Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports writes about the top 5 dumbest things said about the lockout, and our own Mike Brown comes in at #1. Take it away Jason:
1. For the owners, it’s not about the money
Cincinnati Bengals owner Mike Brown(notes) proved that making stupid remarks wasn’t limited to the likes of Peterson and Mendenhall. After the CBA negotiations broke off on March 11, Brown criticized the players, telling the Cincinnati Enquirer “It came down to the obvious point that all the union cared about was the money and these other things certainly didn’t matter enough. It’s a tremendous situation that they have and it has become burdensome for the teams. Yes, we’re asking for some relief going forward. I don’t think that was unreasonable.”
Really, Mike? That’s all the players care about – not the owners? That’s right, Mike – owners are simply benevolent people who are in business for only the most altruistic reasons. In fact, if the NFL could come up with a profit-sharing system that assured that all the money went to the players and only the players, the owners would happily do that just to make sure they enriched the lives of the less fortunate.
Oh how I wish Hall of Fame coach Paul Brown were still alive so he could slap his Hall of Lame son. Dear Bengals fans, if you want to understand why you have one of the two or three worst franchises in the NFL, Brown is your reason.
Thank you to the many Comrades who sent this story our way.
Correction: The Bengals are of the two or three worst franchises in all of sports - not just the NFL.
Posted by: Rob | April 04, 2011 at 01:24 PM
"Dear Bengals fans, if you want to understand why you have one of the two or three worst franchises in the NFL, Brown is your reason."
Yeah, I think we got that....
Posted by: Rich | April 04, 2011 at 07:29 PM
Way to turn the argument, the rest of the story is about how the owners catered to the players demands of taking care of retired players and instituting the wage scale. So Mike's comment was to the effect of "we gave the players what they were asking for in public and they still balked".
Also, Mike isn't the only owner interested in the money, the other 31 owners are also. Hell, if they would have listened to Mike in 2006 we would not be here now.
I guess that part of it doesn't help fill your self loathing quota, so I will not judge you by your ignorance.
Before you all call me the voice of the Bengals or a plant, know that I canceled my season tickets this season and speak against the Bengals often, only I use facts.
Posted by: WhoDeyFans | April 05, 2011 at 03:40 PM
Boom. Roasted. In all seriousness, that Cole article was awful. But I don't think you need to be so quick to rush to MB's defense. No one in the Revolution would argue that Mike isn't a savvy businessman - who else could make as much money as he does losing. But I don't see anything in his quote or your rant about a GM, scouts, or anything else that relates to the Bengals not sucking in the future. That's the broader point around here.
Posted by: Dan R. | April 05, 2011 at 05:01 PM
Dan, can't agree more. I just hate when the truth is made up. There are plenty more examples of the incompetence of Mike Brown. We don't need to make up examples.
Posted by: WhoDeyFans | April 05, 2011 at 05:16 PM
Please tell us all how they would not be here now if they had listened to MFB back in 2006. I am waiting. What was the Bengals worth back in 2006 and what is it now? What did MFB lose from 2006 to now? He lost nothing. It is a joke to stick up for this man stating he, um, Told you so, BS! He told us nothing. A monkey could run an NFL franchise and still make money. Well, one does in Cincy so there you go. It is setup up to make money and no team will ever lose money. The owners are a bunch a money grubbing whores! I am not saying the players do not want money too, but the owners wanted $2B off the top of the revenue, no questions asked from the players so who really is in it for the money? MFB INHERITED his position, he did not make this business. A good businessman? BS!
Posted by: TigerJ@w | April 05, 2011 at 05:25 PM
Please tell us all how they would not be here now if they had listened to MFB back in 2006. I am waiting. What was the Bengals worth back in 2006 and what is it now? What did MFB lose from 2006 to now? He lost nothing. It is a joke to stick up for this man stating he, um, Told you so, BS! He told us nothing. A monkey could run an NFL franchise and still make money. Well, one does in Cincy so there you go. It is setup up to make money and no team will ever lose money. The owners are a bunch a money grubbing whores! I am not saying the players do not want money too, but the owners wanted $2B off the top of the revenue, no questions
Posted by: Christian Louboutin shoes | April 06, 2011 at 08:55 AM
well Tiger idiot, please try and read another site than this one once in a while.
