Suck it Mike Brown. [Archive] - Xavier Message Board

Kahns Krazy

11-18-2010, 03:35 PM

Hate Mike Brown. Love the Bengals.

Glad to see the incompetence in the office will be hurting the bottom line.

The Bengals officially ruled Sunday’s 1 p.m. Bengals-Bills game at Paul Brown Stadium blacked out of the club's television market, breaking the franchise-record streak of 57 straight sellouts stretching back seven years and two playoff games.

drudy23

11-18-2010, 04:49 PM

Yeah...he'll now make $24.9999999999M this year instead of $25M.

blobfan

11-18-2010, 04:52 PM

Isn't the county still on the hook for the cost of the unsold tickets?

Kahns Krazy

11-18-2010, 05:20 PM

Isn't the county still on the hook for the cost of the unsold tickets?

I thought that part of the lease ended. Not totally sure. Don't want to depress myself by looking.

Lamont Sanford

11-19-2010, 09:06 AM

WOW! I'm glad to see that local corporations didn't bail out Mikey Boy again this weekend. Suck it Mikey!

MADXSTER

11-19-2010, 09:27 AM

The county(tax payers) were on the line for up to the first 50k seats. That part of the contract just ended or is in the last couple of years from what I understand.

GuyFawkes38

11-19-2010, 09:35 AM

Mike Brown might be an awful owner.

But I think it's important to remember that you guys are stupid and Mike Brown is a great businessman.

I'm sorry. I should stop writing sarcastic posts. I just still can't get over Q's apparent admiration for Brown.

blobfan

11-19-2010, 01:51 PM

The county(tax payers) were on the line for up to the first 50k seats. That part of the contract just ended or is in the last couple of years from what I understand.

Thank God!!!

Kahns Krazy

11-19-2010, 02:24 PM

Yeah...he'll now make $24.9999999999M this year instead of $25M.

It seems like lost ticket revenues should cost him more than 1/100th of one penny.

wkrq59

11-19-2010, 02:45 PM

GUY,
I got to know Mike Brown probably long before you learned to dislike (or hate, take your pick) him. I admire anyone smart enough to negotiate a contract with the all-knowing county commissioners and movers and shakers in this city.
I find it interesting that the majority on this board really don't get their bile overflowing until there is a blackout or the team embarks on a losing streak.
And in that line, I have to ask: Why do you care?
Is it because the Bengals could possibly sell a few thousand more tickets to people who still want to see them?
Really, if you aren't a season ticket holder or a regular at the games, why do you even bother to mention Mike Brown on a Xavier chat board?
Face it, you aren't going to change anything connected with the Bengals or Mike Brown. Do you think he even gives a damn that some one or some people don't like(make that hate, your choice) him?
When there is Xavier basketball to root for, to love, players to praise, enjoy, criticize and call names, coaches to second guess, why bother with Mike Brown?
Yes, in many ways I admire Mike Brown. for reasons you probably wouldn't understand. And if that bothers you, so bleeping what?:eek:

XU 87

11-19-2010, 02:58 PM

Face it, you aren't going to change anything connected with the Bengals or Mike Brown. Do you think he even gives a damn that some one or some people don't like(make that hate, your choice) him?

I'll field that question. The answer is "NO". And that's the problem. He doesn't care about the fans and how the fans feel. He doesn't care about this city. He cares about 1) making a lot of money and 2) keeping control. And if accomplishing #'s 1 and 2 means the team will suck every year, then so be it. The fans should be happy that Cincinnati even has a team. (I've actually heard that the Browns have that opinion.)

He's an arrogant little man. But he should thank God every morning that he owns a government subsizdized monopoly where his competitors also have to subsidize him.

bleedXblue

11-19-2010, 03:19 PM

Mike Brown sucks.

Has NO IDEA how to make football personnel decisions.

Why not hire a GM that can make you look better and make you more $$.

Stop trying to be your Dad and create your own legacy.

