lbsouth1 wrote: 1.   What do U expect MH to say?  "Lerner sucks.  I'm handcuffed.  We'll never be able to build a team with this owner."

Like I"ve pointed out 1000 times Lerner paid Holmgren to be the mouthpiece for the team that Lerner doesn't want to be and the insulation that isolates Lerner by fans like you that invent ways to lay the blame at anybody but Randy. 



3.  Past behavior blah blah Lerner has fired people with money still due.  And he always did that when the purchasers of his product might have threatened to cut into his bottom line if that coach or GM remained.  So even on the occasions he fired personnel with $ remaining, the eye was on the bottom line.  He fired his 11 month coach for AV with lots of money remaining because the protests were increasing  and the gate was down 9%.   It's always about the bottom line with Lerner and the suggestion that "well he's had to pay off coaches he fired" is crap because it doesn't account for the hit to the bottom line if they stayed. 

Lerner isn't asking MH WHY because Holmgren keeps him 20 mil under the cap every year and takes every bit of the heat while Randy puts that $ in his 401K and gets no blame.

He could have stayed President and kept spent that little. Costs him 50 Mill less to do it. Again, this is the logical inconsistency in your theory.

He could have stayed President and kept spent that little. Costs him 50 Mill less to do it. Again, this is the logical inconsistency in your theory.


Not without being the mouthpiece of the team and having to answer why this team has a 4 win, 5 win, 5 win and 4 win recent history he couldn't.  Not without having to answer why he suddenly felt he knew wtf was going in the football operations to all but hire Mangini at the press conference to fire Romeo.  Not if he wanted to explain why the team is 125 mil under the cap in the last 9 seasons while the team won 47 games.   Not without being on the radio every couple weeks during the season and having to do a public presser at the end of the season, pre-draft, post draft, 1 time during the summer and 1 before the season. 

The 50 mil buys him that all that anonymity and a legitimacy of having a man with Holmgren's stature running the team.  To Lerner that is money well spent and it's not an inconsistency at all.   The only thing keeping the ticket sales from completely tanking is the hope that Holmgren knows wtf he's doing.  Lerner would have lost more than 50 mil over 5 years in lost ticket revenue alone.  Which doesn't account for the money he would have had to pay somebody to act as the team's public spokesman  . 

The premium Lerner is paying Holmgren is really only the difference between what Holmgren is getting and the money it would have taken to hire somebody else for the same position because Lerner sure as f'uck wasn't going to be President with only a GM like Heckert.   Lerner most likely makes that monetary difference from the Kenny Chesney concert, the parking from the 2 preseason games and  hiring a first time unknown GM and a first time unknown HC.   U add all those savings up and he probably paid off Mangini and Romeo both as well as covering Holmgren. 

That's an awful thin premise to ignore the reality of the Browns spending history for nearly a decade.  


There's a difference between being so penny pinching U reuse last years uni's and don't bother washing workout clothes after every practice.  I never claimed Lerner to be that.  What Lerner is is an owner that pays lipservice to wanting to win because that's what fans like urself want to hear and will disregard reality if he does say it.

lbsouth1 wrote: There's a difference between being so penny pinching U reuse last years uni's and don't bother washing workout clothes after every practice.  I never claimed Lerner to be that.  What Lerner is is an owner that pays lipservice to wanting to win because that's what fans like urself want to hear and will disregard reality if he does say it.

Now, now, just because I don't see the foundation to support your POV construction there is no need to attack me.

I don't ignore anything. Including a complete lack of evidence that Lerner is limiting assets to some level below the cap. You have decided its Lerner but no evidence exists. The only evidence we have are GMs and Presidents that say they like Randy as the owner. And YOU ignore that because it doesn't fit your premise.

Telling me they wouldn't say anything else flies in the face of many instances of GMs and Coaches badmouthing their previous teams. They may not say it openly, but it gets out back channel. It always gets out someway. Yet, we don't see it.

As I have pointed out, there are other reasons that could cause the same results you have blamed on Randy Lerner. None of which require the leap you see very happy to make. We have the current President and GM telling us they believe in building through the draft. Everything suggests this current spending plan is theirs, not Randy's.

"The 50 mil buys him that all that anonymity and a legitimacy of having a man with Holmgren's stature running the team."

-- This argument doesn't lack some credibility in a way. It could be seen that Holmgren is 1) knowledgable 2) known around the league and 3) indirectly puts butt's in the seats and dollars in the door based on his track record.

And you could then argue that, having spent that 50 mill for the above reasons, Lerner then pressures the FO to stay below the salary cap and also have a net increase in his revenues partly because of the 50 mill hire.

That can be argued. But possibly beyond the salary cap numbers, there does not seem to be any evidence of any ownership pressure on the FO. (If fans want to buy stuff because of Holmgren, that's their problem... I mean issue... I mean choice).

It would be bad if a Lerner had some bean-counting genius crunching the numbers and knowing when to pay enough to get even more and to hell with football. It would also be bad- and counter-productive- to falsely accuse the FO and Lerner of doing some under the table deals together that care more for money than football.