First, the Owners main complaint is that the current deal (which the players would sign today) is too swayed towards the players. 2 owners said that in 2006 when this deal was made; Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson. Had the battle been fought then, it would not be fought now. If you don't understand that, then you really have no chance.
Please understand, when saying "Owners", it does not mean Mike Brown. It means the NFL. You see, the way most companies work is the companies get the majority of the money and decide how to divy it up. Why should players who are only involved for a short time be able to dictate how the money is spent. There is way more to the NFL then stadiums and players. Huge amounts of money are needed for the entire infrastructure of the business. Some will lead you to believe that all the money is just going to owners who make huge profits each year but you would be surprised to know that most owners make less than a lot of the players. They just have the business to back them. Mike Brown is not a billionaire. You see, he only has the Bengals. Sure, he has the potential to have a billion dollars if he sold the team, but it is not liquid like you seem to believe.
Posted by: WhoDeyFans | April 06, 2011 at 02:36 PM
well WhoDeyFans (could insert 'idiot' or other choice of namecalling here, but you already call yourself a Bengals fan--or fans? you're more than one person or represent all Bengals fans everywhere?), how would you propose to know the owners would not be seeking more money now even if they had already fought for more money in 2006 and won it? And, if you have such cognitive powers then why do you read this site or any other (e.g., the Who Dey Perspective, which I'm sure you have bookmarked)?
If you have some actual proof that owners don't make much money themselves, then please do enlighten us. I'm sure there are some number that don't 'make' money, i.e. they don't reserve a large cut of the profit for their personal profit, but let's remember that others don't rely on an NFL team for financial support. Others are real businessman. Others ammassed a large net worth on their own (or possibly inherited wealth or a business).
Mike Brown does most definitely not make less than a lot of players. We know this for a fact. He pays himself millions in GM bonuses. Mike Brown is on NFL welfare. The best and most selective group of welfare the world has ever seen. Of course he wanted more money in 2006. He will always want more money. His input is on the level of an infant. Someone asks if he wants more, and he answers yes.
Posted by: bungalfamily | April 06, 2011 at 03:55 PM
bungalfamily,
I had a feeling more of you would pop up. Funny how you ask for proof from me and then state crazy arguments as fact.
Mike Brown has given himself a million in GM bonus every year. This is in fact less than a lot of current players.
WhoDeyFans is the name of my website. Funny how you attempt to make fun of the plurality of my name when you call yourself bungalfamily. Are you a group of people?
I can not argue with you people if you live in your warped reality. In 2006 the owners did not need to fight for more money, they were making the majority and the players fought for more money. The owners as a group decided that they would cave in order not to lose income at that time. In hindsight everyone but the players see that it was a terrible deal.
Here I will make the argument in more of a way you can understand. Several years ago Mike Brown threatened to leave the city of Cincinnati. He said he would stay if the taxpayers promised to fund him a stadium. In the panic at the thought of losing their football, the voters agreed. Now you constantly bitch about this deal.
So if you want the owners to just give up and let the players have their money then you should also give up your argument that you want Mike Brown to pay for the stadium. They are in fact the same argument.
Posted by: WhoDeyFans | April 06, 2011 at 04:17 PM
CANT WE ALL AGREE ON ONE EFFING THING.... THE BENGALS ARE A TERRIBLY RUN FRANCHISE, AND WILL ALWAYS BE POORLY OPERATED WITH MIKE BROWN AS OWNER/GM... NUFF, SAID! THATS IT! NOTHING MORE TO ARGUE ABOUT!!
Posted by: Anonymous | April 06, 2011 at 04:54 PM
Funny how all of them are respective and collective POS's.
I thought it funny that it came out not too long ago that the Union again (AGAIN) reminded players that they were to prepare for this situation by saving at least 25% of last year's salaries. Two problems... ...the union is no longer a union. They decertified so what the fuck are they running their 'sewers' about? Then the next thing that was humorus is that those fuck-tards tried to sue the league because they had a rainy-day fund (4 billion?) and the union said that that was improper? Hey Union shitheads???? Why is it ok for you to do the same thing?
