IF You Ever Wonder About the Bengals Not Having Any Money

[XenoMorph]

(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-million-each-from-recent-relocations-51999633

Bengals don't always have "money" to spend because they are smart with their money for the most part. 

Not overpaying these "kids" to play the foolsball

[jowczarski]

Just a quick clarification here on a fact: There is revenue sharing in the NFL only with the TV deals. That's it.

It used to be the case where they had true revenue sharing, top down, but Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft worked to eliminate that more than a few years ago (forgive me for not remembering when).

So, actually, small market does matter in the NFL. That is why you've seen St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego move. They are small-revenue cities. It's why you'll see Jacksonville eventually move.

As for this other thing about teams taking out loans to pay salaries, I guess it could be true (every set of books is private except for the Packers) but I really, really doubt that. If you're referencing some of the stories you read this past week about the Cowboys, Steelers and other teams "repaying a loan" they took out in 2011 and 2012...that's actually not a loan. In the uncapped year around the formation of the new CBA, teams had a choice to "borrow" from future caps to expand their caps back in '11 & '12. So it was a pay now or pay later scenario, but the money was always based on the cap and future cap.

[*Go Cards*]

(03-28-2017, 02:53 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: You're looking at a valuation from a couple years ago.  In September of last year the team was valued at $1.68 billion.  A big part of the Patriots' worth is the team, but a lot of it is also because Kraft owns the stadium.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/09/15/here-s-how-much-bengals-franchise-value-jumped-and.html

Siri must be behind times. 

Just looked it was from 2014. But does that not mean that they have increased  $ 775 million in 3 years ? 

Sounds like they can not be hurting too bad in this small market. 

[Luvnit2]

(03-30-2017, 08:11 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Just a quick clarification here on a fact: There is revenue sharing in the NFL only with the TV deals. That's it.

It used to be the case where they had true revenue sharing, top down, but Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft worked to eliminate that more than a few years ago (forgive me for not remembering when).

So, actually, small market does matter in the NFL. That is why you've seen St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego move. They are small-revenue cities. It's why you'll see Jacksonville eventually move.

As for this other thing about teams taking out loans to pay salaries, I guess it could be true (every set of books is private except for the Packers) but I really, really doubt that. If you're referencing some of the stories you read this past week about the Cowboys, Steelers and other teams "repaying a loan" they took out in 2011 and 2012...that's actually not a loan. In the uncapped year around the formation of the new CBA, teams had a choice to "borrow" from future caps to expand their caps back in '11 & '12. So it was a pay now or pay later scenario, but the money was always based on the cap and future cap.

TY for the info delivered in a professional way. Thanks for clarifying small market still matters.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-30-2017, 09:05 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: TY for the info delivered in a professional way. Thanks for clarifying small market still matters.

Revenue sharing basically pays for the player's salary which is their biggest operating expense and it's not like they are paying a mortgage on the stadium Hamilton County and Bob Bedinghaus gifted them (not to mention a holographic replay system which hasn't even been invented, yet.) Let's not forget in 2011 the Brown family paid $200 million in cash to buy the remaining ownership shares. Cash. While not maximizing their revenue streams (naming rights.)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wlwt.relaymedia.com/amp/article/brown-family-to-buy-remaining-stake-in-bengals/3518961

Oh, almost forgot . . . these so-called small market teams struggling to feed their families paid hundreds of millions in relocation fees to the other owners (instead of building their own stadiums.) Helluva a racket.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-30-2017, 08:11 PM)jowczarski Wrote: Just a quick clarification here on a fact: There is revenue sharing in the NFL only with the TV deals. That's it.

It used to be the case where they had true revenue sharing, top down, but Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft worked to eliminate that more than a few years ago (forgive me for not remembering when).

So, actually, small market does matter in the NFL. That is why you've seen St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego move. They are small-revenue cities. It's why you'll see Jacksonville eventually move.

As for this other thing about teams taking out loans to pay salaries, I guess it could be true (every set of books is private except for the Packers) but I really, really doubt that. If you're referencing some of the stories you read this past week about the Cowboys, Steelers and other teams "repaying a loan" they took out in 2011 and 2012...that's actually not a loan. In the uncapped year around the formation of the new CBA, teams had a choice to "borrow" from future caps to expand their caps back in '11 & '12. So it was a pay now or pay later scenario, but the money was always based on the cap and future cap.

