It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 9:33 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:29 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:19 pm
Posts: 2348
Location: Shorewood, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
I've watched this team since I was 12 years old and I've only seen two Superbowls in that span.

Why can't this organization put together a team (players and coaches) that is a perennial threat to go to the Superbowl like the Patriots, Steelers, etc? Chicago is not a small market team and is one of the more popular or at least well known franchises in the NFL, so exposure is not an issue.

Is it bad luck? Is it incompetence? Is it not spending enough money on said coaches and players? Is it shortsightedness, poor evaluation, etc? This also seems to permeate the other Chicago teams as well with one WS appearance for the Sox and a NBA Championship in the 90's for the Bulls.

What does it take to be a consistent winner in this town? I hope the Bears find it someday soon.

I also have to take Terry Boers seriously now in that he said Jay Cutler may never see the playoffs in his current contract span. I don't think the Bears have 4 wins in them at this point.

_________________
RFDC thinks I'm retarded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:56 pm
Posts: 37835
Location: ...
Country Bumpkin wrote:
I've watched this team since I was 12 years old and I've only seen two Superbowls in that span.



waaaaahhhhhh....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 16484
Location: Chicago, Illinois
pizza_Place: Salernos, Oak Park
The success or failure of any organization begins & ends with Management. When a Company is struggling, they replace the Manager, Director, Vice President, & or CEO, not the employees.
The Bears problems start with the organizational structure & Management. The McCaskey Family has entrusted the Chicago Bears to Ted Phillips, President & CEO of the Chicago Bears. Sweaty Teddy is an accountant, not a Football guy.
Jerry Angelo is a terrible talent evaluater who has gutted the Bears & has nothing but Cutler to show for it, & he has hired second rate coaches. Lovie Smith, Ron Turner, Bob Babich...all bad at Football.
The Bears need to put a Football Man in charge of the team & clean house. The Bears are a sick organization that needs a healer.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22704
pizza_Place: A few...
Here's my problem with this entire setup:

Team President: 1st timer
G.M.: 1st timer
Head Coach: 1st timer, guy before him:1st timer, guy before the last guy:1st timer
O.C.: 2nd timer (of course, rehired by the team that fired him)
D.C.: actually the Head Coach, guy with the title has NFL experience because Lovie hired him at his last gig
QB coach: actually has previous NFL experience
WR coach: 1st timer

I don't feel like looking up the rest of this coaching squad.

And the players? Make a list in your head of the Bears you absolutely would not trade. 2? 3? Maybe 4?

Notice a pattern?

Until the McCaskey's start bringing in talent evaluators/coaches with actual success and experience this will continue. And when you have owners who are using the team as a income source for generations of their family, they more often than not will not dish out the cash for the Parcells, Cowhers and Shannahans of the world.

This team is in trouble.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 16484
Location: Chicago, Illinois
pizza_Place: Salernos, Oak Park
Peoria Matt wrote:
Here's my problem with this entire setup:

Team President: 1st timer
G.M.: 1st timer
Head Coach: 1st timer, guy before him:1st timer, guy before the last guy:1st timer
O.C.: 2nd timer (of course, rehired by the team that fired him)
D.C.: actually the Head Coach, guy with the title has NFL experience because Lovie hired him at his last gig
QB coach: actually has previous NFL experience
WR coach: 1st timer

I don't feel like looking up the rest of this coaching squad.

And the players? Make a list in your head of the Bears you absolutely would not trade. 2? 3? Maybe 4?

Notice a pattern?

Until the McCaskey's start bringing in talent evaluators/coaches with actual success and experience this will continue. And when you have owners who are using the team as a income source for generations of their family, they more often than not will not dish out the cash for the Parcells, Cowhers and Shannahans of the world.

This team is in trouble.


Exactly right. The Bears have a reputation in the NFL for hiring inexperienced & inferior coaches & for having the leanest scouting staff in the NFL. Hub has talked about this numerous times. The Bears organization from top to bottom is predicated on yes Men. Lovie doesn't want coaches who will challenge him, which is why Rivera was fired.
Regarding head coach salary, the Bears hire these first tIme coaches on the cheap but end up giving them huge money anyway when they have 1 good season. Why not just pay a guy like Cowher $5 Million at the beginning & get a guy who knows what the hell he is doing?