Anyway, I just hope this keeps going and going -- the Energizer Bunny! Both sides are POS's and they deserve it. I just hope that they can make PERMANENT damage instead of people forgiving them after but a few months. Oh to dream!
Posted by: wch | April 06, 2011 at 11:34 PM
Crazy facts, Whodeyfans? (I'm still waiting on proof of the owners meager profits from this NFL racket.) How many players are in the NFL? Not all of them are Tom Brady and Manning. Woodhead made less than 700,000 (Note: I'm not arguing for players against owners, I'm just saying Brown is not some incredible visionary--nor did I ever state that Brown should pay for the stadium, you're just making up shit). Mike Brown gets a million dollar bonus (from what I've seen it was slightly more than a million) EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR A LIFETIME. HUGE DIFFERENCE. It's even better than multi-millions for a short career. And that's just a GM bonus. Not his salary. A "GM" bonus. What other bonuses does he give himself? He's delusional enough to think he's a GM. What's his salary? You do know a bonus is not the be-all of what an individual makes right? No way is he not pulling in a considerable amount more than 1 million. To support that claim just look at a good estimate of what the Bengals are profiting in a year based on the recent post that compared their operation to that of the Packers public financial record.
You had a feeling more of us would pop up? You really are a prophet! Who would have thought making inflammatory statements would lead to other comments? Right, wch? What a soothsayer. Obviously, I cannot even begin to comprehend your arguments.
By the way, I represent the Bungalfamily, i.e., Mike, Katy, Troy, etc. But not as well as you.
Posted by: bungalfamily | April 07, 2011 at 04:45 PM
The wage scale? The owners were happy to LIMIT the amount they spend on high draft picks. But they offered to DECREASE salary cap increases year by year. That's not giving the Players more money. It's actually less. The money saved by capping rookies could go to older players but........ MFB will most likely stick it in his pocket.
Isn't that what is most likely? Does anyone believe that MFB doesn't spend money because he doesn't have it, or just doesn't want to.
What's the point of the idea that Mike was right in 2006? Just to be able to say that he was right about something at least one time?
Can anyone argue that he has managed an epic and unparalleled level of failure, also known as the Bengals?
Mike voted against a deal in 2006.
He'll vote against this one.
If he's still breathing, he will vote against the next one.
It takes compromise. And he doesn't have any. Why should he compromise? He didn't work to own this team. He inherited some of it and then swindled a dying man out of the rest.
Posted by: JM | April 07, 2011 at 11:30 PM
ok Bungalfamily, lets see if your meager brain can follow these facts:
The average owner operating income is between 20 and 32 million a year. From this the owners need to pay Coaches, administrators, front office and operating expenses (travel, food, lodging etc...) Save me the line that the Bengals have none of this, that is a non-fact made up by the moronic commenter's on this site.
Phillip Rivers made over 25 million last year. What other major corporation is set up so that many of its employees make more than the ownership?
The value of owning an NFL team is the owner could sell for a profit in most cases. It is not in the yearly profits that the team brings in. Many times owners take a loss in a particular season if the team under-performs. Here is where you can argue Mike Browns frugality. He saves money to offset what he sees as "themes" from the fans.
So where does the news of the owners making so much money come from? The players union and agents. They use this misinformation to sway public opinion to side with the poor souls who put their bodies on the line. (Tell that to oil drillers, fisherman and mine workers and see their reactions) Really, this is all "leaked" so that players can make the multi millions that most of them usually piss away.
A couple years ago the Texans owner donated 100 million to the Baylor College of Medicine. Mike Brown himself donated over half a million to the Cincinnati parks to help build up the banks. This is more than the players donate yet they make the majority of the revenue in the league.
All of the owners now agree with the stance that Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson took in 2006. That would mean that in hindsight they were the correct parties. Put aside your blind rage for one second and that is a simple fact to see.
Look, I am all for Mike making changes, hiring a GM and the like. The problem is, like I have said on this site many times, there is no credibility without direction or facts. You guys come on here and mash your keyboard without having no real knowledge of the facts. Read some of SWB's articles. While I don't always agree with him, he is always fair and states facts.