He may no how to make money, but how damb hard can that be in the NFL.

blobfan

11-19-2010, 03:25 PM

I'll field that question. The answer is "NO". And that's the problem. He doesn't care about the fans and how the fans feel. He doesn't care about this city. He cares about 1) making a lot of money and 2) keeping control. And if accomplishing #'s 1 and 2 means the team will suck every year, then so be it. The fans should be happy that Cincinnati even has a team. (I've actually heard that the Browns have that opinion.)

He's an arrogant little man. But he should thank God every morning that he owns a government subsizdized monopoly where his competitors also have to subsidize him.

Beat me to it! Brown is not a good business man. He's a con man that sold the citizens a bill of goods based on lies and prevarication. I think he's happy to take as much from the citizens and cares very little for giving back. He seems to consider it his due. For what? Being born to a coach and owner? Could he get this job if he weren't born into it? I doubt it.

boozehound

11-19-2010, 03:31 PM

I'll field that question. The answer is "NO". And that's the problem. He doesn't care about the fans and how the fans feel. He doesn't care about this city. He cares about 1) making a lot of money and 2) keeping control. And if accomplishing #'s 1 and 2 means the team will suck every year, then so be it. The fans should be happy that Cincinnati even has a team. (I've actually heard that the Browns have that opinion.)

He's an arrogant little man. But he should thank God every morning that he owns a government subsizdized monopoly where his competitors also have to subsidize him.

This. This man was gifted an NFL franchise from his father, has done nothing but run it poorly, and yet gets money from his competitors who are actually capable of fielding a competitive team.

How great of a business man is he really? In any other lines of business he would be been bankrupt 10+ years ago. I'm pretty sure that if somebody gave me an NFL franchise I could be a "great businessman" too. The guy is sperm-lucky. Nothing more.

Kahns Krazy

11-19-2010, 03:54 PM

He may no how to make money, but how damb hard can that be in the NFL.

Whoa. This made my eyes hurt.

GuyFawkes38

11-19-2010, 06:42 PM

JimmyTwoTimes37

11-19-2010, 07:12 PM

I'm pretty sure the following is Mike Brown's reaction the last 19 years

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.urlesque.com/media/2010/05/hatergif.gif

danaandvictory

11-20-2010, 10:20 AM

I admire anyone smart enough to negotiate a contract with the all-knowing county commissioners and movers and shakers in this city.

You cannot be serious. Mikey held the commissioners over a barrel due to the threat of moving the team and extorted unbelievably one-sided, unconscionable promises from the county commission. One member of that commission, Bob Bedinghaus, the man most responsible for the "deal" was so vilified he either got run out of office or chose not to seek re-election. His current employer? The Cincinnati Bengals. Amazing loyalty from Mikey!

I love the defense that Mikey is some tough, hardcore conservative Republican with upstanding values. Since when is a guiding tenet of conservatism the accumulation of government largesse to fund your private enterprise?

The guy is scum. The only thing he ever accomplished is winning the genetic lottery. A freaking howler monkey could make money in the NFL.

boozehound

11-20-2010, 10:46 AM

LOL about the howler monkey reference, cheese.

PM Thor

11-20-2010, 08:48 PM

GuyFawkes38

11-21-2010, 05:20 AM

About a year ago a Bill Simmons podcast about building a stadium in Los Angeles to attract an NFL team really struck me as important. I started a thread here on XH about it:

http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11597&

Simmons revisited the situation in a new podcast (http://cdn16.castfire.com/audio/303/2117/7141/462869/simmons_2010-11-18-112309-3953-0-3-0.32.mp3?cdn_id=33&uuid=7dced1be691bc4586ff565431d0e3f09&referer=http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/simmons/index). At this moment, LA is still not close to attracting an NFL team.

Snipe has negatively posted a lot of things about California. But at least in this case they are willing to stick to their principles. LA is simply not willing to throw a billion dollars at attracting/keeping an NFL franchise like Cincinnati was.

