Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then...

  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2288 posts this site

Posted: 1/20/2013 6:35 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 




---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:


mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gameface64 wrote:

Mes,

Not debating your overall take, but you've chosen a couple poor examples to back your POV.

Marvin Lewis, really? If Mike Brown wasn't so cheap, Marvin would have been on the curb a couple times already.

And Belichick won his first SB with a bunch of B-List free agents before he started attracting big name FA's. His first wave of FA help were guys like Roman Phifer, Mike Vrabel, David Patten, Joe Andruzzi, Larry Izzo, and Anthony Pleasent. Bunch of lunchbucket types that filled the holes in the roster. After that year Belichick picked up disgruntled RBs from Buffalo and Cincinnati and started the roll that lead to guys like Randy Moss eager to sign on.

---------------------------------------------
GF,
You just spelled out my whole case. The Bengals are winning in SPITE of Mike Brown's bad rep. His bad rep doesn't prevent him from hiring a good HC like Lewis.

BB had a reputation as a jerk, control freak, and failure as a HC upon arriving in NE. He attracted the so called "B list" FAs, but in reality they turned out to be key pieces to the SBs. So despite a so-called bad rep, it did not preclude BB or Mike Brown or Eddie DeBartlo or Jerry Jones from WINNING. And ultimately winning alters the media's perception of individual's character. So does losing.

Gary's take insinuates that "lying, misleading, bad reputation, etc...will definitely negatively impact the organization. I'm disputing that. It may or may not. This is not a causal relationship. It's a hypothetical opinion.

I'm not trying to defend Haslam, Banner or Lombardi. IMO everything is dependent on winning, which has always been the reality.
A bad rep will always hurt a team but not in every situation every time. Sooner or later it drives up a price, steers a good player away, causes good people in the FO to leave or be fired, poisons the atmosphere with the press, etc. All those things can happen some will happen.

If the Browns lie to an agent, screw him over, he isn't going to forget. However, if he gets fair treatment, even if its a firm no, he'll remember that too. 

Can the Browns win with Banner and Lombardi? Damn, I hope so. Can the keep a top notch organization in place and put out consistently winning teams like the Patriots? I hope they can do that too. But I think its less likely if they lie as a matter of practice. That kind of **** comes back on you.

---------------------------------------------
Fair enough, in the long run lying and disrespect might alienate a few agents, prospective players, or possible coaches. Yet, that still does not preclude winning, or even really lessen the opportunity as I alluded to earlier. And so far, despite the negative perception of Banner and Lombardi created by the local media, the reality is that the FO has assembled a fairly acclaimed coaching staff. Turner and Horton have been universally praised, and Chud's credentials stack up well against any hire made this offseason outside of Andy Reid. Likewise, the entire personnel department outside of Heckert has been retained - seems fair. So, this whole sky is falling mentality that the local media is spewing is at least premature, but more likely self-serving, and at worst a personal vendetta against an individual(s).

I appreciate all of these "sources" that provide the info. that all of us follow. Yet, my background has trained me to understand bias and motive in a given environment. Sometimes the perception of others is the reality of the situation, and sometimes the perception is just a perception, nothing more.

The reality of this situation is what Haslam and Banner have said from day 1 and have repeated it often - winning is the goal. Winning cures all, and the FO hasn't lied about that. No player or coach will feel disrespected if winning occurs (or at most they'll be quieter about it for fear of sounding like an idiot). Haslam's determined to try and win. That in itself is reason to be optimistic. Randy would've "liked" to win to fulfill his obligation. That's a big difference.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/20/2013 6:58 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:


mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gameface64 wrote:

Mes,

Not debating your overall take, but you've chosen a couple poor examples to back your POV.

Marvin Lewis, really? If Mike Brown wasn't so cheap, Marvin would have been on the curb a couple times already.

And Belichick won his first SB with a bunch of B-List free agents before he started attracting big name FA's. His first wave of FA help were guys like Roman Phifer, Mike Vrabel, David Patten, Joe Andruzzi, Larry Izzo, and Anthony Pleasent. Bunch of lunchbucket types that filled the holes in the roster. After that year Belichick picked up disgruntled RBs from Buffalo and Cincinnati and started the roll that lead to guys like Randy Moss eager to sign on.

---------------------------------------------
GF,
You just spelled out my whole case. The Bengals are winning in SPITE of Mike Brown's bad rep. His bad rep doesn't prevent him from hiring a good HC like Lewis.

BB had a reputation as a jerk, control freak, and failure as a HC upon arriving in NE. He attracted the so called "B list" FAs, but in reality they turned out to be key pieces to the SBs. So despite a so-called bad rep, it did not preclude BB or Mike Brown or Eddie DeBartlo or Jerry Jones from WINNING. And ultimately winning alters the media's perception of individual's character. So does losing.

Gary's take insinuates that "lying, misleading, bad reputation, etc...will definitely negatively impact the organization. I'm disputing that. It may or may not. This is not a causal relationship. It's a hypothetical opinion.

I'm not trying to defend Haslam, Banner or Lombardi. IMO everything is dependent on winning, which has always been the reality.
A bad rep will always hurt a team but not in every situation every time. Sooner or later it drives up a price, steers a good player away, causes good people in the FO to leave or be fired, poisons the atmosphere with the press, etc. All those things can happen some will happen.

If the Browns lie to an agent, screw him over, he isn't going to forget. However, if he gets fair treatment, even if its a firm no, he'll remember that too. 

Can the Browns win with Banner and Lombardi? Damn, I hope so. Can the keep a top notch organization in place and put out consistently winning teams like the Patriots? I hope they can do that too. But I think its less likely if they lie as a matter of practice. That kind of **** comes back on you.

---------------------------------------------
Fair enough, in the long run lying and disrespect might alienate a few agents, prospective players, or possible coaches. Yet, that still does not preclude winning, or even really lessen the opportunity as I alluded to earlier. And so far, despite the negative perception of Banner and Lombardi created by the local media, the reality is that the FO has assembled a fairly acclaimed coaching staff. Turner and Horton have been universally praised, and Chud's credentials stack up well against any hire made this offseason outside of Andy Reid. Likewise, the entire personnel department outside of Heckert has been retained - seems fair. So, this whole sky is falling mentality that the local media is spewing is at least premature, but more likely self-serving, and at worst a personal vendetta against an individual(s).

I appreciate all of these "sources" that provide the info. that all of us follow. Yet, my background has trained me to understand bias and motive in a given environment. Sometimes the perception of others is the reality of the situation, and sometimes the perception is just a perception, nothing more.

The reality of this situation is what Haslam and Banner have said from day 1 and have repeated it often - winning is the goal. Winning cures all, and the FO hasn't lied about that. No player or coach will feel disrespected if winning occurs (or at most they'll be quieter about it for fear of sounding like an idiot). Haslam's determined to try and win. That in itself is reason to be optimistic. Randy would've "liked" to win to fulfill his obligation. That's a big difference.
Oh. Right at the end you fall down.  When Randy became owner he got rid of Butch. When Haslam got rid of Holmgren and the rest. Randy talked to winning owners and NFL coaches and got all their advice. So did Haslam. Randy hired a business guy. So did Haslam. Then Randy got one of the top coordinators in the business. So did Haslam (Chud doesn't have the same acclaim as Romeo did after three SB, but I'm kind).  