Everyone can have an opinion, but when it is based on some random made up thinking it is just dumb.
Posted by: WhoDeyFans | April 08, 2011 at 01:23 PM
JM, the owners are the ones who brought better benefits for retired players. Google what Drew Brees said about it and see if your argument holds water.
Posted by: WhoDeyFans | April 08, 2011 at 01:24 PM
I don't recall arguing anything about benefits for retired players. I'm not really sure where that came from.
The owners did offer to limit rookie salaries and reduce the rate at which the cap increases year to year. That's the fact I stated. It holds water "all right". This is a classic and easy argument between labor and management. Your point of view can be seen best by whichever side you position yourself with. And justly so as both have legitimate points.
My point of view sides with labor on this one. Simply because ownership is telling labor that they are getting a huge piece of the pie, but are unwilling to prove just how big the pie is. Which they could easily do by turning over 10 years worth of audited financial records to an independent third party. If it would help their case I'm sure that they would.
The ownership of the Chargers needs to pay Phillip Rivers to throw the football because they can't do it themselves. That's why you hire employees and pay them fair market value. And while it's a huge chunk of money, Phillip Rivers is one injury away from making no money from the Chargers at all. Owners can injure their teams and fans for decades with no ramifications as we all know well.
If MFB wants Carson money, trade jobs with him. Lets see, Mike is the quarterback and Carson is the owner. Day 1, Carson releases Mike because he's not very good. Day 2, Carson realizes that he is not qualified to manage the team and hires someone who is. Forever after the Bengals are better.
If owners are envious of Player salaries, trade places with them.
I don't recall hearing that at any point in the last 20 years even a single owner reported a yearly loss. Can you send a link to verify that? I'd like to read it.
Posted by: JM | April 08, 2011 at 05:06 PM
The owners are locking out the players because they want more. The players seem pretty happy as is. The solution to this seems so easy: players accept rookie-wage scale a la the NBA and the owners provide more health care/pensions to NFL veterans for the major lifetime health issues NFL players subject them to.
Labor ultimately is more important than ownership. It makes sense to me they should get somewhere around 60% of the revenues. Owners have structured it so the major cost outside of personnel (the stadiums) are picked up by taxpayers. It's on the owners to prove to the players they deserve a bigger piece of the pie given that at first glance it sure seems like they should be making plenty of money too.
No one has ever explained to me why the owners are hurting financially. Or as Mike puts it, "why they need some relief". Relief from what? Fucking explain please.
Posted by: Sleeping With Bieniemy | April 08, 2011 at 05:43 PM
@WDF, listen MORON, yea, you act like a child on here then I can do the same to you, CLOWN!
They get most of the money and divy (is that a word?) it up? Who paid for MFB's real estate? He is paying nothing to run his so called business in a rent free stadium. I could care less how or what you think about this or if the fans voted to build him a stadium to run his so called business. THE FACT IS, he was given free real estate at no cost or should i say very little cost to make millions in revenue. Any business would prosper by not having to pay for any real estate or maintenance. Only a MORON would think otherwise. He is a billionaire no matter how you spin it. If he sales the team then he will make a billion dollars.
Most stadiums are public funded by taxpayers and these owners are getting over by rapping all taxpayers to run their so called businesses. So you do not think the players should get a bigger piece of the pie even though taxpayers have doled out the money to build their stadiums? What does a fan get in return? Who do the fans come to see, the players or the owners? The players contracts are not guaranteed like in baseball or other sports. They can be cut at anytime. Who takes the risks in this game in which they could be injured for the rest of their lives? I could go on and on, but of course, to you, none of these things I have said are FACTS. LOL
You a clueless fool for even trying to stick up for this clown and his family! I am sure you are a SHEEP season ticket holder or you would not be on this site stating such BS about this old coot!
Posted by: TigerJ@w | April 08, 2011 at 07:46 PM
JM, when you said give it to older players, I read that as retired. My bad I read that wrong. Also, I know that Ralph Wilson has taken no profit or salary from the Bills for at least 3 years. Sure, due to the popularity of the NFL, his teams worth should rebound but he will not see a penny from that.