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:55 pm
Posts: 26000
Location: Lurking Below the Surface...
pizza_Place: Dino's Pizza
Even though Ted Phillips is technically the Team President of the Chicago Bears, who does he answer to? That's right, folks. Michael & Virginia McCaskey, that's who. Make no mistake about it. The McCaskeys still call the shots & sign the checks for this franchise, and unless they decide to sell it, very little will change, if at all. Unfortunately, that's not about to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Country Bumpkin wrote:
I've watched this team since I was 12 years old and I've only seen two Superbowls in that span.

Why can't this organization put together a team (players and coaches) that is a perennial threat to go to the Superbowl like the Patriots, Steelers, etc? Chicago is not a small market team and is one of the more popular or at least well known franchises in the NFL, so exposure is not an issue.

Is it bad luck? Is it incompetence? Is it not spending enough money on said coaches and players? Is it shortsightedness, poor evaluation, etc? This also seems to permeate the other Chicago teams as well with one WS appearance for the Sox and a NBA Championship in the 90's for the Bulls.

What does it take to be a consistent winner in this town? I hope the Bears find it someday soon.

I also have to take Terry Boers seriously now in that he said Jay Cutler may never see the playoffs in his current contract span. I don't think the Bears have 4 wins in them at this point.


The Bulls were the best sports team in the country for a decade. We're only a decade removed from that. I wouldnt exactly brush that off as nothing.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:08 pm
Posts: 3848
pizza_Place: I'm a Gelsosomo's guy.
Scorehead wrote:
Peoria Matt wrote:
Here's my problem with this entire setup:

Team President: 1st timer
G.M.: 1st timer
Head Coach: 1st timer, guy before him:1st timer, guy before the last guy:1st timer
O.C.: 2nd timer (of course, rehired by the team that fired him)
D.C.: actually the Head Coach, guy with the title has NFL experience because Lovie hired him at his last gig
QB coach: actually has previous NFL experience
WR coach: 1st timer

I don't feel like looking up the rest of this coaching squad.

And the players? Make a list in your head of the Bears you absolutely would not trade. 2? 3? Maybe 4?

Notice a pattern?

Until the McCaskey's start bringing in talent evaluators/coaches with actual success and experience this will continue. And when you have owners who are using the team as a income source for generations of their family, they more often than not will not dish out the cash for the Parcells, Cowhers and Shannahans of the world.

This team is in trouble.


Exactly right. The Bears have a reputation in the NFL for hiring inexperienced & inferior coaches & for having the leanest scouting staff in the NFL. Hub has talked about this numerous times. The Bears organization from top to bottom is predicated on yes Men. Lovie doesn't want coaches who will challenge him, which is why Rivera was fired.
Regarding head coach salary, the Bears hire these first tIme coaches on the cheap but end up giving them huge money anyway when they have 1 good season. Why not just pay a guy like Cowher $5 Million at the beginning & get a guy who knows what the hell he is doing?


Scorehead, I agree and disagree with your statement here. I agree that with poor management they drop the ball in certain areas of scouting, coaching and evaluation. However, if the players you have aren't worth a crap, you can be the best coach/leader/motivator in the world and it isn't going to be enough to make a difference.

It then goes back to management and their inability to recognize first round draft talent so it's a vicious circle.

_________________
Does your cat make too much noise? Try KITTEN MITTENS!


Charlie: Oh shit. Look at that door dude. See that door right there? That door marked 'Pirate'? You think a pirate lives in there?
Dennis: I see a door marked 'Private.'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Scorehead wrote:
Exactly right. The Bears have a reputation in the NFL for hiring inexperienced & inferior coaches & for having the leanest scouting staff in the NFL. Hub has talked about this numerous times.


Why do you just make shit up? Or take Hub's word for it on shit he makes up? The Bears arent even close to having the worst reputation for scouting in the NFL. Alot of their draft picks that actually work out are 2nd day guys, which means it's almost always predicated on the scouting department's opinion on the guy. The GM usually doesnt know that much about those guys. You or Hub can actually say with a straight face that the Bears are worse talent evaluators than the Raiders?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Has anyone considered the possibility that from a (Bears') corporate perspective, they get it right? I mean it has to cost a pretty penny to keep the legions of shareholding Halas'/McCaskeys from actually having to find real jobs.