You can look at the cap space and the record all you want. We just don't know why any of this has happened at this point.

But the Lerners will always have lots of money thanks to Dad. So to me there is no defensible reason to hurt the team to make some more money. And right now there doesn't seem any evidence to suggest that is being done.

The concern is valid, I think. And Randy has his rep. But any bad football things that have happened haven't been "linked".

To people that are determined to invent reasons why it's not Lerner's policy there will always be excuses. 


What can't be excused away is the team wasted $100 million in capspace over the last decade (sorry daddy, ur not correct on either 2010 or 2012) while the team fielded one of the least talented rosters every year.  And each and every regime that Lerner hired was adamant about building thru the draft and the only person that benefited from that was Randy.   Fans got a shi'tty product and those particular people in charged got fired.



It matters not whether Lerner has sent out a specific edict by email every year to all of the regimes he's hired to stay below a certain cap level.. OR simply hired people who live within those parameters as a condition of their being hired.  And that's been a constant whether Savage was pulling the trigger or Mangini was or Holmgren was.  It's also likely to be a reason guys like Gruden or Morningwheg wouldn't even interview for the gig.  It's why Lerner's only been able to hire 1st timers who were getting no feelers from anywhere else or a retread who was getting the same kind of attention.  Crennel, Shurmur, Mangini even Heckert were only getting the jobs they got from Cleveland.  Nobody else was in a line to hire them for the positions they held for the Browns.

>>sorry daddy, ur not correct on either 2010 or 2012<<

I'll show my work.  FWIW, here are my 2012 numbers:

Offense starters:

Thomas – 10.9

Pinkston - 0.4

Mack – 2.5

Lauvao - 0.7

Schwartz – 1.0

Little – 0.7

Watson – 5.0

Massaquoi – 0.6

Weeden – 1.6

Richardson – 4.0

Marecic – 0.5

Total = 27.9  (11 players)

Defense starters:

Rucker – 2.0

Rubin – 9.4

Taylor – 1.8

Sheard – 1.1

Fujita – 3.6

Jackson – 6.2

Gocong – 5.0

Haden – 9.7

Brown – 5.4

Young – 2.0

Ward – 1.2

Total = 47.4 (11 players)

Specials:

Dawson – 3.8

Hodges – 0.6

Cribbs – 1.4

Total = 5.8 (3 players)

Reserves:

Moore – 1.9

Patterson – 2.9

Wallace – 3.0

Parker – 3.0

Jackson – 2.2

McCoy – 0.7

Ventrone – 1.4

Hardesty – 0.7

Hughes – 0.5

Benjamin – 0.5

Johnson – 0.5

Jordan – 0.6

Maiava – 0.7

Skrine – 0.5

Greco – 0.7

Hagg – 0.5

Schaefering – 0.5

A.  Smith – 0.8

Total = 21.6 (18 players)

10 additional reserves @ 0.4 each

Total = 4.0 (10 players)

Grand Total = 106.7 (53 players)

Salary Cap = 120.0

Remaining space (subject to further roster moves) = 13.3

"

To people that are determined to invent reasons why it's not Lerner's policy there will always be excuses.


What can't be excused away is the team wasted $100 million in capspace over the last decade (sorry daddy, ur not correct on either 2010 or 2012) while the team fielded one of the least talented rosters every year. And each and every regime that Lerner hired was adamant about building thru the draft and the only person that benefited from that was Randy. Fans got a shi'tty product and those particular people in charged got fired.



It matters not whether Lerner has sent out a specific edict by email every year to all of the regimes he's hired to stay below a certain cap level.. OR simply hired people who live within those parameters as a condition of their being hired. And that's been a constant whether Savage was pulling the trigger or Mangini was or Holmgren was. It's also likely to be a reason guys like Gruden or Morningwheg wouldn't even interview for the gig. It's why Lerner's only been able to hire 1st timers who were getting no feelers from anywhere else or a retread who was getting the same kind of attention. Crennel, Shurmur, Mangini even Heckert were only getting the jobs they got from Cleveland. Nobody else was in a line to hire them for the positions they held for the Browns."

-- Everything you say can have a basis in fact. Especially given the Browns sad record.

And I think a clear understanding of the real make-up of the Browns is important. Pointing fingers at guys who may be front-men isn't useful. It may be fun and easy, just not useful.

This is so important that I wish there was an iron-clad answer to it. A linkable answer, maybe. But it's so hazy that it may not be "evident" by design.

And if it isn't "evident" or "linkable", it can only go so far.

But at the end of the day, you are what your record says you are. So hopefully, if you are right and the Browns seem to be going in a circle, perhaps the ownership of the team will change and we can get a more proactive approach that results in a good team.

Until then: Go Browns!

Ur counting Weeden and Richardson who aren' tsigned.  I was not


And I know the numbers.  I gave U the link to where ur getting the info.

lbsouth1 wrote: Ur counting Weeden and Richardson who aren' tsigned.  I was not


And I know the numbers.  I gave U the link to where ur getting the info.