Bienemy, it is a different argument to argue what Mike says. No where did I say I was a fan of his or agreed with anything (other than the stand he took in 2006 and his replay ideas). The owners want more money to build the NFL for the future. Essentially netting them more money in the long run. I am on neither side of the argument in this labor dispute. It simply is greed and the only losers are the fans.
Tiger, divvy (left a v off the first time, careful about ripping grammar when yours is terrible) is a slang word which means to divide up into portions. You also will never make a point about players risking their safety that I will agree with. There are always people that will do the job for cheaper if they want to pick a safer career. Same as any high risk career, people know the risks going in.
Thanks for using the sheep argument, it has been far too long. I came on here to point out the false argument in the original posts then was asked for facts to back up what I said. Where did I stick up for Mike Brown or his family in stating facts?
Posted by: WhoDeyFans | April 08, 2011 at 09:26 PM
It's too bad, this lockout thing,
and I don't know why, but I get the sense that if the NFL players and owners don't resolve their differences,
the gov't partisans won't resolve theirs either...
I'm really not trying to steer things to politics, but it's all too coincidental for me...
The only question in my mind is, which 'group/conflict' will be the leader, the catalyst, for ultimate resolution, of all the current differences (among gov't 'crats and also among the NFL Plowners)?
Posted by: Hofbraunow | April 09, 2011 at 12:52 AM
Sorry man. I'm pretty good with Google but couldn't find one thing to verify what you said initially about owner's (multiple) and now down to one owner, Ralph Wilson, losing money or working for free.
I believe you said something about use of facts?
I did find one neat fact. Ralph Wilson bought the Bills in 1959 for 25K. The team is now worth over 900 million dollars.
I'm thinking that's an average of 17 million a year for the last 52 years or so.
Fuck it. I want to be an owner.
Posted by: JM | April 09, 2011 at 04:18 PM
Why is the lockout bad? It just prevents the sorry-ass Bungles from embarrassing themselves more.
Posted by: MikeBrownGreedyClown | April 09, 2011 at 09:44 PM
In that sense, yes, the no-news-is-good-news definitely applies with the Bengals...beginning of season, offseason, lockout, it's all good for *the* Cincy Bungleholes
Posted by: Hofbraunow | April 09, 2011 at 11:38 PM
Doesn't matter to me because I'm not watching one more Bengals game until mike gives up control. Or buying any Orange and Brown merchandise.
But those last two posts were factual.
Posted by: JM | April 10, 2011 at 01:22 AM
JM, you do know the difference between the worth of a company and what someone in that company makes right? Facebook is worth billions, it does not mean the owners make billions.
Ralph Wilson has paid himself no money in the last 3 years, he will not see the benefit from the team unless he sells it which he will not do.
I never said that owning a team is not a good investment. Those are two different arguments. My argument is that on a yearly basis, players make more than the owners.
Posted by: WhoDeyFans | April 10, 2011 at 09:54 AM
Whodeyfans,
Facebook is worth Billions and yes, Mark Zuckerberg is worth Billions too! Your point is invalid along with a lot of your other points...
Posted by: justsaying | April 10, 2011 at 05:26 PM
justsaying
I am sorry, I can not argue with stupidity. So lets put it this way. Say you own a house, and say for whatever reason the property value of your house goes up 1 million dollars. Does that mean you made a million dollars the year it went up? Will you claim that money on your taxes? Nope, until you sell, you still have made nothing. If that does not make sense then there is no hope.
Posted by: WhoDeyFans | April 10, 2011 at 10:21 PM
@WDF
So the owners refuse to release their financial records yet Ralph Wilson "claims" that he hasn't made any money in 3 years. I smell B.S.
Also, comparing owning a house to owning a business are two ENTIRELY different things. Not even on the same planet there, my friend.
Facebook rakes in BILLIONS of dollars in advertising, gaming, etc. So unless you plan on using your house to look like the yellow pages, your argument holds no water whatsoever.