I mean the first rule of business is to make shareholder's money. Right?

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 16484
Location: Chicago, Illinois
pizza_Place: Salernos, Oak Park
FavreFan wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
Exactly right. The Bears have a reputation in the NFL for hiring inexperienced & inferior coaches & for having the leanest scouting staff in the NFL. Hub has talked about this numerous times.


Why do you just make shit up? Or take Hub's word for it on shit he makes up? The Bears arent even close to having the worst reputation for scouting in the NFL. Alot of their draft picks that actually work out are 2nd day guys, which means it's almost always predicated on the scouting department's opinion on the guy. The GM usually doesnt know that much about those guys. You or Hub can actually say with a straight face that the Bears are worse talent evaluators than the Raiders?


Weather you like Hub or not, he is very connected within the NFL & has good sources.
I believe that the Bears have the smallest scouting staff in the NFL, & that the Bears annual scouting budget isn't even close to what most teams spend on scouting.
And the Bears low budget assistant coaches isn't really a secret.
Talk with a few ex Bears players if you don't believe me.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:36 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:05 pm
Posts: 12449
Scorehead wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
Exactly right. The Bears have a reputation in the NFL for hiring inexperienced & inferior coaches & for having the leanest scouting staff in the NFL. Hub has talked about this numerous times.


Why do you just make shit up? Or take Hub's word for it on shit he makes up? The Bears arent even close to having the worst reputation for scouting in the NFL. Alot of their draft picks that actually work out are 2nd day guys, which means it's almost always predicated on the scouting department's opinion on the guy. The GM usually doesnt know that much about those guys. You or Hub can actually say with a straight face that the Bears are worse talent evaluators than the Raiders?


Weather you like Hub or not, he is very connected within the NFL & has good sources.
I believe that the Bears have the smallest scouting staff in the NFL, & that the Bears annual scouting budget isn't even close to what most teams spend on scouting.And the Bears low budget assistant coaches isn't really a secret.
Talk with a few ex Bears players if you don't believe me.


I think that was true several years ago, but I'm pretty sure that the Bengals spend the least amount of money on scouting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 16484
Location: Chicago, Illinois
pizza_Place: Salernos, Oak Park
DegenerateDave wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
Peoria Matt wrote:
Here's my problem with this entire setup:

Team President: 1st timer
G.M.: 1st timer
Head Coach: 1st timer, guy before him:1st timer, guy before the last guy:1st timer
O.C.: 2nd timer (of course, rehired by the team that fired him)
D.C.: actually the Head Coach, guy with the title has NFL experience because Lovie hired him at his last gig
QB coach: actually has previous NFL experience
WR coach: 1st timer

I don't feel like looking up the rest of this coaching squad.

And the players? Make a list in your head of the Bears you absolutely would not trade. 2? 3? Maybe 4?

Notice a pattern?

Until the McCaskey's start bringing in talent evaluators/coaches with actual success and experience this will continue. And when you have owners who are using the team as a income source for generations of their family, they more often than not will not dish out the cash for the Parcells, Cowhers and Shannahans of the world.

This team is in trouble.


Exactly right. The Bears have a reputation in the NFL for hiring inexperienced & inferior coaches & for having the leanest scouting staff in the NFL. Hub has talked about this numerous times. The Bears organization from top to bottom is predicated on yes Men. Lovie doesn't want coaches who will challenge him, which is why Rivera was fired.
Regarding head coach salary, the Bears hire these first tIme coaches on the cheap but end up giving them huge money anyway when they have 1 good season. Why not just pay a guy like Cowher $5 Million at the beginning & get a guy who knows what the hell he is doing?


Scorehead, I agree and disagree with your statement here. I agree that with poor management they drop the ball in certain areas of scouting, coaching and evaluation. However, if the players you have aren't worth a crap, you can be the best coach/leader/motivator in the world and it isn't going to be enough to make a difference.

It then goes back to management and their inability to recognize first round draft talent so it's a vicious circle.


Right. Having bad players is the fault of Management...Jerry & Lovie.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Scorehead wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
Exactly right. The Bears have a reputation in the NFL for hiring inexperienced & inferior coaches & for having the leanest scouting staff in the NFL. Hub has talked about this numerous times.