Didn't the NFL fine the Cowboys for uncapped spending in an uncapped year? Does the NFL understand the concept of uncapped?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

https://www.google.com/amp/profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/05/16/las-vegas-would-be-the-nfls-fifth-smallest-media-market/amp/

"Small market" is just a negotiating tool to leverage tax payer dollars from politicians worried about re-election. Or in the case of Bob Bedinghaus, a career after politics. Bedinghaus said it best, "It's worked out beautifully."

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/09/06/loc_whatever06.html

[OrlandoBengal]

(03-30-2017, 08:43 PM)Go Cards Wrote: Siri must be behind times. 

Just looked it was from 2014. But does that not mean that they have increased  $ 775 million in 3 years ? 

Sounds like they can not be hurting too bad in this small market. 

That is exactly what it means.  It's not even three years though, because the Forbes valuation is from 2016 versus the older one from 2014.  I made a thread when this came out and said "it is good to be an NFL owner".

[jowczarski]

@oncemoreuntothejimbreech (and to others): I'm not saying NFL owners are poor or should cry poor like they do. Was just stating the facts for them, which is that smaller markets bring in less revenue than others (just like in the NBA and MLB). Are they "poor?" No. But compared to the Patriots and Cowboys and soon, the L.A. Rams -- well, they definitely do not make near that much in revenue. It is a business. They are in it to make money and then win some games. So when small market teams have to use most of their revenue to pay for operating costs (salaries, etc), they are making "less" than the top tier of revenue-generators. Again, not saying they're poor. But in their 32-team world, there are sizeable differences, and let's be real - the all operate in their 32-team world. Again, that's why you've seen three teams move and you'll see Buffalo and Jacksonville threaten to, in the relatively near future.

[THE PISTONS]

Even with it only being revenue sharing based off of the TV contract...the TV contract is huge and how many other businesses out there get supplemented like that? It basically ensures a profit.

Plus, Stadiums get corporate sponsorship and companies buy tickets, etc.

It's a pretty sweet gig.

[depthchart]

(03-31-2017, 12:59 PM)jowczarski Wrote: @oncemoreuntothejimbreech (and to others): I'm not saying NFL owners are poor or should cry poor like they do. Was just stating the facts for them, which is that smaller markets bring in less revenue than others (just like in the NBA and MLB). Are they "poor?" No. But compared to the Patriots and Cowboys and soon, the L.A. Rams -- well, they definitely do not make near that much in revenue. It is a business. They are in it to make money and then win some games. So when small market teams have to use most of their revenue to pay for operating costs (salaries, etc), they are making "less" than the top tier of revenue-generators. Again, not saying they're poor. But in their 32-team world, there are sizeable differences, and let's be real - the all operate in their 32-team world. Again, that's why you've seen three teams move and you'll see Buffalo and Jacksonville threaten to, in the relatively near future.

Where would you say the Bengals have Ranked in PURE Salary Cap spending out of 32 teams over say the last 5 years?

They could be making less Net Profit than others but still Spending at similar Salary Cap numbers or vice versa.

[masterpanthera_t]

(03-31-2017, 12:59 PM)jowczarski Wrote: @oncemoreuntothejimbreech (and to others): I'm not saying NFL owners are poor or should cry poor like they do. Was just stating the facts for them, which is that smaller markets bring in less revenue than others (just like in the NBA and MLB). Are they "poor?" No. But compared to the Patriots and Cowboys and soon, the L.A. Rams -- well, they definitely do not make near that much in revenue. It is a business. They are in it to make money and then win some games. So when small market teams have to use most of their revenue to pay for operating costs (salaries, etc), they are making "less" than the top tier of revenue-generators. Again, not saying they're poor. But in their 32-team world, there are sizeable differences, and let's be real - the all operate in their 32-team world. Again, that's why you've seen three teams move and you'll see Buffalo and Jacksonville threaten to, in the relatively near future.