My side on the issue is simple: I don't buy that the owners are hurting and need relief. If they were, they would have no problem turning over their financial records. Since they won't, I am assuming that they are full of it. Until I see PROOF, not Ralph Wilson's word that is, I don't see any reason at all to believe otherwise.
Posted by: Jmanring | April 11, 2011 at 09:54 AM
And actually, WhoDeyFans, in the instance you cited (about the house increasing in value), it would actually be a GREATER cost to living there, because your property tax would increase dramatically. That doesn't necessarily apply to NFL owners, by and large, as they enjoy rent-free (and probably tax-free) stadiums. I would wager that Mikey Boy doesn't pay taxes on PBS simply because he wouldn't ask for any upgrades (even though they don't cost him out of pocket) for fear of it costing him in increased taxes.
Posted by: Wyatt | April 11, 2011 at 09:56 AM
Wyatt,
Kind of like the greater cost each year of operating expenses?
We are way off point, my point was simply that it is not Mike Brown that is extending this lockout because of greed like many would like to believe. The players, as well as the owners are greedy.
On the subject of facebook, no, they are not raking in billions. No one really knows what the potential earnings are for facebook, but they do not make billions a year. I do know this for a fact.
Posted by: WhoDeyFans | April 11, 2011 at 11:32 AM
Once again WDF claims to know how much Facebook makes... Dude, its a private company... therefore no financials are made public, So i highly doubt that you know for a FACT that facebook does not make billions... financial analysts arent even exactly sure how much Facebook is worth or what it makes annually...
Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2011 at 02:07 PM
Come on, you rip on me because I tell you facebook does not make billions a year but not on the people who claim they do.
Also, information is free, on the internet. Please research before you say stupid things.
Do you understand the difference between revenue and profit?
and I quote:
"This latest estimate is higher than what analysts previously thought -- earlier analysis put the company's revenue between $550 million and $700 million in 2009. Not only that, the company was profitable, banking somewhere north of $10 million according to a source in Reuters' report.
Facebook's revenue is generated on advertisements tailored to its user interests, but the company faces massive costs: with nearly 500 million users actively logging in to upload photos, statuses and videos, Facebook runs a hefty bandwidth bill."
Posted by: WhoDeyFans | April 11, 2011 at 02:41 PM
Hahaha thats what I like to see... factual information directly from somewhere... Im glad I could take away time from your regular daily activities so you could provide us all with information no one really cares about... I couldnt care less about any of your arguments I just enjoy reading your's, Wyatts, and JMs arguments...Keeps me entertained throughout my day... PS. MIKE BROWN can take a big one right in the behind...
Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2011 at 03:01 PM
Anon,
You took time away from my work, and for that I thank you.
I would like to add this and then I am going away, I am not a Mike Brown fan. His relief comment made my blood curdle. I am also not on the players side in this BS. The fans are the only ones that are getting screwed.
Posted by: WhoDeyFans | April 11, 2011 at 03:21 PM
Owners salaries players salaries?
I know what players make in revenue because it's published.
But I don't know how much players really make because I don't know what their expenses are. Maybe Phillip Rivers had expenses that exceeded his annual income. Maybe Phillip Rivers spent 26 million last year. These taxes I'm California suck. Maybe Phillip Rivers paid a bunch of his family members to work for Phillip Rivers Inc. so that his company could hide income and pay less taxes.
Either way, can you put one verifiable link to a report or even a rumor that can be verified by anyone where Ralph Wilson hasn't paid himself a salary for any amount of time. You keep saying it is a fact. I can't find it.
There are more than 50 players. Of course they make more than a single owner.
Look at it the other way. If Mike doesn't like the way it works then PLEASE sell the team to someone who could find some way to stomach the deal that Mike has.
Please!!!???
Fair market value determines the players salary. I wish fair market value determined the owners salary. But in our case the owner determines his salary. Either way, how can you argue what the owners make, when they simply won't tell you.
A good player, say a quarterback can make money for the entire team. With owners you make money when you are good or bad, as we know.
Owners are guaranteed money for decades. Players are guaranteed nothing but signing bonuses. Even those are recoverable occasionally.
You said it yourself, why would an owner sell? If you really feel that way then you must think they have a pretty good deal. Guaranteed money for DECADES with no guarantee of performance.