This supposedly "conservative" city should be ashamed at itself for giving Mike Brown a half billion dollars.

I have only recently moved to Cincinnati. But just looking at the way the Bengals/NFL have treated this city, I have decided to not follow the NFL. It's not worth it.

chico

11-21-2010, 11:45 AM

I'll field that question. The answer is "NO". And that's the problem. He doesn't care about the fans and how the fans feel. He doesn't care about this city. He cares about 1) making a lot of money and 2) keeping control. And if accomplishing #'s 1 and 2 means the team will suck every year, then so be it. The fans should be happy that Cincinnati even has a team. (I've actually heard that the Browns have that opinion.)

He's an arrogant little man. But he should thank God every morning that he owns a government subsizdized monopoly where his competitors also have to subsidize him.

Exactly. But he should also thank his father, because the old man is the reason there is professional football in this town.

q, I love reading your opinions, but I think Mike Brown has it all wrong here. He doesn't care about making fans for his team, which seems to run against any business model which relies on the public for support (even if the county subsidizes a large amount of his operations).

danaandvictory

11-21-2010, 05:57 PM

You guys don't understand. He's an awesome businessman! Ask yourself this: is there another owner who on two separate occasions has been admonished by the local Court of Appeals for trying to cheat season ticket holders? (see Reedy v. Cincinnati Bengals and Dunkleman v. Cincinnati Bengals).

He's a leech, a parasite, a despicable remora sucking the life out of this city.

XU 87

11-21-2010, 06:03 PM

He's a leech, a parasite, a despicable remora sucking the life out of this city.

But other than that, how do you feel about him? And don't hold back when giving your opinions.

danaandvictory

11-21-2010, 06:05 PM

But other than that, how do you feel about him? And don't hold back when giving your opinions.

I want to have a pleasant seafood dinner with him and pick up the check.

Kahns Krazy

11-21-2010, 08:27 PM

My opinion on Mike Brown is well known.

This thread makes me smile.

I would prefer that Cincy loses its NFL franchise for 5-10 years over keeping a Mike Brown led Bengals. I guarantee that Cincy would get a new franchise pretty quickly, this town/area is football crazy. Next time though, we need to be a little smarter about it.

I HATE dayton.

I am pretty sure you're wrong. I don't see Cincinnati getting a team back if they lose the Bengals. Fortunately (for me at least,as a fan of the NFL) I don't see the Bengals leaving Cincinnati. I doubt the offers will be nearly as lucrative the next time the Bengals lease is up.

Kahns Krazy

11-21-2010, 08:34 PM

By the way, the game today was probably about 10-15k short of a sellout. They kept that sellout streak alive on some sort of heroic life support, but it should have been dead a long time ago.

bleedXblue

11-21-2010, 08:54 PM

This year is going to be really tough to recover from......I doubt they will resign T.O. Chad Johnson (I refuse to call him Ocho Cinco) is getting older and has lost a step. Their offensive and defensive lines are awful. And finally, Palmer is at best average.

18 of the last 20 years this franchise has not had a winning season. Look for that to continue on for many, many more years.

xu drew

11-21-2010, 11:12 PM

By the way, the game today was probably about 10-15k short of a sellout. They kept that sellout streak alive on some sort of heroic life support, but it should have been dead a long time ago.

<10k

GuyFawkes38

11-22-2010, 06:42 AM

I am pretty sure you're wrong. I don't see Cincinnati getting a team back if they lose the Bengals. Fortunately (for me at least,as a fan of the NFL) I don't see the Bengals leaving Cincinnati. I doubt the offers will be nearly as lucrative the next time the Bengals lease is up.

yeah, I think that's right.

I complimented LA for not giving a billion dollar check to an NFL team. But they are in a much better position to do that than cincy, of course.