Jim, this is a serious question.  Assuming that the tv dollars are shared equally, and ticket prices (and stadium sizes) are relatively equal, which I'm not sure is true or not, then, gate receipts for teams can also be assumed to be equal.  So, what means do larger market teams have to make more money than smaller market teams?  Is the difference purely coming from merchandise sales?  What other sources can say a team from L.A leverage that the Bengals cannot?

[eoxyod]

(03-31-2017, 03:29 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Jim, this is a serious question.  Assuming that the tv dollars are shared equally, and ticket prices (and stadium sizes) are relatively equal, which I'm not sure is true or not, then, gate receipts for teams can also be assumed to be equal.  So, what means do larger market teams have to make more money than smaller market teams?  Is the difference purely coming from merchandise sales?  What other sources can say a team from L.A leverage that the Bengals cannot?

Merchandise, luxury boxes, and usage of the venue for other events. 

[Shake n Blake]

(03-31-2017, 01:19 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Even with it only being revenue sharing based off of the TV contract...the TV contract is huge and how many other businesses out there get supplemented like that? It basically ensures a profit.

Plus, Stadiums get corporate sponsorship and companies buy tickets, etc.

It's a pretty sweet gig.

This.

(03-31-2017, 04:01 PM)eoxyod Wrote: Merchandise, luxury boxes, and usage of the venue for other events. 

I'd say the sweetest stadium deal in the NFL at least partially makes up for some of that. There is no excuse for Mike to spend less. He has the smallest FO and personnel department in the league, and the Bengals are the only team without a practice facility all their own. Other "small markets" don't let it keep them from operating like a legit NFL outfit, so why make excuses?

[Shake n Blake]

(03-31-2017, 01:19 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Even with it only being revenue sharing based off of the TV contract...the TV contract is huge and how many other businesses out there get supplemented like that? It basically ensures a profit.

Plus, Stadiums get corporate sponsorship and companies buy tickets, etc.

It's a pretty sweet gig.

This.

(03-31-2017, 04:01 PM)eoxyod Wrote: Merchandise, luxury boxes, and usage of the venue for other events. 

I'd say the sweetest stadium deal in the NFL at least partially makes up for some of that. There is no excuse for Mike to spend less. He has the smallest FO and personnel department in the league, and the Bengals are the only team without a practice facility all their own. Other "small markets" don't use it as an excuse for anything.

[jowczarski]

@ThePistons & @masterpanthera_t
Stadiums are not created equal and that revenue is not shared – which is why you see teams moving or places like Green Bay renovating and buying up acres around their stadium to become landlords. They keep all that revenue. And that’s where market comes in. Pure fact is places like Jacksonville or Cincinnati or St. Louis cannot charge the same dollars as L.A., Chicago, Dallas, New England. That’s why there are different “market sizes.”

Now, it is fair to say you have to spend money to make money. There is no smaller market in the NFL than Green Bay. So yes, they went to the taxpayers to pay for renovations. They got it. But they also spent to make Lambeau a year-round tourist attraction. And now they’ve spent to buy up land around the stadium to secure year-long revenue beyond that.

@ShakeNBlake – you might have to refresh my memory on for “excuses” that have been used in my three years on the beat. That’s all I can speak to. See below re: spending on the team.

I don’t think I’ve heard money being an “excuse” for the way the organization is structured, either. Mike has his reasons, but I’ve never heard one of those reasons being financial. And this is all from off record conversations. Now, talking to guys from the 80s and 90s, ya, some of the corners that were cut were ridiculous. But from my POV now, I’m not sure where money is being used as an excuse for anything related to the on-field product.

@depthchart
The Bengals ranked 9th in the NFL in spending over the last five years, per the NFLPA. And trust me, they count every dollar. The Bengals are not cheap when it comes to player salaries, despite the narrative. Every agent I’ve talked to over the years, whether their client has come, gone or stayed, has never used that word with me.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-31-2017, 05:56 PM)jowczarski Wrote: @depthchart
The Bengals ranked 9th in the NFL in spending over the last five years, per the NFLPA. And trust me, they count every dollar. The Bengals are not cheap when it comes to player salaries, despite the narrative. Every agent I’ve talked to over the years, whether their client has come, gone or stayed, has never used that word with me.

