Bates - No Intentions Reporting to Camp or Play on Tag

[Tony]

(07-15-2022, 09:15 PM)QueenCity Wrote: I think most of us thought "The Burrow Effect" would of got Bates to come down off his asking price.  A little surprising he doesn't want to sign and be part of many special teams.

Part of the issue is Mike Brown is cash poor unlike the other owners. He just cannot afford to give out guaranteed money. As others noted we have much bigger priorities than Bates coming down the line.

I was on that train. I was wrong..

[Stewy]

(07-15-2022, 03:38 PM)Synric Wrote: I don't know if Bates will play or not. If he signs his tag plays and plays like we've seen in the past he is a potential double franchise tag candidate because the second tag will still be less than top of the chart safety money. If he doesn't play that pretty much forces Cincinnati to let him walk in 2023 (but potentially costing him money in the long run).

He'll play.  His agent is a POS and this is posturing.  Nothing more.

[QueenCity]

(07-15-2022, 09:20 PM)ATOTR Wrote: This is the most false, fake news, made up bullshit on these boards. 

Jesus Christ; have you no comprehension about the league, how it is operated and the cap/salaries?

I could be the owner tomorrow, with 65 dollars in a custodial bank account - and the bengals could still sign jessie bates to a long contract. 


Stop propagating false nonsense 

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl-richest-owners-net-worth-ranked/

See above link Mike Brown comes in at #30 his only cash flow is from the Bengals. Majority of the owners the NFL is a side hustle.

But thanks for playing along...

Even if you ignore this point.. Bengals typically know when not to pay a player. Very few times have they got burned by letting a FA go. I support Mike Brown in these decisions.

[Joelist]

It would be nice if people would remember that the NFL has a little rule called the "funding rule". It requires teams to put in escrow the entire guaranteed value of a contract. Unless the league either rescinds the rule or changes it, clubs like the Bengals who don't have super rich sugar daddies will become unable to sign a lot of players if they have to guarantee it all. In the case of Bates, the team really does not have the cash flow to put 80+ million in escrow for him when they are all but certain to have to figure out how to put twice that or more in escrow for Burrow after this season - and this says nothing of Chase, Higgins or anyone else.

So the cash issue is not false nonsense. It is a weird issue peculiar to the NFL because the other sports leagues don't have this type of funding rule.

[ATOTR]

(07-15-2022, 09:27 PM)QueenCity Wrote: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl-richest-owners-net-worth-ranked/

See above link Mike Brown comes in at #30 his only cash flow is from the Bengals. Majority of the owners the NFL is a side hustle.

But thanks for playing along...

Even if you ignore this point.. Bengals typically know when not to pay a player. Very few times have they got burned by letting a FA go. I support Mike Brown in these decisions.

They have revenue sharing and a salary cap minimum.

Seriously. These owners personal wallets make no difference.

How don’t you comprehend this. This isn’t baseball

[J24]

(07-15-2022, 09:27 PM)QueenCity Wrote: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/nfl-richest-owners-net-worth-ranked/

See above link Mike Brown comes in at #30 his only cash flow is from the Bengals. Majority of the owners the NFL is a side hustle.

But thanks for playing along...

Even if you ignore this point.. Bengals typically know when not to pay a player. Very few times have they got burned by letting a FA go.  I support Mike Brown in these decisions.

(07-15-2022, 09:34 PM)Joelist Wrote: It would be nice if people would remember that the NFL has a little rule called the "funding rule". It requires teams to put in escrow the entire guaranteed value of a contract. Unless the league either rescinds the rule or changes it, clubs like the Bengals who don't have super rich sugar daddies will become unable to sign a lot of players if they have to guarantee it all. In the case of Bates, the team really does not have the cash flow to put 80+ million in escrow for him when they are all but certain to have to figure out how to put twice that or more in escrow for Burrow after this season - and this says nothing of Chase, Higgins or anyone else.