But still, LA today is not close to getting a team. When Mike Brown made his threats LA wasn't close. It's absurd how that went down. It would make a great movie.

I don't think this subject gets enough attention. IMHO, most people are not remotely aware how much local governments subsidize professional leagues (especially the NFL) and how it ruins local finances for years and even decades after.

boozehound

11-22-2010, 09:18 AM

My opinion on Mike Brown is well known.

This thread makes me smile.

I would prefer that Cincy loses its NFL franchise for 5-10 years over keeping a Mike Brown led Bengals. I guarantee that Cincy would get a new franchise pretty quickly, this town/area is football crazy. Next time though, we need to be a little smarter about it.

I HATE dayton.

I tend to agree with that. Cleveland got a new team pretty quickly. I don't see what would make them significantly more attractive to an NFL franchise than us. We also have a pretty nice stadium.

cutterX

11-22-2010, 09:43 AM

Cheese beat me to it. While Q espouses Mike Brown for being a savvy negotiator the reality is former county commissioner and current Bengal employee Bedinghaus led the charge to hand the keys to the county to Mike Brown. This decision led to Bedinghaus losing a reelection bid.
I for one could care less if the Bengals move anywhere. Good riddance. And for the arguments about how we need a pro football team to attract big business I say a dying airport will have more effect on the local big business front than a pro football team will.

Kahns Krazy

11-22-2010, 09:55 AM

<10k

If the announced attendance was less than 10k short of a sellout, there were many thousands of no-shows.

dc_x

11-22-2010, 10:04 AM

But still, LA today is not close to getting a team. When Mike Brown made his threats LA wasn't close. It's absurd how that went down. It would make a great movie.

I listened to the same podcast that you linked to earlier, and it seems to me that LA is getting close. The NFL TV contracts are up for renewal in 2013 and I'm sure the owners would love to have a team in LA by then.

There are 2 groups that have plans to build a domed stadium in downtown LA. The dome would allow the stadium to be used for other sporting events and conventions. Those revenue streams would overcome the lack of government subsidy and would let the stadium be 100% privately financed.

I don't think the Bengals will move to LA (they have a lease at PBS through 2025). I wouldn't be surprised if one of the other California teams or maybe Jacksonville or Buffalo ends up in LA by 2013.

Kahns Krazy

11-22-2010, 10:22 AM

yeah, I think that's right.

I complimented LA for not giving a billion dollar check to an NFL team. But they are in a much better position to do that than cincy, of course.

But still, LA today is not close to getting a team. When Mike Brown made his threats LA wasn't close. It's absurd how that went down. It would make a great movie.

I don't think this subject gets enough attention. IMHO, most people are not remotely aware how much local governments subsidize professional leagues (especially the NFL) and how it ruins local finances for years and even decades after.

LA is LA, and really can't be used for comparison to Cincinnati.

I think Cincinnati, which is finally making some improvements in the city core, would have been devastated long term if the Bengals had left. I might be wrong, and I don't think there's any real way to know, but the national image of a town that loses its football franchise can't be anything but negative. Cincinnati really can't afford to try to overcome that, especially right now.

GuyFawkes38

11-22-2010, 11:09 AM

LA is LA, and really can't be used for comparison to Cincinnati.

I think Cincinnati, which is finally making some improvements in the city core, would have been devastated long term if the Bengals had left. I might be wrong, and I don't think there's any real way to know, but the national image of a town that loses its football franchise can't be anything but negative. Cincinnati really can't afford to try to overcome that, especially right now.

There might be some truth to that.

But I really think baseball is much more important for that type of PR thing. Just anecdotally, it seems like new baseball parks have marked the rejuvenation of downtowns more than football stadiums. Baltimore, Detroit, and Cleveland immediately come to mind. Camden Park attracted millions of tourist to the inner harbor.

Even old parks seem to have more of a connection to their cities than football stadiums. Wrigley field is deeply connected to Chicago. Soldier Field is a hellhole.

