonuses that were handed out during free agency last year are prorated across the life of the contract in cap terms but the cash payment occurs during that year. The real money spent on the players is some combination of base salary, seasonal bonuses, and any extensions or signings that year that had signing bonuses, which most likely all combined exceeded the actual cap.

[*ochocincos*]

(07-27-2021, 12:37 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That is how much teams got from national revenue for the 2020-2021 NFL year.
https://sports.yahoo.com/packers-report-record-nfl-payout-203045102.html

That means not counting jerseys, tickets, concessions, sponsors, whatever... every NFL team STARTED with $309.2m in their pockets from the get-go. The salary cap in 2020 was $198.2m. So even before any other sources of money coming in, Mike Brown could spend the full salary cap and still have $111m for non-player operating costs and his pockets.

Never let NFL owners cry poor.

I'd be interested to see the cost of the non-player staff for NFL teams.
You have to pay all the FO, the coaches, the other staff, the stadium crew, etc.
Then you have any facility upgrades that are needed/wanted.
Also, unless there's some rule that I missed, the owners have to pay a tax on all profits too.

[Sled21]

(07-28-2021, 01:25 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I'd be interested to see the cost of the non-player staff for NFL teams.
You have to pay all the FO, the coaches, the other staff, the stadium crew, etc.
Then you have any facility upgrades that are needed/wanted.
Also, unless there's some rule that I missed, the owners have to pay a tax on all profits too.

The cost of health insurance for everyone plus all the liability and property insurance for the stadiums has to be staggering as well.

[Wes Mantooth]

(07-28-2021, 01:25 AM)Whatever Wrote: PBS was built in an era where cities were footing the full bill or close to it for NFL stadiums.  Not to mention Mikey had the county over the barrel because the county had broken the Riverfront stadium lease by withholding payments to the team.  Mike threatened to move the team to Cleveland unless he got a new taxpayer funded stadium, which was the standard at that time.  Honestly, from a business standpoint, he would have been better off doing that and renaming the team the Browns because the Browns have been a bigger joke than the Bengals ever since their return, but still destroy us in revenue, ticket sales, merch, etc.  Then, he had to fight the county in court for no other reason than "we don't like the contract we just agreed to."

Kind of a chicken and egg argument.  Fans want things like expanding the scouting department and an indoor practice facility to improve the on field product.  However those things cost money and when you're at the bottom of the league in revenue, it cuts down on the money you have to to spend for those things.  Besides that, again, the Browns have been a worse product since their return and still kill the Bengals in revenue.  The Bengals had to have corporations step in and buy up chunks of tickets to keep the playoff game against the Chargers from being blacked out.  That's sad.  The whole "they'd sell more tickets if they won more" rationale is grossly overstated when you look at tangible numbers from when the team has been good vs bad.

Juxtaposing two teams isn't realistic, especially when one of those teams has been to back to back SB's.  If the Bengals moved, their revenue is going to go up due to being the new hot ticket in town, which means higher ticket prices, which means more gate revenue.  The Bengals have some of, if not the, lowest ticket prices in the league, so literally almost any other major metropolitan market would be a step up.  You also get a huge influx of merch revenue from people in the new home market.  I'll guarantee you that if the Bengals moved to Portland, San Antonio, St. Louis, they wouldn't be sweating blackouts for home playoff games.

Mikey wasn't given a sweetheart deal.  Hamilton County screwed him.  You can't be mad at a guy for screwing people who are screwing him.  If you are, you should have elected smarter and/or more ethical politicians.  They've broken the PBS lease on numerous occasions, too.  Does anyone honestly think that if the Bengals leave any of the other 31 owners are going to relocate to Cincinnati, especially if they're footing the bill for a new stadium?  Get real.  No other owner is going to do that.  The way the county operates, they're likely to give a team land to build a stadium on, then decide they want to be paid for it and take them to court.  

Mike threatened to move to Baltimore, not Cleveland.   I would like to read up on how Hamilton County screwed Mike on Riverfront.  I don't remember that.  A link to a story would be nice to catch up on this.

As far as the revenue, you act as if the Bengals are on an island.  They're not.  You can look up the revenue and see that there's an absolute ton of teams jumbled up.  In 2019, over half the league had total revenues that ranged from 380 million and 450 million.  You'll see tons of big names like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Indy, etc all within a hair of the Bengals.  And that's just a snapshot in a down year.  In 2007 for example, we ranked 20th.  I would imagine if you could comb through each and every year since PBS was built you'd see our number move around quite a bit, usually ranging from 20-30, and usually jumbled up with many of these same teams.

And we all know what revenue is, right?  What about expenses?  Do you think there's many teams out there with less expenses than the Bengals?  How many teams have the stadium expenses we do?  Do you know how much money the Bengals have saved on the operating costs of PBS?  The last number I saw put county spending in the hundreds of millions just for the upgrades and maitenance.

You can't use revenue to explain not being able to spend more on the front office and for a practice facility.  That would only be true if we were always dead last, and our number was a fraction of everyone else.  But that's not the case at all.  We right in the mix with over a dozen other teams, and nothing is preventing them from spending in these areas.  And many of them don't enjoy the perks of a lopsided stadium deal either.

[Whatever]

(07-28-2021, 01:44 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Mike threatened to move to Baltimore, not Cleveland.   I would like to read up on how Hamilton County screwed Mike on Riverfront.  I don't remember that.  A link to a story would be nice to catch up on this.

As far as the revenue, you act as if the Bengals are on an island.  They're not.  You can look up the revenue and see that there's an absolute ton of teams jumbled up.  In 2019, over half the league had total revenues that ranged from 380 million and 450 million.  You'll see tons of big names like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Indy, etc all within a hair of the Bengals.  And that's just a snapshot in a down year.  In 2007 for example, we ranked 20th.  I would imagine if you could comb through each and every year since PBS was built you'd see our number move around quite a bit, usually ranging from 20-30, and usually jumbled up with many of these same teams.

And we all know what revenue is, right?  What about expenses?  Do you think there's many teams out there with less expenses than the Bengals?  How many teams have the stadium expenses we do?  Do you know how much money the Bengals have saved on the operating costs of PBS?  The last number I saw put county spending in the hundreds of millions just for the upgrades and maitenance.

You can't use revenue to explain not being able to spend more on the front office and for a practice facility.  That would only be true if we were always dead last, and our number was a fraction of everyone else.  But that's not the case at all.  We right in the mix with over a dozen other teams, and nothing is preventing them from spending in these areas.  And many of them don't enjoy the perks of a lopsided stadium deal either.

You can find some details here, literally the first link on a Google search.  The straw that broke the camel's back was the county being late on a payment in '95 but Paul took the county to court numerous times dating back to the '80's.

https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/article/a-major-league-mistake1/

A continuous problem dating back to Riverfront was the county overpromising and underdelivering because they vastly overestimated tax revenue.  This is just a theory, but it's likely the county went along with PBS and GAB because they siphoned money out of those projects to pay other debts.  You can't tell me PBS is a $450 mil stadium when comparable stadiums in Baltimore and Cleveland were only $200-250 mil during the same time period.  

Both teams in the SB this year had 100% taxpayer funded stadiums.  You cited Dallas as an example of a privately funded stadium, which is somewhat true, but Dallas kicked in over $440 million in taxpayer money.  Las Vegas just gave the Raiders what many are calling the worst stadium deal ever with $750 million in taxpayer money.  I think you need to do a lot more research into who pays what for what.

You do realize that a lot of teams have indoor practice facilities paid for either largely or entirely with taxpayer money, right?