Peyton Manning will get the biggest annual salary in the league. At his age, if he had two bad seasons he would be cut to save money.
The players make money for a few years. What is the average length of an NFL career? What is the AVERAGE salary for an NFL player.
What is the annual salary for the worst owner in the NFL who wants more? I wish we knew, but no one will verify that.
An opportunity for a few years of mostly non guaranteed money versus decades of guaranteed money. I still think I'd rather be an owner.
Besides if the players are incompetent, stubborn, disappointing, don't work hard, and fail at their jobs they get fired. Owners, well, they get to behave just like that and make guaranteed money.
That's a fact.
Posted by: JM | April 12, 2011 at 03:19 AM
Surely you understand net worth. I'd take the owners net worth over any players net worth.
Chris Rock: I'm not talkin' bout being rich, I'm talkin' bout wealthy. Shaq is Rich, the white man that signs his check is wealthy.
Chris Rock: if Bill Gates woke up tomorrow with Oprah's money he'd slit his fuckin' throat.
Bengal translation: if Mike Brown woke up tomorrow with Carson Palmers contract, he'd slit his fuckin' throat.
Posted by: JM | April 12, 2011 at 03:27 AM
"Where did I stick up for Mike Brown or his family in stating facts?" -WDF
"Lets give Mike Brown some credit" -Title of WDF article
I rest my case.
There is so much contradiction and doublespeak in your posts it is amazing that you get your panties all in a bunch when someone asks for some kind of verification of your claims. Any support at all would be incredibly helpful. You take the side of the owners, joining the camp of those (the owners and their henchman, and that's about it) claiming they have financial hardships. Fine. Where's the evidence? It is not a fact that Mike Brown, or any other owner, has financial hardship as a result of expenses related to running an NFL franchise-opoly. It is not a self-evident fact. You need evidence. Proof. Something that is verifiable, in some way, that just one owner is in financial trouble as a direct result of his franchises expenses. Good luck, because no one has shown this.
Surely, you can find something at least comparable to this evidence of the hardships experienced by some players:
http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201104/tpg-exclusive-cash-strapped-nfl-players-seeking-high-risk-lockout-loans
Posted by: bungalfamily | April 12, 2011 at 03:13 PM
So...not to change the subject (okay that's exactly what I'm doing), but I think I've located the website for one of Mike Brown's scouts:
http://player-rater.blogspot.com/2010/08/patrick-peterson-2011-draft-scouting.html
Posted by: Wyatt | April 12, 2011 at 03:36 PM
haha, no, Mikey probably just uses him as a free resource.
I mean, I know Mike went all high-tech and offers phones to his scout(s) to "pick up a phone and call anywhere in the country" (or however he put it), but wow! Maybe he has boned up--despite these incredibly tough financial times for NFL owners which WDF can attest to--and forked over money for an internet connection so the scouting "department" can tap into this newfound resource. Then again, maybe phones, internet, and computers are all expenses for the employees.
The guys at KSK seem to think, or joke, that he's 14 years old. Is he 14 years old, or a guy with 14 years of NFL scouting experience and a baby face?
Posted by: bungalfamily | April 12, 2011 at 05:16 PM
Can we get a new article?
This horse is dead and beaten.
Posted by: JM | April 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM
Post something new!!!
Posted by: For the love of Sue... | April 16, 2011 at 05:04 PM
Sue? How do you *do*?
Posted by: JohnnyCashTray-at-the-Lockout | April 18, 2011 at 01:04 AM
More than 2 weeks....is the revolution dead?
Posted by: Jeff | April 20, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Bengals 3 of the 10 worst games scheduled in 2011
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_best_worst_games_2011_041911
Posted by: MikeBrownGreedyClown | April 23, 2011 at 01:09 AM
Well, now maybe I just don't visit enough, but it's been dead for a while....but then again, what do you expect in an offseason with a lockout going?
btw, scouting you say?
Mike Brown loves 'The Mel Kiper';
also, "The Steelers are very glad to have the Bengals in [their] division]"
Posted by: Hofbraunow | April 24, 2011 at 12:33 AM