From the exact same MO at the start you determine one is determined and one was not....because he said so? Randy said so, too.

Again, this overlay of special attributes onto Haslam is ridiculous. He hasn't done anything special yet, except get rid of a GM the fans liked and hired one the fans hate.   That's the reality.

We'll see if Lombardi and Banner are as good as they believe they are. They sure have Haslam convinced that he was lucky to snatch Lombardi from all the teams that weren't interested in hiring him.
Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2288 posts this site

Posted: 1/20/2013 7:36 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 




---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:


mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gary Reents wrote:


mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Gameface64 wrote:

Mes,

Not debating your overall take, but you've chosen a couple poor examples to back your POV.

Marvin Lewis, really? If Mike Brown wasn't so cheap, Marvin would have been on the curb a couple times already.

And Belichick won his first SB with a bunch of B-List free agents before he started attracting big name FA's. His first wave of FA help were guys like Roman Phifer, Mike Vrabel, David Patten, Joe Andruzzi, Larry Izzo, and Anthony Pleasent. Bunch of lunchbucket types that filled the holes in the roster. After that year Belichick picked up disgruntled RBs from Buffalo and Cincinnati and started the roll that lead to guys like Randy Moss eager to sign on.

---------------------------------------------
GF,
You just spelled out my whole case. The Bengals are winning in SPITE of Mike Brown's bad rep. His bad rep doesn't prevent him from hiring a good HC like Lewis.

BB had a reputation as a jerk, control freak, and failure as a HC upon arriving in NE. He attracted the so called "B list" FAs, but in reality they turned out to be key pieces to the SBs. So despite a so-called bad rep, it did not preclude BB or Mike Brown or Eddie DeBartlo or Jerry Jones from WINNING. And ultimately winning alters the media's perception of individual's character. So does losing.

Gary's take insinuates that "lying, misleading, bad reputation, etc...will definitely negatively impact the organization. I'm disputing that. It may or may not. This is not a causal relationship. It's a hypothetical opinion.

I'm not trying to defend Haslam, Banner or Lombardi. IMO everything is dependent on winning, which has always been the reality.
A bad rep will always hurt a team but not in every situation every time. Sooner or later it drives up a price, steers a good player away, causes good people in the FO to leave or be fired, poisons the atmosphere with the press, etc. All those things can happen some will happen.

If the Browns lie to an agent, screw him over, he isn't going to forget. However, if he gets fair treatment, even if its a firm no, he'll remember that too. 

Can the Browns win with Banner and Lombardi? Damn, I hope so. Can the keep a top notch organization in place and put out consistently winning teams like the Patriots? I hope they can do that too. But I think its less likely if they lie as a matter of practice. That kind of **** comes back on you.

---------------------------------------------
Fair enough, in the long run lying and disrespect might alienate a few agents, prospective players, or possible coaches. Yet, that still does not preclude winning, or even really lessen the opportunity as I alluded to earlier. And so far, despite the negative perception of Banner and Lombardi created by the local media, the reality is that the FO has assembled a fairly acclaimed coaching staff. Turner and Horton have been universally praised, and Chud's credentials stack up well against any hire made this offseason outside of Andy Reid. Likewise, the entire personnel department outside of Heckert has been retained - seems fair. So, this whole sky is falling mentality that the local media is spewing is at least premature, but more likely self-serving, and at worst a personal vendetta against an individual(s).

I appreciate all of these "sources" that provide the info. that all of us follow. Yet, my background has trained me to understand bias and motive in a given environment. Sometimes the perception of others is the reality of the situation, and sometimes the perception is just a perception, nothing more.

The reality of this situation is what Haslam and Banner have said from day 1 and have repeated it often - winning is the goal. Winning cures all, and the FO hasn't lied about that. No player or coach will feel disrespected if winning occurs (or at most they'll be quieter about it for fear of sounding like an idiot). Haslam's determined to try and win. That in itself is reason to be optimistic. Randy would've "liked" to win to fulfill his obligation. That's a big difference.
Oh. Right at the end you fall down.  When Randy became owner he got rid of Butch. When Haslam got rid of Holmgren and the rest. Randy talked to winning owners and NFL coaches and got all their advice. So did Haslam. Randy hired a business guy. So did Haslam. Then Randy got one of the top coordinators in the business. So did Haslam (Chud doesn't have the same acclaim as Romeo did after three SB, but I'm kind).  

From the exact same MO at the start you determine one is determined and one was not....because he said so? Randy said so, too.

Again, this overlay of special attributes onto Haslam is ridiculous. He hasn't done anything special yet, except get rid of a GM the fans liked and hired one the fans hate.   That's the reality.

We'll see if Lombardi and Banner are as good as they believe they are. They sure have Haslam convinced that he was lucky to snatch Lombardi from all the teams that weren't interested in hiring him.

---------------------------------------------
The reality is the only "special attribute" I've assigned to Haslam is a determination to win, which I've based on actions, not supposed warm and fuzzy sentimentalism for a sympathetic owner.

Haslam's actions speak louder than his money, and definitely his words. He stepped down from CEO of Pilot Flying J to focus on the Browns. Randy's personal focus was divided between business, soccer, and the Browns.

Haslam sold the naming rights to raise funds to further making the Browns competitive. Randy, crickets, crickets.

Haslam is currently in the process of stadium improvements to make the gameday experience as enjoyable as other NFL franchises. Randy, not so much.

Haslam immediately bought a home in the area. Randy spent most of his time in NY.

Haslam has taken a leadership role for the organization he owns. Randy hired Holmy to fulfill his duty, so he could finalize his status as the most absentee owner. One step above neglect.

Randy threw money at problems with the organization hoping it would all work out. He couldn't stomach all the responsibilities of being an owner. He went through the motions, at times tried to play the part as much as his personality would allow, and probably agonized over his missteps. Yet, through it all, he could never step up and get his hands dirty and fully embrace his responsibility. At the end, he paid someone else to avoid his position. It was an unfair obligation placed upon him by his father. He never wanted it, but being the good son, being a fan of the team, and a man with no choice, he tried. His heart wasn't in it enough, and so he jumped ship at his first legal opportunity. Hate to break your heart.

Haslam's actions and money say he wants this job. So when Randy and Haslam say similar things or some moves coincide, the perception is overlooking the reality. Jimmy is determined to try and win. Randy would've liked to win to fulfill his obligations.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/21/2013 9:51 AM

Thermonuclear 


The only real sentimental attachment some fans had to Randy Lerner was that he, like us,  grew up as a fan of the team.  And unlike his father, Randy at least made an attempt at "best practices."  His father, knowin' nuthin' 'bout birthin babies, left it allll up to Carmen.

The desire and determination of any new owner to win can be so much lip service when there was never a previous attachment to a team.  It would stand to reason that Haslam's desire to win would have a little more oomph behind it had he purchased the Tennessee Titans. 

Now having that sort of lifetime attachment to a team doesn't make anyone more competent to lead a team to success.  We can all imagine an alternate universe where, if things had just gone differently, David Modell would have become a poor man's Mike Brown (".... the horror... the HORROR..."). Just speaks to the level of lip service that is desire and determination to win.