So the cash issue is not false nonsense. It is a weird issue peculiar to the NFL because the other sports leagues don't have this type of funding rule.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wcpo.com/sports/football/bengals/how-super-bowl-run-will-impact-cincinnati-bengals-finances%3f_amp=true

The Bengals are worth 3 billion dollars. To say they can't spend the money on players is a ridiculous notion. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-15-2022, 09:27 PM)QueenCity Wrote: Even if you ignore this point.. Bengals typically know when not to pay a player. Very few times have they got burned by letting a FA go.  I support Mike Brown in these decisions.

When you're an owner for 31 years and only have 8 winning seasons, there's historically not an overabundance of talent to lose. For comparison, they have had 11 seasons in that same span where they won 4 or less games.

[Joelist]

(07-15-2022, 09:39 PM)J24 Wrote: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wcpo.com/sports/football/bengals/how-super-bowl-run-will-impact-cincinnati-bengals-finances%3f_amp=true

The Bengals are worth 3 billion dollars. To say they can't spend the money on players is a ridiculous notion. 

What the team is theoretically worth is meaningless. Cash Flow is everything. In order to place cash in an escrow account you need cash; not a valuation of worth. This is about Operating Income as a function of Revenue - and there the Bengals are not rich at all with less than $100 million annually. Revenue is about $350 million but a lot then comes off of that. 

[QueenCity]

(07-15-2022, 09:34 PM)Joelist Wrote: It would be nice if people would remember that the NFL has a little rule called the "funding rule". It requires teams to put in escrow the entire guaranteed value of a contract. Unless the league either rescinds the rule or changes it, clubs like the Bengals who don't have super rich sugar daddies will become unable to sign a lot of players if they have to guarantee it all. In the case of Bates, the team really does not have the cash flow to put 80+ million in escrow for him when they are all but certain to have to figure out how to put twice that or more in escrow for Burrow after this season - and this says nothing of Chase, Higgins or anyone else.

So the cash issue is not false nonsense. It is a weird issue peculiar to the NFL because the other sports leagues don't have this type of funding rule.

Thank you... said it better than evidently I can.

[Destro]

Bates is not "sit out a year" good.

[ATOTR]

(07-15-2022, 09:52 PM)Joelist Wrote: What the team is theoretically worth is meaningless. Cash Flow is everything. In order to place cash in an escrow account you need cash; not a valuation of worth. This is about Operating Income as a function of Revenue - and there the Bengals are not rich at all with less than $100 million annually. Revenue is about $350 million but a lot then comes off of that. 

Fake. False. This doesn’t include the 275m they get from revenue and operations sharing.

You’re simply wrong.

Joe dirt could own the bengals Tomrrow and give Jessie bates a 400 million dollar contract if needed

[Joelist]

(07-15-2022, 09:54 PM)QueenCity Wrote: Thank you... said it better than evidently I can.

No problem - this is also the reason NFL teams have historically been VERY reluctant to fully guarantee contracts AND why most of the rest of the league is pissed at Haslam over the ridiculous fully guaranteed Watson deal. As a comparison go look at Mahomes big deal - in reality only about 65 million is guaranteed. 

[QueenCity]

(07-15-2022, 09:56 PM)ATOTR Wrote: Fake.  False.   This doesn’t include the 275m they get from revenue and operations sharing.

You’re simply wrong.

Joe dirt could own the bengals Tomrrow and give Jessie bates a 400 million dollar contract if needed

This guy must be Jessie Bates or his agent. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-15-2022, 09:52 PM)Joelist Wrote: What the team is theoretically worth is meaningless. Cash Flow is everything. In order to place cash in an escrow account you need cash; not a valuation of worth. This is about Operating Income as a function of Revenue - and there the Bengals are not rich at all with less than $100 million annually. Revenue is about $350 million but a lot then comes off of that. 

They're getting $321m/yr next year JUST from the new TV deal. That's not including the Bengals share of what's expected to be a $3b/yr for Sunday Ticket, or literally any other of their abundant sources of income (tickets, merch, concessions, NFL Network, sponsors, gambling, profit sharing, etc, etc, etc).