Why do you just make shit up? Or take Hub's word for it on shit he makes up? The Bears arent even close to having the worst reputation for scouting in the NFL. Alot of their draft picks that actually work out are 2nd day guys, which means it's almost always predicated on the scouting department's opinion on the guy. The GM usually doesnt know that much about those guys. You or Hub can actually say with a straight face that the Bears are worse talent evaluators than the Raiders?


Weather you like Hub or not, he is very connected within the NFL & has good sources.
I believe that the Bears have the smallest scouting staff in the NFL, & that the Bears annual scouting budget isn't even close to what most teams spend on scouting.
And the Bears low budget assistant coaches isn't really a secret.
Talk with a few ex Bears players if you don't believe me.


Well if they do they get much more bang for their buck then places like St. louis, Oakland, Buffalo, Washington, etc.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 16484
Location: Chicago, Illinois
pizza_Place: Salernos, Oak Park
FavreFan wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
Exactly right. The Bears have a reputation in the NFL for hiring inexperienced & inferior coaches & for having the leanest scouting staff in the NFL. Hub has talked about this numerous times.


Why do you just make shit up? Or take Hub's word for it on shit he makes up? The Bears arent even close to having the worst reputation for scouting in the NFL. Alot of their draft picks that actually work out are 2nd day guys, which means it's almost always predicated on the scouting department's opinion on the guy. The GM usually doesnt know that much about those guys. You or Hub can actually say with a straight face that the Bears are worse talent evaluators than the Raiders?


If you are trying to make the Bears organization look better because they aren't as bad at evaluating talent as the Raiders, I would suggest that you raise your expectations a little bit.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:41 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:05 pm
Posts: 12449
Scorehead wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
Exactly right. The Bears have a reputation in the NFL for hiring inexperienced & inferior coaches & for having the leanest scouting staff in the NFL. Hub has talked about this numerous times.


Why do you just make shit up? Or take Hub's word for it on shit he makes up? The Bears arent even close to having the worst reputation for scouting in the NFL. Alot of their draft picks that actually work out are 2nd day guys, which means it's almost always predicated on the scouting department's opinion on the guy. The GM usually doesnt know that much about those guys. You or Hub can actually say with a straight face that the Bears are worse talent evaluators than the Raiders?


Weather you like Hub or not, he is very connected within the NFL & has good sources.
I believe that the Bears have the smallest scouting staff in the NFL, & that the Bears annual scouting budget isn't even close to what most teams spend on scouting.And the Bears low budget assistant coaches isn't really a secret.
Talk with a few ex Bears players if you don't believe me.


I think that was true several years ago, but I'm pretty sure that the Bengals spend the least amount of money on scouting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Scorehead wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
Exactly right. The Bears have a reputation in the NFL for hiring inexperienced & inferior coaches & for having the leanest scouting staff in the NFL. Hub has talked about this numerous times.


Why do you just make shit up? Or take Hub's word for it on shit he makes up? The Bears arent even close to having the worst reputation for scouting in the NFL. Alot of their draft picks that actually work out are 2nd day guys, which means it's almost always predicated on the scouting department's opinion on the guy. The GM usually doesnt know that much about those guys. You or Hub can actually say with a straight face that the Bears are worse talent evaluators than the Raiders?


If you are trying to make the Bears organization look better because they aren't as bad at evaluating talent as the Raiders, I would suggest that you raise your expectations a little bit.


Ha. You're the one always saying they have THE WORST coaching and management in the league.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 16484
Location: Chicago, Illinois
pizza_Place: Salernos, Oak Park
Regular Reader wrote:
Has anyone considered the possibility that from a (Bears') corporate perspective, they get it right? I mean it has to cost a pretty penny to keep the legions of shareholding Halas'/McCaskeys from actually having to find real jobs.

I mean the first rule of business is to make shareholder's money. Right?


The Bears don't have shareholders. They are a private family owned business. The NFL prohibits corporate ownership. Unlike a non sports business whose primary goal is to be profitable, a professional sports team isn't considered successful unless they win. Sure the Bears might make money, but as fans success is about wins, not how much money the McCaskys make.
Do you follow the Bears rooting for them to make money or to win games?

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Scorehead wrote:
The NFL prohibits corporate ownership.