And many owners split time between the business ventures that got them all that money in the first place, and their new pursuit.  If you think Haslam divested himself entirely from involvement with Flying J, you're welcome to the notion. 

Like Lerner, he bought a pad in Cleveland, and said from the outset that he would split time between Knoxville and Cleveland.  Apparently he is so determined to win that he's adopted the same practice as his predecessor, namely keeping his fingers on those other pursuits back home.  Hopefully he'll spend a greater percentage of his time on the Browns than Lerner.  But that's a "time will tell" proposition and not some given from the outset because he seems like a macho man of action.

And the connection between naming rights to a stadium and making a team more competitive is a bit of reach.  Won't change the salary cap.  And if it's money Haslam really needed in order to apply to getting the best front office money can buy, then his financial situation would have been marginal enough that the NFL would not have approved him.
He's entirely within his rights to go that route and take the money.  But Lerner purposely avoided that tact for a reason.  As a fan, I appreciated that.  With Haslam, we now have a generically named stadium, and I'm sure he'll use those funds to enhance my game day experience... like telling me I should be in my seat for the opening kickoff.

As for taking a leadership role for the organization he owns, it's same old, same old:  he's either a meddler or an absentee landlord.  He sticks his nose into the football side for which he knows nothing and he should leave that to the football people, or he's a hands on, involved guy who's determined to win.

I'd agree with this: "it was an unfair obligation placed upon him by his father. He never wanted it, but being the good son, being a fan of the team, and a man with no choice, he tried."

What I'd take issue with is "his heart wasn't in it enough, and so he jumped ship at his first legal opportunity." 

IMO he was willing to make a go of it, but realized that after so many attempts at "best practices," he still ended up shooting 112.  All the golf lessons and great equipment couldn't help him.  And as said years ago, he gave himself one more opportunity to get it right, and vowed that if it still turned to shyte, then that was it.  As Chuck Noll used to say, he'd know that this just wasn't his life's vocation, and it was time to move on-- for the sake of the fans, for the sake of his own sanity.

Now WHERE that decision came to him in his ten year tenure, I don't know.  Lerner DID sell at the first opportunity.  Whether that was ALWAYS his intent is debatable.  Had somewhere along the line he found a great GM, who in turn begat a great front office and HC and a contending team, he could have come to the realization his father might have hoped he'd reach:  give it ten years, and if it works out, continue the legacy.  If it doesn't, then sell.

Haslam's actions and money said he wanted the ultimate status symbol of being an NFL team owner.  And all owners want to win and enjoy a honeymoon with fans.  Northern Florida fans just LOVED Shahid Khan.  He is personable, talked the talk of winning, and not many cities can boast the novelty that is a major league franchise owned by a Pakastani-American.  But now the Jags ended up with the worst record in the league, and the honeymoon for Khan is evaporating.

The difference, in terms of moves, is that Lerner's at least were met with some optimism from fans and media.  Haslam's were met with a large degree of pessimism. 

Doesn't mean they can't work out.  But we can all judge individual moves, and enough good ones can give us optimism about the person making them, and enough bad ones can make us careful for what we wished. 

If Lerner never sold and instead made all the moves Haslam has made, the fans would have gone thermonuclear on him.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/21/2013 11:49 AM

Re: Thermonuclear 


Knowing what sentence should be the last sentence is an art.
Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2288 posts this site

Posted: 1/21/2013 9:08 PM

Re: Thermonuclear 




---------------------------------------------
--- Aardvark wrote:

The only real sentimental attachment some fans had to Randy Lerner was that he, like us,  grew up as a fan of the team.  And unlike his father, Randy at least made an attempt at "best practices."  His father, knowin' nuthin' 'bout birthin babies, left it allll up to Carmen.

The desire and determination of any new owner to win can be so much lip service when there was never a previous attachment to a team.  It would stand to reason that Haslam's desire to win would have a little more oomph behind it had he purchased the Tennessee Titans. 

Now having that sort of lifetime attachment to a team doesn't make anyone more competent to lead a team to success.  We can all imagine an alternate universe where, if things had just gone differently, David Modell would have become a poor man's Mike Brown (".... the horror... the HORROR..."). Just speaks to the level of lip service that is desire and determination to win.

And many owners split time between the business ventures that got them all that money in the first place, and their new pursuit.  If you think Haslam divested himself entirely from involvement with Flying J, you're welcome to the notion. 

Like Lerner, he bought a pad in Cleveland, and said from the outset that he would split time between Knoxville and Cleveland.  Apparently he is so determined to win that he's adopted the same practice as his predecessor, namely keeping his fingers on those other pursuits back home.  Hopefully he'll spend a greater percentage of his time on the Browns than Lerner.  But that's a "time will tell" proposition and not some given from the outset because he seems like a macho man of action.

And the connection between naming rights to a stadium and making a team more competitive is a bit of reach.  Won't change the salary cap.  And if it's money Haslam really needed in order to apply to getting the best front office money can buy, then his financial situation would have been marginal enough that the NFL would not have approved him.
He's entirely within his rights to go that route and take the money.  But Lerner purposely avoided that tact for a reason.  As a fan, I appreciated that.  With Haslam, we now have a generically named stadium, and I'm sure he'll use those funds to enhance my game day experience... like telling me I should be in my seat for the opening kickoff.

As for taking a leadership role for the organization he owns, it's same old, same old:  he's either a meddler or an absentee landlord.  He sticks his nose into the football side for which he knows nothing and he should leave that to the football people, or he's a hands on, involved guy who's determined to win.

I'd agree with this: "it was an unfair obligation placed upon him by his father. He never wanted it, but being the good son, being a fan of the team, and a man with no choice, he tried."

What I'd take issue with is "his heart wasn't in it enough, and so he jumped ship at his first legal opportunity." 

IMO he was willing to make a go of it, but realized that after so many attempts at "best practices," he still ended up shooting 112.  All the golf lessons and great equipment couldn't help him.  And as said years ago, he gave himself one more opportunity to get it right, and vowed that if it still turned to shyte, then that was it.  As Chuck Noll used to say, he'd know that this just wasn't his life's vocation, and it was time to move on-- for the sake of the fans, for the sake of his own sanity.

Now WHERE that decision came to him in his ten year tenure, I don't know.  Lerner DID sell at the first opportunity.  Whether that was ALWAYS his intent is debatable.  Had somewhere along the line he found a great GM, who in turn begat a great front office and HC and a contending team, he could have come to the realization his father might have hoped he'd reach:  give it ten years, and if it works out, continue the legacy.  If it doesn't, then sell.

Haslam's actions and money said he wanted the ultimate status symbol of being an NFL team owner.  And all owners want to win and enjoy a honeymoon with fans.  Northern Florida fans just LOVED Shahid Khan.  He is personable, talked the talk of winning, and not many cities can boast the novelty that is a major league franchise owned by a Pakastani-American.  But now the Jags ended up with the worst record in the league, and the honeymoon for Khan is evaporating.

The difference, in terms of moves, is that Lerner's at least were met with some optimism from fans and media.  Haslam's were met with a large degree of pessimism. 

Doesn't mean they can't work out.  But we can all judge individual moves, and enough good ones can give us optimism about the person making them, and enough bad ones can make us careful for what we wished. 

If Lerner never sold and instead made all the moves Haslam has made, the fans would have gone thermonuclear on him.