The only way an NFL owner can be poor right now is a fatal weakness combination of hookers, blow, bad marraiges, and bad non-NFL business deals.

I am perfectly fine letting Bates walk after this year, as I have stated for a couple years now, but Mike Brown doesn't need any of you crying poor for him and defending his wallet.

[ATOTR]

(07-15-2022, 09:52 PM)Joelist Wrote: What the team is theoretically worth is meaningless. Cash Flow is everything. In order to place cash in an escrow account you need cash; not a valuation of worth. This is about Operating Income as a function of Revenue - and there the Bengals are not rich at all with less than $100 million annually. Revenue is about $350 million but a lot then comes off of that. 

Do you understand what revenue sharing and the salary cap are?

This isn’t baseball.

I don’t even want them to sign bates. He’s mediocre.

But saying mike browns net worth prohibits spending is false.

The richest owner in the nfl owns the Carolina panthers

[ATOTR]

(07-15-2022, 10:11 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: They're getting $321m/yr next year JUST from the new TV deal. That's not including the Bengals share of what's expected to be a $3b/yr for Sunday Ticket, or literally any other of their abundant sources of income (tickets, merch, concessions, NFL Network, sponsors, gambling, profit sharing, etc, etc, etc).

The only way an NFL owner can be poor right now is a fatal weakness combination of hookers, blow, bad marraiges, and bad non-NFL business deals.

Thank you. These guys are clueless

[samhain]

(07-15-2022, 07:29 PM)Goalpost Wrote: If it comes down to it, Dax is a slightly better athlete....especially in the 40...4.38 vs 4.50.   He wins the comparison vs Bates in arm length, 40, 10 yard, 20 yard, 20 yard shuttle, 3 cone, vert, and broad.  Bates win in height..by less than an inch...weight...by 9 lbs, and hand size...a quarter of an inch.  And of course, Dax was drafted numerically ahead of where Bates was drafted...not by much...but he was.

He probably is, but he's lacks the NFL experience and smarts that Bates showed in droves during the playoffs.  Dax definitely provides them with insurance, and maybe a better player in time, but does he provide that in 2022?  

The single high shell that Bates plays well is a tough ask for a rookie.  I guess time will tell.

[Joelist]

(07-15-2022, 10:11 PM)ATOTR Wrote: Do you understand what revenue sharing and the salary cap are?

This isn’t baseball.

I don’t even want them to sign bates. He’s mediocre.

But saying mike browns net worth prohibits spending is false.

The richest owner in the nfl owns the Carolina panthers

Since I didn't say that this is just more nonsense. I said CASH FLOW is a big issue when dealing with fully guaranteed contracts. And whether you want to admit or not it is. Under the funding rule the team is required to place in escrow cash equal to the fully guaranteed amount of the contract. This is why NFL teams have historically been reluctant to fully guarantee contracts - this rule is specific to the NFL. 

[ATOTR]

(07-15-2022, 10:26 PM)Joelist Wrote: Since I didn't say that this is just more nonsense. I said CASH FLOW is a big issue when dealing with fully guaranteed contracts. And whether you want to admit or not it is. Under the funding rule the team is required to place in escrow cash equal to the fully guaranteed amount of the contract. This is why NFL teams have historically been reluctant to fully guarantee contracts - this rule is specific to the NFL. 

Their net profit is close to 125 million per year.

You’re not a finance guy.

[Joelist]

(07-15-2022, 10:13 PM)samhain Wrote: He probably is, but he's lacks the NFL experience and smarts that Bates showed in droves during the playoffs.  Dax definitely provides them with insurance, and maybe a better player in time, but does he provide that in 2022?  

The single high shell that Bates plays well is a tough ask for a rookie.  I guess time will tell.

Bates stepped it up in postseason (a good thing) but in regular season he was nothing special. Definitely worth a resign and at market level for Top level safety (because he stepped it up on the bigger stage) but if it involves having to pop 80+ million in cash into escrow I can also understand how talks broke down.