It seems like they've gotten rid of their cheapness when it comes to player salaries since the latest CBA. That said, I think they spend it in terribly wasteful ways.

2016:
-The Bengals had the 17th and 23rd highest cap hits for safeties on their team. (Iloka and Williams)
-Peko had the 20th highest cap hit among all DTs.
-Michael Johnson had the 21st highest cap hit among all DEs.
-The Bengals had both the 12th and 15th highest cap hits among all ILBs. (V Rey and R Maualuga)

2015:
-Rey Maualuga had the 6th highest cap hit among all ILBs.
-Leon Hall had the 9th highest cap hit among all CBs.
-Andre Smith had the 5th highest cap hit among all RTs.
-Peko had the 20th highest cap hit among all DTs.

2014:
-Domata Peko had the 11th highest cap hit among all DTs.
-Leon Hall had the 5th highest cap hit among all CBs. (After 2 achilles surgeries.)

And so on..

So in my mind it's less that they're not spending money on players, they're just not spending money on GOOD players. They are often overpaying mediocre/bad talent who are "their guys" and then pointing at how much cap space they have spent.

[Luvnit2]

(03-31-2017, 06:50 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: It seems like they've gotten rid of their cheapness when it comes to player salaries since the latest CBA. That said, I think they spend it in terribly wasteful ways.

2016:
-The Bengals had the 17th and 23rd highest cap hits for safeties on their team. (Iloka and Williams)
-Peko had the 20th highest cap hit among all DTs.
-Michael Johnson had the 21st highest cap hit among all DEs.
-The Bengals had both the 12th and 15th highest cap hits among all ILBs. (V Rey and R Maualuga)

2015:
-Rey Maualuga had the 6th highest cap hit among all ILBs.
-Leon Hall had the 9th highest cap hit among all CBs.
-Andre Smith had the 5th highest cap hit among all RTs.
-Peko had the 20th highest cap hit among all DTs.

2014:
-Domata Peko had the 11th highest cap hit among all DTs.
-Leon Hall had the 5th highest cap hit among all CBs. (After 2 achilles surgeries.)

And so on..

So in my mind it's less that they're not spending money on players, they're just not spending money on GOOD players. They are often overpaying mediocre/bad talent who are "their guys" and then pointing at how much cap space they have spent.

 So you admit top 10 spending eliminates the "MB is cheap BS"?

I have never seen the team discuss cap spending. As far as spending wisely, all teams missed, but this team field a playoff team 5 of 6 years so not a complete strike out.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-31-2017, 06:55 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote:  So you admit top 10 spending eliminates the "MB is cheap BS"?

I have never seen the team discuss cap spending. As far as spending wisely, all teams missed, but this team field a playoff team 5 of 6 years so not a complete strike out.

Hell no. Mike Brown IS cheap. He's just also spending plenty of his cap space. You can't refuse to build an indoor practice facility and have what, 3 scouts, and not be cheap.

If Hobspin discusses cap spending, it is the same as the team is discussing cap spending. He writes out the messages they want to send.

As far as spending wisely, 5 of those 6 years and they fell flat on their face in the wildcard round every single time. Maybe not overpaying "their guys" to be mediocre and using that money on a GOOD outside free agent or two could have pushed them over the hill. You know, like almost every SB winning team for awhile now, has done. It's not enough to just spend the cap. You need to spend it wisely.

[jowczarski]

@TheLeonardLeap - debating how they spend or on who they spend it on is a fair argument. But the initial point of this particular discussion was "Bengals cheapness," not evaluation.

As for the practice facility ... I know Carson Palmer said something about it but in three years I haven't heard a single player or coach say anything about it, even when I've gone over to UC for a couple of practices. And it hasn't really affected players re-signing or signing that I'm aware of.

As for the staff ... Again, haven't heard much about it internally from those putting in the work. Trust me, I've been around enough organizations where people will complain about the job (we all do) but to date, haven't heard it's an issue with anyone.

As for Geoff - he is employed by the team. Again, not sure what everyone wants from him.