---------------------------------------------
AA,
You make some valid points, especially about the timeframe and intent when Randy decided to sell.

However, the hiring of de facto owner, Holmgren, sheds so much light to the mindset of Randy and it's a stark contrast to Haslam's actions. Randy sold his role in ownership 2 years before he could legally sell the franchise. That move is made for 1 or 2 reasons - you're admitting to complete incompetency and throwing in the towel OR you have no determination, heart, desire to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself. IMO, it's maybe a little of both, but I don't think Randy is truly incompetent. Either way, it's a sure fire indicator, and I don't need any sources to feed me that.

Yet, it may further indicate his intent from the outset. Whether it was Mangini, his chase for Cowher, his hiring of Collins, or the elevation of Butchie's power, Randy was always ready to cede his responsibilities to someone else. He may have deceived the sentimental crowd that he was going to let football people handle the football side. I bought it for a long time. I even was able to allow the local media types convince me that he really was an ideal owner because he had deep pockets, cared (he's a lifelong fan for gods sake), and stayed out of the way of the football stuff that he knew little about. His hand-picked interviews with local media friends helped shape this view.

Given the revealing of the final pieces to the puzzle, the final picture is in full view. Randy's handling of the team is similar to an absentee, workaholic parent who got roped into having kids. They both cared about their obligation, but not enough to be fully involved in their development. Whether it was from a lack of desire, heart, or determination or some other reason they were unwilling or unable to deliver on their fated obligation. From afar, they threw money at the problems hoping that someone else could step up and handle their responsibility. Once the money was put out, they left town, carried on with their other interests, and poked their head in now and again to make sure the house wasn't on fire. They only stepped in and "cared" when $hi+ hit the fan and fan pressure made changes inevitable. Changes were made in name, but not in philosophical practice. More problems, more money thrown at the solution. After 8 years, Randy officially gave up custody and let the kids live under the rules and guidance of someone else, signing the checks that were due but otherwise taking a step back (albeit from a closer geographical location). When 10 years was up, he checked out (got paid), shook hands with his f-ed up kids and said, "Best of Luck."

Randy was bequeathed a franchise he never wanted to own. Randy was willing to pay a premium to anyone to handle his obligation, so he could carry on with his life. After 8 years of failure, he checked out as a day-to-day owner in every way, but name and signing paychecks - but was smart enough to turn over responsibility to cheap-a$$e$ who wouldn't recklessly spend his money. When his legal obligation was fulfilled, he left town and lined his pockets.

Now in terms of Haslam's mindset, He has become the leader of the organization - watching him dominate a press conference shows this is pretty evident. He has fully involved himself in the franchise, maybe even so much as to overbearing. He hasn't hired Banner to be the de facto owner, he's hired Banner to provide his expertise in building a winner (whether it works or not, time will tell). Haslam has set the objective - winning - been out front for every single action his franchise has made, and has yet to take his hands off every detail of his business. It's not an obligation for Haslam, it's a business. The business of the NFL is winning (not making money, every NFL team is currently making money, and all owners in the nfl have money).
Reply | Quote
  • Doberman
  • Fluffy Puppy
  • 272 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 1/21/2013 11:49 PM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



mes78 wrote:

Haslam sold the naming rights to raise funds to further making the Browns competitive. Randy, crickets, crickets.

For the most part, I want to agree with your take, mes.  This one statement, however, I take issue with.  If you can afford a billion dollars to buy a franchise, you bloody well better be able to spend enough to make it competitive.  Anything else is just spin.

Haslam didn't have enough to buy the whole amount from Jammies in one shot.  THAT's why he's selling the naming rights.

It's also why I won't spend another dime on Browns football until they start to win again.  If Haslam is gonna run this team like a business, I'll run my fandom the same way.

"Coaches who can outline plays on a black board are a dime a dozen. The ones who win get inside their player and motivate." - Vince Lombardi

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/22/2013 12:59 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



Doberman wrote:
mes78 wrote:

Haslam sold the naming rights to raise funds to further making the Browns competitive. Randy, crickets, crickets.

For the most part, I want to agree with your take, mes.  This one statement, however, I take issue with.  If you can afford a billion dollars to buy a franchise, you bloody well better be able to spend enough to make it competitive.  Anything else is just spin.

Haslam didn't have enough to buy the whole amount from Jammies in one shot.  THAT's why he's selling the naming rights.

It's also why I won't spend another dime on Browns football until they start to win again.  If Haslam is gonna run this team like a business, I'll run my fandom the same way.
Not really.  When you pay top dollar for an investment you have an even bigger challenge when competing with those who paid less.  Selling the naming rights is a common way to increase revenue.  If we are to compete we need to keep up with the rest of the pack.  Here is how much and what it means to our competitors.  

 

The Plain Dealer has learned First Energy has acquired the naming rights to Cleveland Browns Stadium. It's unclear yet how much the Browns will reap from the deal, but in 2011 Bloomberg Businessweek assembled a list of 23 NFL stadiums with title sponsors and the deals that acquired them. They are as follows:

Baltimore Ravens: M&T Bank Stadium -- 5 years, $75 million

Carolina Panthers: Bank of America Stadium -- 20 years, $140 million

Denver Broncos: Sports Authority Field at Mile High Stadium -- 25 years, $150 million

Detroit Lions: Ford Field -- 20 years, $40 million

Houston Texans: Reliant Stadium -- 32 years, $320 million

Indianapolis Colts: Lucas Oil Stadium 20 years, $122 million

Jacksonville Jaguars: EverBank Field -- 5 years, $16.6 million

Miami Dolphins: Sun Life Stadium -- 5 years, $37.5 million

Minnesota Vikings: Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome -- 3 years, $6 million

New England Patriots: Gillette Stadium -- 15 years, $105 million

New York Jets/Giants: MetLife Stadium -- 25 years, $400 million

Oakland Raiders: O.co Coliseum -- 6 years, $7.2 million

Philadelphia Eagles: Lincoln Financial Field -- 21 years, $139 million

Phoenix Cardinals: University of Phoenix Stadium -- 26 years, $154 million

Pittsburgh Steelers: Heinz Field – 20 years, $57 million.

San Diego Chargers: Qualcomm Stadium -- 20 years, $18 million

St. Louis Rams: Edward Jones Dome -- 12 years, $31.8 million

Seattle Seahawks: Century Link Field -- 15 years, $75 million.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Raymond James Stadium -- 13 years, $32.5 million

Tennessee Titans: LP Field -- 10 years, $30 million.

Washington Redskins: FedEx Field -- 27 years, $205 million

Future Los Angles franchise: Farmers Field -- 30 years, $700 million


How do you know what was expected by Randy when it comes to payments?  How do you know how hard or how much it taxed him personally to pay what he did?  Big difference between what you are worth and what you have to spend on other ventures.  You better believe this will be run like a business.  This means he wants to MAKE money and not use his own personal money.  That's a given in buisness.  Can you tell me a team that’s not? 

My mother never breast-fed me. She told me she liked me as a friend - Rodney Dangerfield
 

Last edited 1/22/2013 1:21 AM by hamster

Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2288 posts this site

Posted: 1/22/2013 2:22 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 




---------------------------------------------
--- Doberman wrote:


mes78 wrote:

Haslam sold the naming rights to raise funds to further making the Browns competitive. Randy, crickets, crickets.