Fair enough, if that's the only difference.  They will get signed and they will count against the 2012 cap.  For the record, I used last year's cap number for #3 pick Marcell Dareus ($3.7m) plus about 8% to get Richardson's $4m.  I used last year's #22 pick, Anthony Castonzo ($1.45m) plus about 10% (QB premium) to get Weeden's number.  We'll see where they come in, but they will be close.

I didn't see your link.  I used Sportrac

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/ind...thony-castonzo/

and cross-checked most numbers with Rotoworld

http://www.rotoworld.com/teams.../nfl/cle/browns

lbsouth1 wrote: There's a difference between being so penny pinching U reuse last years uni's and don't bother washing workout clothes after every practice.  I never claimed Lerner to be that.  What Lerner is is an owner that pays lipservice to wanting to win because that's what fans like urself want to hear and will disregard reality if he does say it.

G.................I don't ignore anything. Including a complete lack of evidence that Lerner is limiting assets to some level below the cap. You have decided its Lerner but no evidence exists. The only evidence we have are GMs and Presidents that say they like Randy as the owner. And YOU ignore that because it doesn't fit your premise

GARY,  Is there any evidence to support your suggested view that Lerner is marshalling all his assets and doing all he can, without limitation, to win?  And why do you ignore the common sense that GMs and Presidents like Randy as an owner as they are very, very well paid despite underproducing?  Must be nice to know you can be a very highly football executive and not have to be on the sidelines in January or February when it is cold outside. Bet Mike loves the warm Arizona golfing weather come January.

G..........Telling me they wouldn't say anything else flies in the face of many instances of GMs and Coaches badmouthing their previous teams. They may not say it openly, but it gets out back channel. It always gets out someway. Yet, we don't see it.

GARY, why do you allow thoughts of our GMs and Coaches leaving and bad-mouthing?  Surely they were better reared than that.  I would be very unhappy with Butcha after receiving a king's ransom and a lovely condo on South Beach if he spoke ill of Randy.  Forget about non-disclosure agreements and the NFL being a closed shop. Those loose-lip fellows may never work again.

G............As I have pointed out, there are other reasons that could cause the same results you have blamed on Randy Lerner. None of which require the leap you see very happy to make. We have the current President and GM telling us they believe in building through the draft. Everything suggests this current spending plan is theirs, not Randy's.

AND AS NAS.......declared long ago............Gary's whack!

LBS,,,,,,,,,Carry on.  Gary may be whack and the presenter of the most outlandish utterancesin history of PF while bolstering the image of the most irrelevant billionaire in the NFL, but he does have a great sense of humor and is likely, hopefully, just pulling your chain.

daddywags wrote: >>sorry daddy, ur not correct on either 2010 or 2012<<

I'll show my work.  FWIW, here are my 2012 numbers:

Offense starters:

Thomas – 10.9

Pinkston - 0.4

Mack – 2.5

Lauvao - 0.7

Schwartz – 1.0

Little – 0.7

Watson – 5.0

Massaquoi – 0.6

Weeden – 1.6

Richardson – 4.0

Marecic – 0.5

Total = 27.9  (11 players)

Defense starters:

Rucker – 2.0

Rubin – 9.4

Taylor – 1.8

Sheard – 1.1

Fujita – 3.6

Jackson – 6.2

Gocong – 5.0

Haden – 9.7

Brown – 5.4

Young – 2.0

Ward – 1.2

Total = 47.4 (11 players)

Specials:

Dawson – 3.8

Hodges – 0.6

Cribbs – 1.4

Total = 5.8 (3 players)

Reserves:

Moore – 1.9

Patterson – 2.9

Wallace – 3.0

Parker – 3.0

Jackson – 2.2

McCoy – 0.7

Ventrone – 1.4

Hardesty – 0.7

Hughes – 0.5

Benjamin – 0.5

Johnson – 0.5

Jordan – 0.6

Maiava – 0.7

Skrine – 0.5

Greco – 0.7

Hagg – 0.5

Schaefering – 0.5

A.  Smith – 0.8

Total = 21.6 (18 players)

10 additional reserves @ 0.4 each

Total = 4.0 (10 players)

Grand Total = 106.7 (53 players)

Salary Cap = 120.0

Remaining space (subject to further roster moves) = 13.3

Thanks Wags,  good effort and likely as good as anyone not in the league office could provide.  We never know the inner workings or whatever machinations a team can manufacture.

"LBS,,,,,,,,,Carry on. Gary may be whack and the presenter of the most outlandish utterancesin history of PF while bolstering the image of the most irrelevant billionaire in the NFL, but he does have a great sense of humor and is likely, hopefully, just pulling your chain."

-- I hope Randy is "irrelevant" to the football process of the Browns and I hope he stays that way. You seem to think he's not all that "irrelevant" as far as controlling finances in the football world. The FO- that they hired- should be doing that.

Their control would be wrong if true. Fans should want the Lerner family to be spending as much as they can to make the Browns better at the direction of the FO. If they can't do that, then maybe someone else can.

A blind allegiance to Randy or any Lerner is a mistake. But an accusation that they are controlling spending at the cost of the Browns should be backed up with evidence or should be acknowledged as a possibly true but  unsupported opinion.