I can't think of a NFL football stadium outside of lambeau that's revered and attracts tourists.

xu95

11-22-2010, 12:22 PM

Ari Gold is going to be the owner of the team in LA.

xu95

blobfan

11-22-2010, 02:17 PM

LA is LA, and really can't be used for comparison to Cincinnati.

I think Cincinnati, which is finally making some improvements in the city core, would have been devastated long term if the Bengals had left. I might be wrong, and I don't think there's any real way to know, but the national image of a town that loses its football franchise can't be anything but negative. Cincinnati really can't afford to try to overcome that, especially right now.

I don't think it would have come to that but if we'd played some hard ball instead of roll-over-and-play-dead, we might have ended up with a better contract with the team. A performance-based contract would have been nice, considering how little concern the Brown familiy has shown about the success on the field. The current contract gives them no incentive to win games or to play nice with the community.

wkrq59

11-22-2010, 02:41 PM

I've read the posts here and still am given to wonder: Why does anyone care and take the time to post on the Bengals, especially in view of that performance (really?) on Sunday? Last year when the team was doing well, many of us couldn't wait to yell "Who Dey?"
I guess the only way some of us can achieve some satisfaction is by expressing our displeasure with the team and it's owners on a Xavier basketball chat board.
Let's see, between now and the draft or after a couple of shocking wins that ruin the Bengals order in the selection, we can salve our aches over 20 years of disappointment and frustration by vilifying Mike Brown and his family, by ripping on the coaching staff and the head coach, by smashing the players and their lack of talent and their TV shows.
And I guess if that keeps us from actual violence it's good.
Me, I'll just continue to enjoy Xavier basketball in the time I have left and only occasionally stir the sh!t pot and get your dander up by trying to find good in Mike Brown. Go Muskies
:logo::shield::sword:

Kahns Krazy

11-22-2010, 03:13 PM

I don't think it would have come to that but if we'd played some hard ball instead of roll-over-and-play-dead, we might have ended up with a better contract with the team. A performance-based contract would have been nice, considering how little concern the Brown familiy has shown about the success on the field. The current contract gives them no incentive to win games or to play nice with the community.

Possibly, but while some of the small dollar items are garnering a lot of attention, the problem with the stadium funding has very little to do with the lease terms.

I doubt a performance based contract would have been workable at all. The team just ended a club record sellout streak, and went to the playoffs twice in a 5 year stretch. I think Mikey was more lucky than good on those two trips, but how would you structure a performance based contract in a way that motivate performance?

When push came to shove, the voters of Cincinnati wanted their teams, and they wanted their stadiums. In terms of public referendums, it was a freaking landslide.

GoMuskies

11-22-2010, 03:33 PM

trying to find good in Mike Brown

You were obviously an investigative reporter. That's a tough assignment.

GuyFawkes38

11-29-2010, 08:33 PM

A couple weeks ago I watched Arsenal play on ESPN in their incredible newish home, Emirates stadium, in London. It cost nearly a billion dollars to build.

Did the tax payers of London contribute? Nope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Stadium)

The £470 million cost of the project, augmented by the extra costs the club had to meet besides building the stadium itself, was a formidable obstacle, especially as Arsenal were not granted any public subsidy. Arsenal had difficulty obtaining finance for the project, and work ceased just after it had begun, before restarting when a £260m loan package was obtained from a consortium of banks, led by the Royal Bank of Scotland.[47]

In fact, after a few quick wikipedia searches, I can't find an English Premier League stadium that's publicly financed.

One English stadium that was publicly funded is the 2 billion dollar new Wembly stadium. But it's not home to a Premier League club. And it seems like that was purposely done. They appear to have a belief in England that the public shouldn't finance a private, for profit club.

How did everything become so twisted in the US?

Juice

11-29-2010, 09:25 PM

A couple weeks ago I watched Arsenal play on ESPN in their incredible newish home, Emirates stadium, in London. It cost nearly a billion dollars to build.