For the most part, I want to agree with your take, mes.  This one statement, however, I take issue with.  If you can afford a billion dollars to buy a franchise, you bloody well better be able to spend enough to make it competitive.  Anything else is just spin.

Haslam didn't have enough to buy the whole amount from Jammies in one shot.  THAT's why he's selling the naming rights.

It's also why I won't spend another dime on Browns football until they start to win again.  If Haslam is gonna run this team like a business, I'll run my fandom the same way.

---------------------------------------------
Would you rather Haslam run the organization like a fan? The naming rights was one of a few ways to increase revenues that had not been tapped. Haslam knows business, and he knows to compete in the NFL you have to try and capitalize on every available opportunity. Sure he has money, but now an additional 107 million are available to use as he sees fit to upgrade the organization. Better than asking the taxpayer to foot the bill.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/22/2013 9:03 AM

Re: Thermonuclear 


MES:

However, the hiring of de facto owner, Holmgren, sheds so much light to the mindset of Randy and it's a stark contrast to Haslam's actions.

AA:

Actually it speaks more to your mindset with your characterization of Holmgren as the "de facto owner."  He wasn't. 

Holmgren was the HMFIC of all things on the FOOTBALL side, and this after so many bellowed for Lerner to leave that portion of the operation to actual football people.  There was a reasonable expectation that Holmgren could then determine the chicken/egg dilemma that is gm/hc, and make good hires.  Lerner provided the financial support. 

Certainly Lerner could see that despite his own efforts, the results were wanting.  He could have gone the Art Rooney route and tried the same thing over and over, for a couple of decades hoping for a different outcome... then look like a genius when he actually produced one with Chuck Noll.

Instead, Lerner left the football side to the football people... as so many for years wanted him to do.  And once he did that, then the criticism came from the other side of the aisle:  he's ceded control of everything.  He's disengaged, he's the negligent slumlord.
 
MES:

Randy sold his role in ownership 2 years before he could legally sell the franchise.

AA:

To whom and for how much?

MES:

That move is made for 1 or 2 reasons - you're admitting to complete incompetency and throwing in the towel OR you have no determination, heart, desire to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself. IMO, it's maybe a little of both, but I don't think Randy is truly incompetent. Either way, it's a sure fire indicator, and I don't need any sources to feed me that.

AA:

So if he bought the best equipment and took lessons and went to golf academies to work on his game... and still shot 112...

... did that make him incompetent?  How about...nonathletic?

Ted Stepien was incompetent.  His every move was greeted with a slackjawed "wtf?" public that could see a train wreck waiting to happen from the outset. 

Lerner's moves were more along the line of mixed to encouraging... even if the results were the same.  Based on results alone, Lerner's tenure was incompetent. 

But those results came when he both ceded football control (Butch early on when Randy was quickly trying to learn the ropes of this franchise handed to him, and later with Holmgren), and when he rolled up his sleeves and did it himself (Crennel, Savage, Mangini).

And when the results sucked, then people complained about the process that went into the hires that produced those results.

MES:

Given the revealing of the final pieces to the puzzle, the final picture is in full view. Randy's handling of the team is similar to an absentee, workaholic parent who got roped into having kids. They both cared about their obligation, but not enough to be fully involved in their development. Whether it was from a lack of desire, heart, or determination or some other reason they were unwilling or unable to deliver on their fated obligation. From afar, they threw money at the problems hoping that someone else could step up and handle their responsibility.

AA:

And that would be different from other NFL owners... how?

Those owners whose team is their sole source of revenue are in a minority. 

And for every Rooney family, there's a Bidwell family. 

MES:

Now in terms of Haslam's mindset, He has become the leader of the organization - watching him dominate a press conference shows this is pretty evident.

AA:

For years, I wrote about how fans like coaches to be the opposite of the incumbent loser.  It applies to owners as well.  Lerner did not want to be a face of the franchise.  Haslam does.  I've no problem with either image an owner wants to project.  I don't care if he's Percy Dovetonsils or Torquemada, as long as he happens to own a contender.

But people invariably equate style with substance.  The hc on the sideline who is a stone faced Buddha is not any better or worse than the animated wrestling manager whose theatrics can be clearly seen in section 503.  Yea, one would prefer a Jim Harbaugh over a Pat Shurmur, but not a Wayne Fontes over Tom Landry.

Haslam has a look and background that appeals to many fans.  Terrific.  He has that going for him. 

Does that make Banner and Lombardi more appealing as hires? 

If they were hired anyplace else, would fans be cursing "Damn, why couldn't the Browns land THOSE guys?!" 

Why is it that Banner is viewed as being hired "to provide his expertise in building a winner," but Holmgren was viewed as serving as a de facto owner?




Reply | Quote
  • Doberman
  • Fluffy Puppy
  • 272 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 1/22/2013 11:40 AM

RE: If A is true, then B must be true. And if B is true, then... 



mes78 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Doberman wrote:


mes78 wrote:

Haslam sold the naming rights to raise funds to further making the Browns competitive. Randy, crickets, crickets.

For the most part, I want to agree with your take, mes.  This one statement, however, I take issue with.  If you can afford a billion dollars to buy a franchise, you bloody well better be able to spend enough to make it competitive.  Anything else is just spin.

Haslam didn't have enough to buy the whole amount from Jammies in one shot.  THAT's why he's selling the naming rights.

It's also why I won't spend another dime on Browns football until they start to win again.  If Haslam is gonna run this team like a business, I'll run my fandom the same way.

---------------------------------------------
Would you rather Haslam run the organization like a fan? The naming rights was one of a few ways to increase revenues that had not been tapped. Haslam knows business, and he knows to compete in the NFL you have to try and capitalize on every available opportunity. Sure he has money, but now an additional 107 million are available to use as he sees fit to upgrade the organization. Better than asking the taxpayer to foot the bill.

mes and ham,

Look, what I'm saying is not that I don't want Haslam to run the team like a business.  This is an emotional take, I'll grant, but the bottom line to me is wins.  Win, and all is forgiven.

But after watching 20 years of crap, and seeing most of the few things we had to brag about slowly and painfully stripped away from us, the stadium name was one of the few things that I had to hang my hat on - that was OURS.

So.  If Haslam is gonna spit in my face, bring in a liar for a HMFIC, and a pariah for a GM, I'm done paying money for this yearly depression-inducing humiliating "entertainment".

Seems like everything else I spend my money on, I feel good about afterwards.  This has to be the only "entertainment" I've ever paid for, only to be pissed off after being "entertained".

I'm gonna go all Al Davis on his azz. 

Just win, baby.

P.S.  Apologies for what's likely a take that has no, or little, basis in fact.  I'm just severely pissed off, and fighting apathy very, very hard.  Because apathy is the next step.

"Coaches who can outline plays on a black board are a dime a dozen. The ones who win get inside their player and motivate." - Vince Lombardi

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/22/2013 1:58 PM

Trickle Down Effect 


This past season, 23 NFL teams played in stadiums with sponsored names.

Since this article, New Orleans climbed on board with the Mercedez Benz Superdome (and really, what better captures Nawlins diversity... than a Teutonic car?). 

The Giants and Jets share a stadium, don't know how or if they split Met Life's $16m per.