How does that explain the Packers ownership model? It's non-profit, but it's corporately owned technically.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:49 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts: 7331
Location: County Seat of LaSalle County
pizza_Place: Bianchi's - Ottawa
FavreFan wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
The NFL prohibits corporate ownership.


How does that explain the Packers ownership model? It's non-profit, but it's corporately owned technically.



The Packers are the exception. I believe their corporate ownership is grandfathered in.

_________________
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." ~ H.L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:08 pm
Posts: 3848
pizza_Place: I'm a Gelsosomo's guy.
Scorehead wrote:

Right. Having bad players is the fault of Management...Jerry & Lovie.


If you had said this initially I would have agreed whole heartedly. I think it's time for Jerry and Lovie to go.

Unfortunately, we are hamstringed for the next year (or two?) with high draft picks gone. We got Cutler but in order to replenish the O Line, WR and LB and CB positions, the Bears have painted themselves into a corner where they can't miss on high round draft picks at all.

_________________
Does your cat make too much noise? Try KITTEN MITTENS!


Charlie: Oh shit. Look at that door dude. See that door right there? That door marked 'Pirate'? You think a pirate lives in there?
Dennis: I see a door marked 'Private.'


Last edited by DegenerateDave on Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 16484
Location: Chicago, Illinois
pizza_Place: Salernos, Oak Park
FavreFan wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
The NFL prohibits corporate ownership.


How does that explain the Packers ownership model? It's non-profit, but it's corporately owned technically.


Read the article at the link below since you think I am making shit up.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19980901/ai_n10120517/

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 16484
Location: Chicago, Illinois
pizza_Place: Salernos, Oak Park
A7X wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
The NFL prohibits corporate ownership.


How does that explain the Packers ownership model? It's non-profit, but it's corporately owned technically.



The Packers are the exception. I believe their corporate ownership is grandfathered in.


The Packers aren't owned by a large company, which is prohibited in the NFL. The Packers are owned by the fans, not a company.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Scorehead wrote:
The Bears don't have shareholders. They are a private family owned business. The NFL prohibits corporate ownership. Unlike a non sports business whose primary goal is to be profitable, a professional sports team isn't considered successful unless they win. Sure the Bears might make money, but as fans success is about wins, not how much money the McCaskys make.
Do you follow the Bears rooting for them to make money or to win games?


First off, each family member with an ownership interest has, for lack of a better phrase, a "share" in the family business. OK, if that doesn't work for you, then they have percentages of ownership. I am fully aware that they aren't owned in the corporate form.

But your distinction between "non-sports" and "professional sports(businesses)" is laughable. The first purpose of any for profit business is....profit. Your apparent belief that the concept of "fan's success" outweighing the bottom line in the board room, or a sports business primarily being concerned w/winning records-titles is nieve.

That's really along the lines of "we" or "us" winning, when I, you or we don't have an ownership interest, expectation of a paycheck, or even rooting interest in the shared alma mater. "We" "you" didn't win, lose (money or titles), they did.

The McCaskeys need to do just enough for the fans to hold out hope & spin the turnstiles to max out profit. I've always felt that if they could do just enough to stay in the playoff chase each year that was sufficient. From a business perspective, they should. This notion of a public trust borders on the juvenille.

Finally, since you asked, while I follow the Bears (childhood team) I stopped rooting for them over 20 years ago. It's one thing to run a team and at least break even/make a modest profit, its an entire other thing to run the team primarily to support generations of people(who I'd never root for).

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 3:08 pm
Posts: 3848
pizza_Place: I'm a Gelsosomo's guy.
I have often wondered what percentage of team sports owners actually give a shit about winning the trophy of their league? At one point or another they may have gotten into it because they were a fan of said sport or team, but when it all comes out in the wash, it's about profitability and keeping the coffers full.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of a few owners that may give a shit privately as well as publicly: Cuban and Steinbrenner come to mind - other than that, I can't think of any that I feel like they just want to win so bad that you can feel it.

To further extend the point, owners in most cities know (other than Wrigley) that the amount of profit is almost directly related to the success of their (fill in the blank) team. If their team is shit, fans don't go and spend money on concessions and taking the family. They stay home and watch tv, which of course STILL generates revenue for the various team due to advertising and revenue packages with the various leagues and tv stations. Of course, watching at home is somewhat dependent on the team's success as well.