Did the tax payers of London contribute? Nope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Stadium):

In fact, after a few quick wikipedia searches, I can't find an English Premier League stadium that's publicly financed.

One English stadium that was publicly funded is the 2 billion dollar new Wembly stadium. But it's not home to a Premier League club. And it seems like that was purposely done. They appear to have a belief in England that the public shouldn't finance a private, for profit club.

How did everything become so twisted in the US?

I read an article awhile back talking about how the British fans are pissed at the American owners like Hicks and Glazer because they are paying down their debt from buying the teams by using the team profits and not reinvesting that money into the team. It was a huge change for them and it obviously hasn't gone well for American owners or their fans over there.

DC Muskie

11-29-2010, 09:35 PM

Almost all European soccer clubs finance their own stadiums.

It's funny here in DC where DC United is having a horrible time trying to get a new stadium. They are still playing in old RFK and they make practically nothing. However, the club and the more importantly, the supporters blame DC government officials for not building them a stadium. The fans actually think that because the government built Nationals a stadium, and the Nationals suck, they should give United one.

I never understood the idea of publicly financed stadiums. Especially when owners, Like the Lerners and the Nationals, get them for free and then do nothing to put out a good product.

dc_x

11-30-2010, 11:02 AM

European soccer is very different. The clubs are tied to their cities and don't really have the option to move. (The only move I can think of was when Wimbledon moved a few years ago..and that was a small club.)

American teams have the freedom to move and use that as leverage over cities.

The mistake that Cincinnati made was building an open air stadium. They should have done what Indy did and build a dome (or retractable roof) so that they could use the building for other sports and conventions. PBS is a waste that gets used about 12 days a year.

GuyFawkes38

11-30-2010, 11:15 AM

DC X, I don't think it's that simple. The Yankees received a lot of cash from NYC tax payers. Of course, the Yankees can't threaten to move.

And ultimately, the leagues want to exist in the top 25 markets. All franchises can't threaten to move. Yet, that's exactly what they do.

I really think the problem stems from our crappy public government (especially on the local level). Governments in Europe tend to be staffed by much smarter and driven people.

Edit:

NYC actually built two publicly funded baseball stadiums for teams that practically couldn't leave town (http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16494&page=5):

New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had already been instrumental in the construction of taxpayer-funded minor league baseball facilities MCU Park for the Mets' minor league Brooklyn Cyclones and Richmond County Bank Ballpark for the Staten Island Yankees. Shortly before leaving office in December 2001, he announced "tentative agreements" for both the New York Yankees and New York Mets to build new stadiums. Of $1.5 billion sought for the stadiums, city and state taxpayers would pick up half the tab for construction, $800 million, along with $390 million on extra transportation.[11] The plan also said that the teams would be allowed to keep all parking revenues, which state officials had already said they wanted to keep to compensate the state for building new garages for the teams.[12] The teams would keep 96% of ticket revenues and 100% of all other revenues, not pay sales tax or property tax on the stadium, and would get low-cost electricity from the state of New York.[12] Business officials criticized the plan as giving too much money to successful teams with little reason to move to a different city.[12]

It's really laughable.

xnatic03

11-30-2010, 11:21 AM

yeah, because the governments in Europe never have any major issues with unemployment and fiscal (ir)responsibility. I'll give you the Scandinavian countries (but even Iceland went belly up), and Switzerland, but most of those other countries are having many of the same problems as we are, some on a much higher scale.

dc_x

12-01-2010, 01:50 PM

Guy - I think a baseball stadium is different. A venue that hosts 82 games seems to be a more worthwhile use of taxpayer money than an open-air football stadium.

Today there is news that the Vikings are holding the threat of moving to LA over the city of Minnesota for a new stadium. It will be interesting to see if Minnesota caves. It seems in the current climate it will be a tough sell for a government to finance a stadium.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/news/story?id=5868477