9 NFL teams played in stadiums without sponsored names:

Atlanta-      Georgia Dome
Buffalo-       Ralph Wilson Stadium
Chicago-    Soldier Field
Cincinnati-   Paul Brown Stadium
Cleveland-  Cleveland Browns Stadium
Dallas-       Cowboys Stadium
Green Bay-  Lambeau Field
Kansas City-  Arrowhead Stadium
San Francisco-  Candlestick Park

Their combined winning percentage this past year was .527.
Four of nine (44%) made the playoffs.

The other teams (those playing in stadiums with sponsored names) had a combined winning percentage of .467.  Eight of 23 (35%) made the playoffs. 

The competitive advantage must surely have a trickle down effect.  But after it goes through so many wallets, it may show up as morning dew on the field.
 
Finally, a sports bar could put this on its paper place mats to occupy customers waiting on those hot wings: 

Match the NFL team with its stadium! 

Column A is NFL teams.  Column B is stadium names.

I'm guessing the average fan gets 8-9 of the teams with their long time stadium names.

They'll be guessing at over half of the sponsored names. 




Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 1/22/2013 5:13 PM

Re: Trickle Down Effect 



Aardvark wrote:

This past season, 23 NFL teams played in stadiums with sponsored names.

Since this article, New Orleans climbed on board with the Mercedez Benz Superdome (and really, what better captures Nawlins diversity... than a Teutonic car?). 

The Giants and Jets share a stadium, don't know how or if they split Met Life's $16m per.

9 NFL teams played in stadiums without sponsored names:

Atlanta-      Georgia Dome
Buffalo-       Ralph Wilson Stadium
Chicago-    Soldier Field
Cincinnati-   Paul Brown Stadium
Cleveland-  Cleveland Browns Stadium
Dallas-       Cowboys Stadium
Green Bay-  Lambeau Field
Kansas City-  Arrowhead Stadium
San Francisco-  Candlestick Park

Their combined winning percentage this past year was .527.
Four of nine (44%) made the playoffs.

The other teams (those playing in stadiums with sponsored names) had a combined winning percentage of .467.  Eight of 23 (35%) made the playoffs. 

The competitive advantage must surely have a trickle down effect.  But after it goes through so many wallets, it may show up as morning dew on the field.
 
Finally, a sports bar could put this on its paper place mats to occupy customers waiting on those hot wings: 

Match the NFL team with its stadium! 

Column A is NFL teams.  Column B is stadium names.

I'm guessing the average fan gets 8-9 of the teams with their long time stadium names.

They'll be guessing at over half of the sponsored names. 




I'm waiting for Apple to buy the naming rights to more than one Stadium. Ipod Stadium. IPad Stadium. Nano Stadium. IPhone Stadium.  In each of these stadia all Android phones will be blocked. Only Apple phones will work.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/22/2013 6:18 PM

Re: Trickle Down Effect 


Not sure why anybody cares about stadium names - as long as it's not offensive.  When I was growing up we went to watch either the Browns or Indians at "the Muni."  Not "Cleveland Municipal Stadium," although that's what the broadcasters liked to say, just "the Muni."  Nobody wondered where "the Muni" or "Municipal Stadium" was - everybody knew it was in Cleveland.

1/6/04 Rest in peace "Daddy Wags." May perpetual light shine upon you.

"It's alright to have a hitch in your swing, but when you have a flaw in your hitch, you're in trouble." - Leon Wagner

Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2288 posts this site

Posted: 1/22/2013 9:16 PM

Re: Thermonuclear 




AA:

Actually it speaks more to your mindset with your characterization of Holmgren as the "de facto owner."  He wasn't. 

Holmgren was the HMFIC of all things on the FOOTBALL side, and this after so many bellowed for Lerner to leave that portion of the operation to actual football people.  There was a reasonable expectation that Holmgren could then determine the chicken/egg dilemma that is gm/hc, and make good hires.  Lerner provided the financial support. 

Certainly Lerner could see that despite his own efforts, the results were wanting.  He could have gone the Art Rooney route and tried the same thing over and over, for a couple of decades hoping for a different outcome... then look like a genius when he actually produced one with Chuck Noll.

Instead, Lerner left the football side to the football people... as so many for years wanted him to do.  And once he did that, then the criticism came from the other side of the aisle:  he's ceded control of everything.  He's disengaged, he's the negligent slumlord.
 
MES:

That's just false. Holmy fulfilled many of the roles that an owner typically does including the business side (Weidemeyer was hired by Holmy), attending owner's league meetings and voting on league matters in place of Randy. If only Holmy could forge Randy's signature, then Randy couldve completely disappeared.

AA:

To whom and for how much?- MES: I was making a metaphoric expression - selling his soul kinda thing. Bad clarity on my part.

AA:

So if he bought the best equipment and took lessons and went to golf academies to work on his game... and still shot 112...

... did that make him incompetent?  How about...nonathletic?

MES:

Nope, it made him a quitter. He couldn't sell the team in 2010, so he did the next best thing. He paid Holmy to run the team. Using your analogy, he's the Golfer that walked off the 15th tee and headed to the clubhouse while the rest of his foursome finished the round. Not incompetent, just a quitter..

AA:

And that would be different from other NFL owners... how?

Those owners whose team is their sole source of revenue are in a minority. 

And for every Rooney family, there's a Bidwell family. 

MES:

Randy is not very different to some owners - the ones that are very poor at ownership. There are good owners and bad owners. They don't operate the same way. Randy in his own unique and special way made the Browns a perennially poor team.
.

AA:

For years, I wrote about how fans like coaches to be the opposite of the incumbent loser.  It applies to owners as well.  Lerner did not want to be a face of the franchise.  Haslam does.  I've no problem with either image an owner wants to project.  I don't care if he's Percy Dovetonsils or Torquemada, as long as he happens to own a contender.

But people invariably equate style with substance.  The hc on the sideline who is a stone faced Buddha is not any better or worse than the animated wrestling manager whose theatrics can be clearly seen in section 503.  Yea, one would prefer a Jim Harbaugh over a Pat Shurmur, but not a Wayne Fontes over Tom Landry.

Haslam has a look and background that appeals to many fans.  Terrific.  He has that going for him. 

Does that make Banner and Lombardi more appealing as hires? 

If they were hired anyplace else, would fans be cursing "Damn, why couldn't the Browns land THOSE guys?!" 

Why is it that Banner is viewed as being hired "to provide his expertise in building a winner," but Holmgren was viewed as serving as a de facto owner?


MES:
This is where you are completely putting words in my mouth. I could care less about personality styles in HCs, owners, etc... Leadership takes on many forms. The fact that Randy was media shy and Haslam is not doesn't mean much. Randy didn't want to lead, he was fulfilling his dad's wishes. Haslam wanted this gig.

In regards to Banner and Haslam - Banner has been an NFL exec before and been apart of a successful franchise reboot including hiring other FO people, HCs, and building a stadium. Hence, expertise in building a winner. Holmy did Randy's job minus being a billionaire. Holmy's expertise was in coaching, but that's not what he came here to do. He couldn't be Randy, Carmen, Savage and the HC all at the same time, so Holmy chose to be Randy, he hired Weidemeyer to do the money aspects, Heckert to be Savage and Shurmur to be HC. Meanwhile, Randy was looking at the clock counting down the days and hours until he could leave the nest and be with his baby, the soccer team in England.