_________________
Does your cat make too much noise? Try KITTEN MITTENS!


Charlie: Oh shit. Look at that door dude. See that door right there? That door marked 'Pirate'? You think a pirate lives in there?
Dennis: I see a door marked 'Private.'


Last edited by DegenerateDave on Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:13 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:58 am
Posts: 4456
Location: @ ROH Show Near Me.
pizza_Place: Freezer.
Technically, the Packers are owned by residents of Green Bay (that's a requirement,) but that's besides the point.

McCaskeys are only here to make money. They are competitive enough to keep your interest; they make playoffs when possible and Super Bowl when everything lines up right. They prefer first-time coaches, first-time GMs. They don't want "Tuna", they don't want Jimmy Johnson.

They didn't want what Ditka became after his successes, but obviously, his hiring follows their longtime pattern.

_________________
Middle Aged Crazy, like Uncle Terry


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 16484
Location: Chicago, Illinois
pizza_Place: Salernos, Oak Park
Regular Reader wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
The Bears don't have shareholders. They are a private family owned business. The NFL prohibits corporate ownership. Unlike a non sports business whose primary goal is to be profitable, a professional sports team isn't considered successful unless they win. Sure the Bears might make money, but as fans success is about wins, not how much money the McCaskys make.
Do you follow the Bears rooting for them to make money or to win games?


First off, each family member with an ownership interest has, for lack of a better phrase, a "share" in the family business. OK, if that doesn't work for you, then they have percentages of ownership. I am fully aware that they aren't owned in the corporate form.

But your distinction between "non-sports" and "professional sports(businesses)" is laughable. The first purpose of any for profit business is....profit. Your apparent belief that the concept of "fan's success" outweighing the bottom line in the board room, or a sports business primarily being concerned w/winning records-titles is nieve.

That's really along the lines of "we" or "us" winning, when I, you or we don't have an ownership interest, expectation of a paycheck, or even rooting interest in the shared alma mater. "We" "you" didn't win, lose (money or titles), they did.

The McCaskeys need to do just enough for the fans to hold out hope & spin the turnstiles to max out profit. I've always felt that if they could do just enough to stay in the playoff chase each year that was sufficient. From a business perspective, they should. This notion of a public trust borders on the juvenille.

Finally, since you asked, while I follow the Bears (childhood team) I stopped rooting for them over 20 years ago. It's one thing to run a team and at least break even/make a modest profit, its an entire other thing to run the team primarily to support generations of people(who I'd never root for).


Mike & Virginia McCaskey would absolutely love you for what you wrote. Do the bare minimum to survive & fill the seats every Sunday, that is the Chicago Bears strategic plan.
It's time for a new plan.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Scorehead wrote:
The Packers aren't owned by a large company, which is prohibited in the NFL. The Packers are owned by the fans, not a company.


Technically you're wrong. The Packers are owned by a non-profit corporation whose shares are not publicly traded in the traditional manner. The restrictions on trade are virtually complete, they are for all intents and purposes held by the Green Bay community, but their corporate ownership structure is grandfathered in.

But, their lone wolf corporate status will change one day soon.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Scorehead wrote:
Mike & Virginia McCaskey would absolutely love you for what you wrote. Do the bare minimum to survive & fill the seats every Sunday, that is the Chicago Bears strategic plan.

It's time for a new plan.



You really believe they don't operate under this principle? Really?

But where is the motivation to change their plan? The old one has worked so well for lo these what 89+ years? There is still a waiting list to be gouged to go buy season tix to that crap stadium/profit center. Including 2 preseason games at full price.

When was the last locally blacked out (non strike)game? 1981-82?

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Regular Reader wrote:
Scorehead wrote:
The Packers aren't owned by a large company, which is prohibited in the NFL. The Packers are owned by the fans, not a company.


Technically you're wrong. The Packers are owned by a non-profit corporation whose shares are not publicly traded in the traditional manner. The restrictions on trade are virtually complete, they are for all intents and purposes held by the Green Bay community, but their corporate ownership structure is grandfathered in.

But, their lone wolf corporate status will change one day soon.

:lol: i dont think so

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], The Doctor Of Style and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group