---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2288 posts this site

Posted: 1/22/2013 9:34 PM

Re: Trickle Down Effect 




---------------------------------------------
--- Aardvark wrote:

This past season, 23 NFL teams played in stadiums with sponsored names.

Since this article, New Orleans climbed on board with the Mercedez Benz Superdome (and really, what better captures Nawlins diversity... than a Teutonic car?). 

The Giants and Jets share a stadium, don't know how or if they split Met Life's $16m per.

9 NFL teams played in stadiums without sponsored names:

Atlanta-      Georgia Dome
Buffalo-       Ralph Wilson Stadium
Chicago-    Soldier Field
Cincinnati-   Paul Brown Stadium
Cleveland-  Cleveland Browns Stadium
Dallas-       Cowboys Stadium
Green Bay-  Lambeau Field
Kansas City-  Arrowhead Stadium
San Francisco-  Candlestick Park

Their combined winning percentage this past year was .527.
Four of nine (44%) made the playoffs.

The other teams (those playing in stadiums with sponsored names) had a combined winning percentage of .467.  Eight of 23 (35%) made the playoffs. 

The competitive advantage must surely have a trickle down effect.  But after it goes through so many wallets, it may show up as morning dew on the field.
 
Finally, a sports bar could put this on its paper place mats to occupy customers waiting on those hot wings: 

Match the NFL team with its stadium! 

Column A is NFL teams.  Column B is stadium names.

I'm guessing the average fan gets 8-9 of the teams with their long time stadium names.

They'll be guessing at over half of the sponsored names. 


---------------------------------------------
I can't believe you have this take. Can't believe it. Throwing some stats around. How many teams who play in a stadium vs. play on a 'field' have winning records? Maybe if the Stadium was names Cleveland Browns Field they would've had more success.

Selling naming rights has no causal relationship whatsoever to winning. Winning has many ingredients, you should read some John Wooden books on success. Selling naming rights creates ADDITIONAL revenue, capital.

Having additional capital can help businesses improve, if spent wisely. If additional capital is not important, then why in the world does the NYSE exist? Better yet, if additional capital isn't helpful, then just give me all of your assets.

Haslam has brought in extra dough to use towards the Browns in whatever way he sees fit. I hope he spends it wisely and raises the Browns profile, increases the fan experience, or produces more wins.

Firstenergy buys the rights to advertise, and link it's name with the NFL and Cleveland Browns. It raises its brand. Fans being able to match the name of the stadium is less important than a fan recognizing the company at all.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/23/2013 9:03 AM

Re: Trickle Down Effect 


WAGS:

Not sure why anybody cares about stadium names - as long as it's not offensive.  When I was growing up we went to watch either the Browns or Indians at "the Muni."  Not "Cleveland Municipal Stadium," although that's what the broadcasters liked to say, just "the Muni."  Nobody wondered where "the Muni" or "Municipal Stadium" was - everybody knew it was in Cleveland.

AA:

Everybody in Cleveland.  Everybody in Kansas City knew Municipal Stadium as that dump where the A's played in the 50's & 60's.

It's about branding and identity, and that extends far beyond ne Ohio.  What distinguishes one franchise from another beyond the field and its higher profile players, is its name, colors and history.  The Browns are not one of the NFL originals, but it's older than most of the current teams.  And part of its identity has always been to embrace tradition.  Unlike other teams that slowly but surely added helmet logos, and then revamped those every decade, the Browns never went that route beyond a brief flirtation with numbers.  Cheerleaders are for other cities.  Uniforms have seen some minor alterations over the years, but are largely the same (as is more the case with the original teams). 

And a little extra for the return was that there was no mistaking where the Browns played.  For those filling out the placemat matching teams to stadiums, it's like "who's buried in Grant's tomb?"  It wasn't a Municipal Stadium shared by both the baseball, football and maybe an MLS franchise.  It was what it was:  the Cleveland Browns very own stadium. 

Yea, it's unfortunate that the club hasn't provided too many thrills there over the years, and the fans still seem to regard it like a new construction that just doesn't seem like home yet.  And at least the Steelers play in a stadium that is named after a product that is synonymous with Pittsburgh.  Cleveland's stadium has just another generic name. 
The company could be from anywhere.  And though it IS based in Akron, it doesn't even supply the power for the very building for whom it's attaching itself.  More blurred identity, with a little amusing irony at no extra charge.

I agree with you.  It's not a big deal that Cleveland finally succumbs to the naming game.  It's cosmetics, as will be the uniform changes.  All that erodes the identity, but then so has the team's play since the return.  

But it also tells me something about the new owner.  He's just another outsider who doesn't get the history and identity, or gets it, but sees it as low priority, making those mock hand gesture like scales "Identity.... money...." as if he was comparing "Great Lakes... P.O.C..."

But those still on the honeymoon view it through their prism and inherently see most everything as a smart business move.  And of course since Lerner didn't go that naming route, his tact was viewed as naive and negligent.  Well, the highest profile owner with the flashiest stadium in the history of the NFL must be naive as well.  Maybe Jerry Jones understands the value of brand identity.  It's Cowboys Stadium.

And do naming rights help make a team more competitive?  It would if it went to the salary cap.  It simply goes to the revenue side.  How it is used towards expenditures-- if it's used at all-- varies with every team.  I guess one could say that a few locker room enhancements could be made, or a better coach can be landed with a heftier contract, and if that tips the scales for even one mid-level free agent to sign with the Browns, then it was all worth it.  Or if it shows up as stadium renovations to enhance that game day experience-- or gets fans to their seats in time-- then it will have been worth it. 

But any correlation between having a sponsored stadium name and winning is purely theoretical.  And as they say, winning solves everything.  I'd rather watch a Kosar contending team in the Mother of All Dumps that was the Muni than double digit losers in a new stadium with great sight lines and plenty of rest rooms.

So in judging the new ownership so far, we can give check marks on the positive and negative side of the ledger.  And some are major, others minor.  To me, it's strictly a minor negative.  If someone wants to spin it as yet another master brush stroke from the Captain of Industry and Man's Man among NFL owners, be my guest.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/23/2013 1:03 PM

Re: Trickle Down Effect 


MES:

I can't believe you have this take. Can't believe it. Throwing some stats around. How many teams who play in a stadium vs. play on a 'field' have winning records?

AA:

And what is it you can't believe?  That selling the naming rights to a stadium doesn't necessarily equate to a team being more competitive on the field?  Why, you're about to tell me that, right.... about....

MES:

Selling naming rights has no causal relationship whatsoever to winning. Winning has many ingredients, you should read some John Wooden books on success.

AA:

Read VALUES, VICTORY AND PEACE OF MIND.  But the Pauley of Pauley Pavillion fame helped fund the building of UCLA's basketball arena.  UCLA didn't build the arena, then sell the naming rights to Pauley so that John Wooden could up his travel budget and land all those NY recruits like that Alcindor kid.

And we were told with the return of the Browns that Al and Carmen had spared no expense in terms of locker rooms, workout and practice facilities.  It was painted as a class operation.  And how could that not then foster a culture of winning?

MES:

Selling naming rights creates ADDITIONAL revenue, capital.

Having additional capital can help businesses improve, if spent wisely.

AA:

Yep, there's that IF word.  Like I said, there's no guarantee that the money is spent on those things that directly aid the players and coaches to be better on the field.  So spare me the Milton Friedman lecture.  You're missing the point as to how that money is reinvested.  Given the team, it may help directly, or various shades of indirectly, or go straight into the owner's pocket.  

MES:

Haslam has brought in extra dough to use towards the Browns in whatever way he sees fit.

AA:

... like new uniforms!  Surely they will allow the players to run faster and jump higher!
Okay, how about better self-esteem?  Surely they were all down in the mouth about playing in outfits that, save the helmets, facemasks, pads and shoes, looked no different than what Lou Groza was donning back when JFK was President.

MES:

I hope he spends it wisely and raises the Browns profile, increases the fan experience, or produces more wins.

AA:

Yea, I HOPE so, too.  But this is where Connery starts talking about prom queens.

MES:

Firstenergy buys the rights to advertise, and link it's name with the NFL and Cleveland Browns. It raises its brand. Fans being able to match the name of the stadium is less important than a fan recognizing the company at all.

AA:

Gotta think that Browns fans are just a wee bit more interested in the brand of its football team than an energy company.  But there would have been something poetic about...

"Muni (Light) Stadium"

It gets back to an earlier reference.  Had Lerner not sold the team (or Al's will called for him to steward the club for 11 years instead of just 10), and had he sold the naming rights, plenty of fans would have blasted him for selling out.  But the new guy does it, and it's a master brush stroke.

Moves should be judged for what they are, not who made them.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/23/2013 1:56 PM

Re: Thermonuclear 


MES:

That's just false. Holmy fulfilled many of the roles that an owner typically does including the business side (Weidemeyer was hired by Holmy), attending owner's league meetings and voting on league matters in place of Randy. If only Holmy could forge Randy's signature, then Randy couldve completely disappeared.

AA:

Link please on Wiedmeier being hired by Holmgren.

It's not unusual for owners to send proxies to meetings.  Hell, I've sat in as one and was casting votes on behalf of my boss.  Not a big deal.  

Now if Holmgren were the only non-owner representing his club, that might be newsworthy.  But I'd imagine that little nugget would have made the rounds.

Anyway, something to note from the October Owners Meeting:

OWNER OBSERVATIONS: It’s obvious Jimmy Haslam will be a very different owner than his predecessor, Randy Lerner. Haslam, who is slated to take control of the Cleveland Browns on Thursday upon the closing of his $1.05 billion purchase of the club, had his PR person hand out a 38-page binder of stories and information about the new owner here. Lerner, who did not attend, was one of the more reclusive NFL owners, rivaled only by Seattle's Paul Allen. … Speaking of owners rarely seen, Chicago Bears owner Virginia McCaskey attended the “Monday Night Football” viewing reception the evening before the meeting. The elderly daughter of Bears founder George Halas rarely attends meetings but made it to the hometown reception. … Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones almost never misses an owners meeting, but he did miss this one. No formal reason was given for Jones’ absence, but maybe it was a giveaway that Dallas would be shut out of bidding for the 2016 and 2017 Super Bowls, with Houston, South Florida and Santa Clara, Calif., receiving the right to bid. Hard feelings from last year’s Super Bowl fiasco in North Texas remain widely evident, as well.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/ 2012/10/22/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-meetin gs.aspx


Yep, it's obvious that Haslam will be a very different owner.  Lerner was reclusive while Jimmy's minions handed out his 38 page bathroom reader, 'Swimming in the Lake of Me." 

Fine.  The new guy is more out front.  If that comforts people into believing that it will translate into steely determination and more wins, they're welcome to it.  We can only hope that he lives up to the stereotype.

AA:

Why is it that Banner is viewed as being hired "to provide his expertise in building a winner," but Holmgren was viewed as serving as a de facto owner?


MES:

This is where you are completely putting words in my mouth.

AA:

Actually they're YOUR words.  I just lifted your quote directly.


Now in terms of Haslam's mindset, He has become the leader of the organization - watching him dominate a press conference shows this is pretty evident. He has fully involved himself in the franchise, maybe even so much as to overbearing. He hasn't hired Banner to be the de facto owner, he's hired Banner to provide his expertise in building a winner (whether it works or not, time will tell). Haslam has set the objective - winning - been out front for every single action his franchise has made, and has yet to take his hands off every detail of his business. It's not an obligation for Haslam, it's a business. The business of the NFL is winning (not making money, every NFL team is currently making money, and all owners in the nfl have money).


The rest is repetition, arguing otoh that one could care less about personality styles, but otoh letting them dictate the same old tired perceptions.
Reply | Quote
  • mes78
  • Junkyard Terror
  • 2288 posts this site

Posted: 1/24/2013 4:04 PM

Re: Thermonuclear 


.

AA:

Link please on Wiedmeier being hired by Holmgren.

It's not unusual for owners to send proxies to meetings.  Hell, I've sat in as one and was casting votes on behalf of my boss.  Not a big deal.  

Now if Holmgren were the only non-owner representing his club, that might be newsworthy.  But I'd imagine that little nugget would have made the rounds.

Anyway, something to note from the October Owners Meeting:


Fine.  The new guy is more out front.  If that comforts people into believing that it will translate into steely determination and more wins, they're welcome to it.  We can only hope that he lives up to the stereotype.

MES:

Here's your link (I can't hyperlink from my tablet, help would be appreciated)

www.cleveland.com/browns/index...miss_two_t.html

""The fates of Keenan and Aponte were sealed when Holmgren lured Bryan Wiedmeier from the Dolphins and appointed him executive vice president of business administration on Monday."

The whole article is pretty damning ofLerner. Apparently, Holmgren wasn't the only fill-in for Lerner at owner-type deals.

"Keenan, an accountant by trade, oversaw the development of broadcast contracts and the club's sales and marketing departments. He was Lerner's top representative at league meetings."

You can spin it however you want, like Randy isn't the only one, or whatever you can dig up, but the reality is that Randy inherited a team he didn't want to own. Then, failure after failure led to him quitting ownership and selling the team at first legal chance. Randy is pretty unique in his tenure from start to finish. But go ahead and underplay all of Randy Bonaparte's missteps and dog in any action of Haslam in his first 100 days of ownership as ho-hum.

I'm not here to spoil your pity party.



MES:

This is where you are completely putting words in my mouth.

AA:

Actually they're YOUR words. 

AA said, "For years, I wrote about how fans like coaches to be the opposite of the incumbent loser.  It applies to owners as well.  Lerner did not want to be a face of the franchise.  Haslam does.  I've no problem with either image an owner wants to project.  I don't care if he's Percy Dovetonsils or Torquemada, as long as he happens to own a contender.

But people invariably equate style with substance.  The hc on the sideline who is a stone faced Buddha is not any better or worse than the animated wrestling manager whose theatrics can be clearly seen in section 503.  Yea, one would prefer a Jim Harbaugh over a Pat Shurmur, but not a Wayne Fontes over Tom Landry."

MES:

These are your words that you are putting in my mouth. I understand the usage of quotations and citing. The above statements are yours, not mine. I have no issue with an owner's style. Any inference that it matters to me or affects my thinking in regards to wins on your part is inaccurate and false.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >