For those who think the team is cheap

[nfoligno]

Several articles out about how the team is not raising ticket prices this year. Frankly, at first I didn't think much of it. Team not raising ticket prices? Big deal. Then I began to read the articles.

 

- The team, as most, have raised prices each year. Standard cost of living raises basically. This year no such thing though.

 

- City of Chicago's amusement tax will increase from 8 percent to 9 percent. The bears plan to simply eat this increase, rather than pass it along to the fans.

 

- Bears will now accept credit cards for the first time in its history. The team will pay a fee of 2 1/2 percent to credit card companies for every ticket purchased with a credit card. All told, credit card fees could cost the Bears about $750,000. Again, cost will be eaten and not passed along to the fan.

 

- Soldier Field has the smallest capacity in the league, and thus no increase in ticket prices, combined w/ sour economy, means we will feel the lack of a ticket increase more than most. For the record, freaking shocked to read we have the smallest capacity in the league. We just gutted and re-build the freaking stadium. I know a kew was adding more luxury boxes, but I expected the stadium to have greater overall capacity too.

 

- article points out how many teams have been cutting/firing large amounts of personnel to cut on costs. While it is not totally off the table, Phillips says that no cuts have been made, and none are planned, talking about how people are their most valuable resource.

 

- Finally, I would like to point out that we are the only (I think this is still true) team in the league whose ownership's sole revenue is from the team. Other teams have ownership who can tap into their other venture revenues, but ours has only the bears. Point is, our ownership feels the financial hit the team takes more than most, and yet are still making decisions now that puts the financial burden on the team and ownership, not the fans.

 

I am sure some will turn this around and regardless find ways to attack the ownership for it, but I think there is reason to be proud of the Virginia et al right now. As w/ most teams, they can continue to raise ticket prices to push higher cost onto the fans, or save money by firing a ton of their employees. Instead, they are just eating the extra costs, and I think that deserves a bit of a hat tip.

[madlithuanian]

Nice post!

 

The cynic in me wants to say it's simply a marketing ploy that they had no choice in accepting given the economy and potential backlash. But my heart is tealling me that they indeed don't want to pass increased costs on to their fans. I also commend them for retaining their employees. That's certianly one facet of a family run organization that is a huge plus in most cases.

 

I've been very harsh on this organization regarding this matte, but the proof is in the pudding and they have stepped up I believe and are showing their merit by their actions.

 

I still have issues how this franchise is run, but as of right now, I, personally, will no longer call them cheap.

 

Several articles out about how the team is not raising ticket prices this year. Frankly, at first I didn't think much of it. Team not raising ticket prices? Big deal. Then I began to read the articles.

 

- The team, as most, have raised prices each year. Standard cost of living raises basically. This year no such thing though.

 

- City of Chicago's amusement tax will increase from 8 percent to 9 percent. The bears plan to simply eat this increase, rather than pass it along to the fans.

 

- Bears will now accept credit cards for the first time in its history. The team will pay a fee of 2 1/2 percent to credit card companies for every ticket purchased with a credit card. All told, credit card fees could cost the Bears about $750,000. Again, cost will be eaten and not passed along to the fan.

 

- Soldier Field has the smallest capacity in the league, and thus no increase in ticket prices, combined w/ sour economy, means we will feel the lack of a ticket increase more than most. For the record, freaking shocked to read we have the smallest capacity in the league. We just gutted and re-build the freaking stadium. I know a kew was adding more luxury boxes, but I expected the stadium to have greater overall capacity too.

 

- article points out how many teams have been cutting/firing large amounts of personnel to cut on costs. While it is not totally off the table, Phillips says that no cuts have been made, and none are planned, talking about how people are their most valuable resource.

 

- Finally, I would like to point out that we are the only (I think this is still true) team in the league whose ownership's sole revenue is from the team. Other teams have ownership who can tap into their other venture revenues, but ours has only the bears. Point is, our ownership feels the financial hit the team takes more than most, and yet are still making decisions now that puts the financial burden on the team and ownership, not the fans.

 

I am sure some will turn this around and regardless find ways to attack the ownership for it, but I think there is reason to be proud of the Virginia et al right now. As w/ most teams, they can continue to raise ticket prices to push higher cost onto the fans, or save money by firing a ton of their employees. Instead, they are just eating the extra costs, and I think that deserves a bit of a hat tip.

[nfoligno]

I have plenty of issues w/ the way the team is run and the decisions often made, but frankly, I stopped calling them cheap years ago.

 

For most of the 90s, and obviously earlier, this was a cheap as hell organization. We had an ownership that lacked other business intersts to draw money from, which was more the norm in the NFL. Further, we had an out-dated stadium that lacked luxury boxes, and thus lacked the same level of revenue other teams found. Further still, due to not even owning the stadium, sources of revenue other teams found, the bears did not, like concessions, parking, etc.

 

But even before the new stadium, I saw a change. Basically, it happened when Phillips took over. We talk talk day and night about the decisions themselves, but going back about 10 years ago, I saw the changes begin. That was when we hit FA and immediately signed Phillip Daniels and Thomas Smith. The bonuses given to them at the time were equal to the best in the league, and it marked the first time the team paid those big bonus dollars for a FA. Since then, we have shelled out bonus money as much as most any other NFL team.

 

Again, we can debate all day about who was signed, but that doesn't take away from the fact that we began 10 years ago shelling out money unlike in the past. We are now in a position where, going into FA, I do not feel like the bonus dollars the top FAs demand will prevent us from getting who we want. We may not go after the FAs I want, but I think it is a personnel decision more than a financial one.

 

 

 

Nice post!

 

The cynic in me wants to say it's simply a marketing ploy that they had no choice in accepting given the economy and potential backlash. But my heart is tealling me that they indeed don't want to pass increased costs on to their fans. I also commend them for retaining their employees. That's certianly one facet of a family run organization that is a huge plus in most cases.

 

I've been very harsh on this organization regarding this matte, but the proof is in the pudding and they have stepped up I believe and are showing their merit by their actions.

 

I still have issues how this franchise is run, but as of right now, I, personally, will no longer call them cheap.

[flea]

it's hitting everywhere. A soccer team in England is selling kids season tickets(30+ games) for 19 pounds sterling

[madlithuanian]

I tend to agree...

 

But differ a bit when it comes to those put in charge running the team. All our coaches have really been brought in at bargain basement prices. And Smith was only re-upped after huge media scrutiny after a SB run. I basically question the desire to spend on the management and coaching side of the team. It could be a philospohy to go for the upstart guy...but on paper, it looks cheap. Once in the fold and successful, they have spent. But I wonder when Smith and JA get shown the dorr down the road, how will it play out? I'll be super curious as we all will...

 

 

 

I have plenty of issues w/ the way the team is run and the decisions often made, but frankly, I stopped calling them cheap years ago.

 

For most of the 90s, and obviously earlier, this was a cheap as hell organization. We had an ownership that lacked other business intersts to draw money from, which was more the norm in the NFL. Further, we had an out-dated stadium that lacked luxury boxes, and thus lacked the same level of revenue other teams found. Further still, due to not even owning the stadium, sources of revenue other teams found, the bears did not, like concessions, parking, etc.

 

But even before the new stadium, I saw a change. Basically, it happened when Phillips took over. We talk talk day and night about the decisions themselves, but going back about 10 years ago, I saw the changes begin. That was when we hit FA and immediately signed Phillip Daniels and Thomas Smith. The bonuses given to them at the time were equal to the best in the league, and it marked the first time the team paid those big bonus dollars for a FA. Since then, we have shelled out bonus money as much as most any other NFL team.

 

Again, we can debate all day about who was signed, but that doesn't take away from the fact that we began 10 years ago shelling out money unlike in the past. We are now in a position where, going into FA, I do not feel like the bonus dollars the top FAs demand will prevent us from getting who we want. We may not go after the FAs I want, but I think it is a personnel decision more than a financial one.

[nfoligno]

I've been in this argument before, and point to two owners no one considers cheap.

 

Dan Snyder did it the big dollar way. He went out and paid sick money on a coaching staff. Whether we are talking about Spurrier or Gibbs, he spent big bucks. Further, he paid dang near HC market contracts for assistant coaches. What exactly did all that get him?

 

Then there is Jerry Jones. Anyone calling him cheap? And yet when it comes to his staff, he has for a long time been that way. His best coaching hire was Jimmy Johnson, who was a college ranks guy. When Jimmy was taking up too much of the spotlight, Jerry let him go and replaced him w/ another coaching hire (Switzer). And make no mistake. These were not expensive coaching hires like Spurrier. Yea, he tried to go outside the box w/ Parcells, and that blew up in his face too.

 

Point is, look around the league. Other than Billichek, who is more an exception to all rules, have the best teams been those whose ownership went out and bought the high dollar coaches? I don't think so.

 

We have followed a path very similar to that of many other teams. We have gone after the "hot" coordinators. Even go back to when we first hired Wanny. As I recall, he was the hot coordinator at the time, and I do not think we paid him the minimum either. Jauron was a bit of a botch, but again, was that about money? We went after McGinnis, and Mikey blew that one up, but I don't recall money being the issue.

 

Here is a key for me. When a coach has proven himself, has this team not spent to retain them? Frankly, I would argue it backfired each time, but we paid good market value for Wanny, Jauron and Lovie in extensions. Hell, isn't Lovie now getting like $5m/yr?

 

So to me, it is about philosophy and not money. And I would point out that most teams in the league seem to follow a similar philosophy of going after the hot or well thought of coordinators.

 

I tend to agree...

 

But differ a bit when it comes to those put in charge running the team. All our coaches have really been brought in at bargain basement prices. And Smith was only re-upped after huge media scrutiny after a SB run. I basically question the desire to spend on the management and coaching side of the team. It could be a philospohy to go for the upstart guy...but on paper, it looks cheap. Once in the fold and successful, they have spent. But I wonder when Smith and JA get shown the dorr down the road, how will it play out? I'll be super curious as we all will...

[madlithuanian]

No doubt...spending money does not guarantee success. I'm sure Tomlin didn't cost the Steelers and arm and a leg when he was brought in.

 

But, I think there's a difference between making a choice of going with less experience vs not willing to spend the loot.

 

But, look at Miami. They brought in Parcells to help operations.. and voila! They are once again quite good. Jerry in Dallas did go w/ Parcells. But Parcells was beceoming successful despite Jerry's interference. In fact, had Jerry stayed out of the way, Dallas may have been in the SB this year...

 

The problem with the owners who are willing to overspend, is that they tend to butt in too much.

 

You can't say definitively that the McGuinnes bungling and the Jauron hire weren't about money.... I think it was. Maybe I'm wrong. I just see that those coaching salaries wouldn't have come close to a top tier candidate.

 

Also the fact that other teams are doing it doesn't make them not cheap! They are too...

 

Bottom line, I question whether the team is being cheap in this regard or if that is a simple philosophical choice. Given what we know...and that salaries for GM's and coaches have been low, and only re-upped once there appeared to be really little choice, I'm going on the premise that it's still cheap in that area.

 

I'm just very happy they are keeping the fans and their general employees happy and not being cheap there in addition to be willing to spend on FA's. 3 out of 5 ain't bad... overall, you could say the average is NOT cheap. But I think 2 portions are still cheap...GM and coaches...or maybe the idea should be that the decisions have been extremely poor. They hired guys they shouldn't have, and gave extentions they shouldn't have.

 

 

I've been in this argument before, and point to two owners no one considers cheap.

 

Dan Snyder did it the big dollar way. He went out and paid sick money on a coaching staff. Whether we are talking about Spurrier or Gibbs, he spent big bucks. Further, he paid dang near HC market contracts for assistant coaches. What exactly did all that get him?

 

Then there is Jerry Jones. Anyone calling him cheap? And yet when it comes to his staff, he has for a long time been that way. His best coaching hire was Jimmy Johnson, who was a college ranks guy. When Jimmy was taking up too much of the spotlight, Jerry let him go and replaced him w/ another coaching hire (Switzer). And make no mistake. These were not expensive coaching hires like Spurrier. Yea, he tried to go outside the box w/ Parcells, and that blew up in his face too.

 

Point is, look around the league. Other than Billichek, who is more an exception to all rules, have the best teams been those whose ownership went out and bought the high dollar coaches? I don't think so.

 

We have followed a path very similar to that of many other teams. We have gone after the "hot" coordinators. Even go back to when we first hired Wanny. As I recall, he was the hot coordinator at the time, and I do not think we paid him the minimum either. Jauron was a bit of a botch, but again, was that about money? We went after McGinnis, and Mikey blew that one up, but I don't recall money being the issue.

 

Here is a key for me. When a coach has proven himself, has this team not spent to retain them? Frankly, I would argue it backfired each time, but we paid good market value for Wanny, Jauron and Lovie in extensions. Hell, isn't Lovie now getting like $5m/yr?

 

So to me, it is about philosophy and not money. And I would point out that most teams in the league seem to follow a similar philosophy of going after the hot or well thought of coordinators.

[DaBearSox]

- City of Chicago's amusement tax will increase from 8 percent to 9 percent. The bears plan to simply eat this increase, rather than pass it along to the fans.

 

Thats pretty cool...

 

- Bears will now accept credit cards for the first time in its history. The team will pay a fee of 2 1/2 percent to credit card companies for every ticket purchased with a credit card. All told, credit card fees could cost the Bears about $750,000. Again, cost will be eaten and not passed along to the fan.

 

They are going to make more money than they are losing on this...i dont know about you but I barely ever have cash. And if there is an option to use my debit card or take money out of an ATM that charges me 3.00 dollars plus my bank charges me another 2, I am going to use my debit card.

 

 

- Soldier Field has the smallest capacity in the league, and thus no increase in ticket prices, combined w/ sour economy, means we will feel the lack of a ticket increase more than most. For the record, freaking shocked to read we have the smallest capacity in the league. We just gutted and re-build the freaking stadium. I know a kew was adding more luxury boxes, but I expected the stadium to have greater overall capacity too.

 

I remember when the plans came out and they reduced it by like 5,000 seats...that made me somewhat angry

[Connorbear]

We have followed a path very similar to that of many other teams. We have gone after the "hot" coordinators. Even go back to when we first hired Wanny. As I recall, he was the hot coordinator at the time, and I do not think we paid him the minimum either. Jauron was a bit of a botch, but again, was that about money? We went after McGinnis, and Mikey blew that one up, but I don't recall money being the issue.

Before I comment on this, let me say I agree with you on the original tone of your post.

 

On the McGinnis issue, I remember specifically what happened. Mikey decided to negotiate directly with McGinnis. He wanted McGinnis to agree that the asst coaches would not have guarenteed contracts and could be terminated at any time. He would not agree with that and walked away from the job. It ended up costing Mikey his job as he was bumped up to the board of directors.

 

Peace

['TD']

Yea, that's nice and all they are doing that. I still think the team is still cheap tho.

 

This year, after all the signings were made, the Bears picked up the one dude, that having him may have lead to a 10 million extra on next year.

 

That tells me, the Bears still had 10 million in cap space when he was signed. Instead of them going after the big money FA olinemen or tagging Berrian earlier in the year, they were just not going to spend that money, and am I wrong that that money won't carry over to this year cuz it was unlikely to be earned.

[Mongo3451]

Yea, that's nice and all they are doing that. I still think the team is still cheap tho.

 

This year, after all the signings were made, the Bears picked up the one dude, that having him may have lead to a 10 million extra on next year.

 

That tells me, the Bears still had 10 million in cap space when he was signed. Instead of them going after the big money FA olinemen or tagging Berrian earlier in the year, they were just not going to spend that money, and am I wrong that that money won't carry over to this year cuz it was unlikely to be earned.

Agreed. I would like to see the P&L statement. I sure the coffers are brimming. Plus, I think the NFL in general has been leaning on teams. One thing NFO brought out was the same as I was thinking yesterday is that we have the smallest stadium. I think that was also done to always ensure TV revenue nevers is missed, as I think there were games that we didn't sell out when we sucked. The big money comes from TV and merchandizing anyway.

[bradjock]

Is the team still considered cheap if we're planning on saving this money on player contracts?

 

Last year at this time it was speculated the Bears were somewhere between 12 to 25 million underneath the cap. With that money we resigned Harris, Hester, Urlacher, Lance, Grossman, Orton, Rashied Davis, and signed Brandon Lloyd & Marty Booker. While some of those deals were cheap, Harris, Hester & Lance each cost major coin. AND we'd have spent a ton for Berrian.

 

How the hell did we do all that and still have 10 million to tuck under-neath the mattress for this year with Hamilton's contract???

 

This year the early speculation is the Bears are 25 million under. Mike Mulligan on the SCORE this morning said the Bears have 40 million to spend. I have no idea if that's accurate, but either way, we have a shit load to spend, and where will that go?

 

At this point the team has a fairly good idea of who's available and how much we'll spend. What if we've decided to not raise prices since we'll save an assload on player salaries this season? Sure we'll likely resign St. Clair to a modest deal, and likely ink a couple other players for a couple million a year, but I can't see us going balls-out for Peppers, Gross, or Housh.

 

It's likely we're helping the Bear fans who go to the stadium while screwing the millions of fans who don't go to the games.

 

Granted, I'm not calling them cheap because they've spent it since the new stadium was built. But I sure as hell am not about to praise them when it appears they could be helping the fans while hurting the team.

 

Hell, I'd much rather see them jack ticket prices up $20.00 a seat and signing Julius Peppers.

[madlithuanian]

Good points...

 

Does anyone know how much tax dollars went into the stadium? To some degree, isn't that a bailout per se? Like the mortgage bankers, shouldn't the team be beholden to taxpayers on some level then? Just stirring it up...

 

Is the team still considered cheap if we're planning on saving this money on player contracts?

 

Last year at this time it was speculated the Bears were somewhere between 12 to 25 million underneath the cap. With that money we resigned Harris, Hester, Urlacher, Lance, Grossman, Orton, Rashied Davis, and signed Brandon Lloyd & Marty Booker. While some of those deals were cheap, Harris, Hester & Lance each cost major coin. AND we'd have spent a ton for Berrian.

 

How the hell did we do all that and still have 10 million to tuck under-neath the mattress for this year with Hamilton's contract???

 

This year the early speculation is the Bears are 25 million under. Mike Mulligan on the SCORE this morning said the Bears have 40 million to spend. I have no idea if that's accurate, but either way, we have a shit load to spend, and where will that go?

 

At this point the team has a fairly good idea of who's available and how much we'll spend. What if we've decided to not raise prices since we'll save an assload on player salaries this season? Sure we'll likely resign St. Clair to a modest deal, and likely ink a couple other players for a couple million a year, but I can't see us going balls-out for Peppers, Gross, or Housh.

 

It's likely we're helping the Bear fans who go to the stadium while screwing the millions of fans who don't go to the games.

 

Granted, I'm not calling them cheap because they've spent it since the new stadium was built. But I sure as hell am not about to praise them when it appears they could be helping the fans while hurting the team.

 

Hell, I'd much rather see them jack ticket prices up $20.00 a seat and signing Julius Peppers.

[bradjock]

Good points...

 

Does anyone know how much tax dollars went into the stadium? To some degree, isn't that a bailout per se? Like the mortgage bankers, shouldn't the team be beholden to taxpayers on some level then? Just stirring it up...

 

Hell yes they should be . . . but has a team ever been? It seems like once the team has the stadium deal in place, the fans get the shaft and the team gets the dollars.

 

I remember when they were talking about moving the Bears to Indiana, and Bear fans were screaming foul. After that, few bitched tax dollars became involved.

 

Honestly, while Soldier Field is great, is there a bigger waste of money then a stadium devoted strictly to football? It cost between 300-400 million, gets used for 8 meaningful days a year if there's no playoffs . . . it hosts the occassional concert & soccer.

 

Baseball at least gets 81 home games, the Bulls & the Blackhawks share the United Center . . . yet the most impressive stadium in Chicago is for a team that plays 8 meaningful games a year.

 

So yes you've stirred the pot Mad-Lith. I don't give a damn about an increase in ticket prices, I'd just be happy to be able to buy a ticket for face value of the ticket price.

[BearSox]

kinda OT, and I know we went through that whole renovation in what just seems like a few years ago, but instead of building a new stadium for a possible expansion team (with the olympics and all the crap), how about a new stadium for the Bears?

 

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I hate the new soldier field, at least the outside of it. Just seeing what looks to be a space ship crushing a historical stadium like Soldier Field is pretty ugly. It's nice on the inside as well, but could us more work as well.

 

I'd love a stadium similar to Arizona's except that the roof is always open during the game (except if thunder storms are scheduled or it's hot as balls). It wouldn't be Bears football if it was a home game in December with a tempeture of 70 or something inside. Also, I'd like the seats to be practically right on the field, and to really get the place rocking when we're on D. Also, this could make Chicago an option to host the Super Bowl as well (the roof would obviously be closed).

 

Unlikely, but I'd love for that to happen.

[Connorbear]

kinda OT, and I know we went through that whole renovation in what just seems like a few years ago, but instead of building a new stadium for a possible expansion team (with the olympics and all the crap), how about a new stadium for the Bears?

 

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I hate the new soldier field, at least the outside of it. Just seeing what looks to be a space ship crushing a historical stadium like Soldier Field is pretty ugly. It's nice on the inside as well, but could us more work as well.

 

I'd love a stadium similar to Arizona's except that the roof is always open during the game (except if thunder storms are scheduled or it's hot as balls). It wouldn't be Bears football if it was a home game in December with a tempeture of 70 or something inside. Also, I'd like the seats to be practically right on the field, and to really get the place rocking when we're on D. Also, this could make Chicago an option to host the Super Bowl as well (the roof would obviously be closed).

 

Unlikely, but I'd love for that to happen.

Let me ask - did you ever go to a game in Old Soldier Field? The place was a friggin dump. The seats were way, way back compared to the new building and the pitch was bad. The bathrooms and concessions were horrible. Up until 2 yrs before they renovated, they didn't have a replay board (now they have 2 that are state of the art). The bathrooms are the only complaint I have about the building now. They are much nicer but they are still not big enough.

 

I agree, however, they should have built a retractable dome stadium. My friends and I have discussed this many times. They should have torn down all of the old stadium except for the columnades and the outer wall and make it a park with underground parking. Then they should have built a state of the stadium in the south lot with 80,000 seats and a retractable roof.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

I hear ya!

 

Hell yes they should be . . . but has a team ever been? It seems like once the team has the stadium deal in place, the fans get the shaft and the team gets the dollars.

 

I remember when they were talking about moving the Bears to Indiana, and Bear fans were screaming foul. After that, few bitched tax dollars became involved.

 

Honestly, while Soldier Field is great, is there a bigger waste of money then a stadium devoted strictly to football? It cost between 300-400 million, gets used for 8 meaningful days a year if there's no playoffs . . . it hosts the occassional concert & soccer.

 

Baseball at least gets 81 home games, the Bulls & the Blackhawks share the United Center . . . yet the most impressive stadium in Chicago is for a team that plays 8 meaningful games a year.

 

So yes you've stirred the pot Mad-Lith. I don't give a damn about an increase in ticket prices, I'd just be happy to be able to buy a ticket for face value of the ticket price.

[Connorbear]

Hell yes they should be . . . but has a team ever been? It seems like once the team has the stadium deal in place, the fans get the shaft and the team gets the dollars.

 

I remember when they were talking about moving the Bears to Indiana, and Bear fans were screaming foul. After that, few bitched tax dollars became involved.

 

Honestly, while Soldier Field is great, is there a bigger waste of money then a stadium devoted strictly to football? It cost between 300-400 million, gets used for 8 meaningful days a year if there's no playoffs . . . it hosts the occassional concert & soccer.

 

Baseball at least gets 81 home games, the Bulls & the Blackhawks share the United Center . . . yet the most impressive stadium in Chicago is for a team that plays 8 meaningful games a year.

 

So yes you've stirred the pot Mad-Lith. I don't give a damn about an increase in ticket prices, I'd just be happy to be able to buy a ticket for face value of the ticket price.

The Bears don't own the stadium. The Chicago park district does. The Bears rent from them. The original deal cost I believe 450 to 500 million. The Bears paid for 100 million of the renovation using a loan from the NFL. The city paid for the rest through an increase in the hotel/motel tax.

 

The stadium is used for multiple events besides the Bears games. Concerts, college football, soccer (the Fire played there up until 2 yrs ago), high school football tournaments, etc. My understanding is they also play international soccer there and that is the reason they won't switch to new turf (because FIFA requires grass).

 

Peace

[flea]

I can't compare to the old Soldier Field but have to say I loved the new when I was there

[LT2_3]

Is the team still considered cheap if we're planning on saving this money on player contracts?

 

Last year at this time it was speculated the Bears were somewhere between 12 to 25 million underneath the cap. With that money we resigned Harris, Hester, Urlacher, Lance, Grossman, Orton, Rashied Davis, and signed Brandon Lloyd & Marty Booker. While some of those deals were cheap, Harris, Hester & Lance each cost major coin. AND we'd have spent a ton for Berrian.

 

How the hell did we do all that and still have 10 million to tuck under-neath the mattress for this year with Hamilton's contract???

 

What happened was that the cap money left was pretty much what they expected to pay for Berrian + a bit extra for injury replacements. The thing was, they expected to spend it on Berrian and couldn't find a guy they really liked. I don't think that they were being cheap - just prudent.

 

This year the early speculation is the Bears are 25 million under. Mike Mulligan on the SCORE this morning said the Bears have 40 million to spend. I have no idea if that's accurate, but either way, we have a shit load to spend, and where will that go?

 

My estimate is $27 million. Phillips gave an interview a few days ago and sure sounded like they were planning to spend some money.

 

At this point the team has a fairly good idea of who's available and how much we'll spend. What if we've decided to not raise prices since we'll save an assload on player salaries this season? Sure we'll likely resign St. Clair to a modest deal, and likely ink a couple other players for a couple million a year, but I can't see us going balls-out for Peppers, Gross, or Housh.

 

I disagree that anyone has any idea who will be available yet. Both the Ravens and Panthers have decisions to make on who to franchise. There might be some unexpected cap casualties by the cap strapped teams because they are limited by the last capped year. They may have to cut specific contracts to get under because they can't split the unprorated bonus money over 2 years. Who will be available is FAR from clear.

 

It's likely we're helping the Bear fans who go to the stadium while screwing the millions of fans who don't go to the games.

 

How is anyone getting screwed?

 

Granted, I'm not calling them cheap because they've spent it since the new stadium was built. But I sure as hell am not about to praise them when it appears they could be helping the fans while hurting the team.

 

Hell, I'd much rather see them jack ticket prices up $20.00 a seat and signing Julius Peppers.

 

They spent before the stadium was built too.

 

A Peppers signing could happen if he doesn't get franchised. I think they're going to spend.

[bowlingtwig]

Let me ask - did you ever go to a game in Old Soldier Field? The place was a friggin dump. The seats were way, way back compared to the new building and the pitch was bad. The bathrooms and concessions were horrible. Up until 2 yrs before they renovated, they didn't have a replay board (now they have 2 that are state of the art). The bathrooms are the only complaint I have about the building now. They are much nicer but they are still not big enough.

 

I agree, however, they should have built a retractable dome stadium. My friends and I have discussed this many times. They should have torn down all of the old stadium except for the columnades and the outer wall and make it a park with underground parking. Then they should have built a state of the stadium in the south lot with 80,000 seats and a retractable roof.

 

Peace

 

I somewhat agree Connor except about the retractable roof. I hate domes. I think it takes away from the game and just can't stand it.

[Mongo3451]

What happened was that the cap money left was pretty much what they expected to pay for Berrian + a bit extra for injury replacements. The thing was, they expected to spend it on Berrian and couldn't find a guy they really liked. I don't think that they were being cheap - just prudent.

I don't know what to make of it. Prudent is a good term, but it also cost us a chance at the playoffs. The swing of Berrian making one team better and the other missing his needed services was the difference. IMO - the franchise was needed if we didn't have a replacement. I guess hindsight makes us all geniuses. LOL

 

My estimate is $27 million. Phillips gave an interview a few days ago and sure sounded like they were planning to spend some money.

I don't doubt that they'll spend money on players. That is the obvious way to invest in the average fan. My concern is support staff. The huge history of 1st time coaches reeks of frugality.

 

I disagree that anyone has any idea who will be available yet. Both the Ravens and Panthers have decisions to make on who to franchise. There might be some unexpected cap casualties by the cap strapped teams because they are limited by the last capped year. They may have to cut specific contracts to get under because they can't split the unprorated bonus money over 2 years. Who will be available is FAR from clear.

Good point.

 

A Peppers signing could happen if he doesn't get franchised. I think they're going to spend.

I hope you are right. I still think the window is open for this team. A good draft and some key pickups make us a potential contender.

[nfoligno]

Still think the issue is in decisions made v finances.

 

You mention McGinnis v Jauron. There were all sorts of reports at the time, but I do not recall money being an issue. I do recall Mikey having a press conference to announce McGinnis before McGinnis even agreed. According to him, it was then he realized the mistake it would be to work for Mikey, and passed.

 

You talk about Parcells, but again, might he not be more the exception than the rule? Often, the guys who I think you would be referring to (big names) are big names but also failures to an extent. I mean, why are they available? Because they didn't workout for their team. I just understand the philosophy of going after the young hot guy over the bigger name who is available due to not meeting his former teams expectations.

 

Further, on the idea of whether how many other teams seem to have the same philosophy, and whether that matters, or are they too simply cheap. I would say this. If, say, a 1/3 of the league acted this way, I think it would be reasonable to say a 1/3 of the league is simply cheap. But IMHO, the ratio is far far greater. Look at this offseason, as well as last. You had some big names out there, like Cower for example, but who was all the talk about? All the talk was about the hot coordinators. AZ, coming off their SB loss just lost their OC to KC. You talk about Miami getting Parcells, but who did they hire to be their new HC? Take a look around and tell me who all the new head coaches seem to be. You might have the older veteran here and there, but I think the vast majority seem to be the younger, yet to be proven assistants.

 

Finally, you say in both coach and GM we seem cheap. I go back to my original comments. That would be an easy statement in the 90s when we were to cheap to even have a GM, but I would argue that we hired a new GM in similar timing as I said we began to spend money.

 

I just don't see it. I understand that we were a cheap team for so long that it will take even longer to completely change that image, particularly when there are some teams out there like Wash and Dallas which make the entire league look cheap. However, whether you are talking about GM, coaches, players, team employees, training facility, or whatever, it just does not seem our team is as cheap as some want to continue to believe.

 

No doubt...spending money does not guarantee success. I'm sure Tomlin didn't cost the Steelers and arm and a leg when he was brought in.

 

But, I think there's a difference between making a choice of going with less experience vs not willing to spend the loot.

 

But, look at Miami. They brought in Parcells to help operations.. and voila! They are once again quite good. Jerry in Dallas did go w/ Parcells. But Parcells was beceoming successful despite Jerry's interference. In fact, had Jerry stayed out of the way, Dallas may have been in the SB this year...

 

The problem with the owners who are willing to overspend, is that they tend to butt in too much.

 

You can't say definitively that the McGuinnes bungling and the Jauron hire weren't about money.... I think it was. Maybe I'm wrong. I just see that those coaching salaries wouldn't have come close to a top tier candidate.

 

Also the fact that other teams are doing it doesn't make them not cheap! They are too...

 

Bottom line, I question whether the team is being cheap in this regard or if that is a simple philosophical choice. Given what we know...and that salaries for GM's and coaches have been low, and only re-upped once there appeared to be really little choice, I'm going on the premise that it's still cheap in that area.

 

I'm just very happy they are keeping the fans and their general employees happy and not being cheap there in addition to be willing to spend on FA's. 3 out of 5 ain't bad... overall, you could say the average is NOT cheap. But I think 2 portions are still cheap...GM and coaches...or maybe the idea should be that the decisions have been extremely poor. They hired guys they shouldn't have, and gave extentions they shouldn't have.

[nfoligno]

They are going to make more money than they are losing on this...i dont know about you but I barely ever have cash. And if there is an option to use my debit card or take money out of an ATM that charges me 3.00 dollars plus my bank charges me another 2, I am going to use my debit card.

 

How do you figure. Correct me if I am wrong, but the team currently sells out every game. Thus, while it may be easier for the fans, how does it make the team more money when it already maxes out on ticket sales?

[nfoligno]

I don't doubt that they'll spend money on players. That is the obvious way to invest in the average fan. My concern is support staff. The huge history of 1st time coaches reeks of frugality.

 

Said before and will say again. Take a look around the league and tell me how many of the good teams are led by the 1st time coaches, rather than veteran retreads.

 

No one want to think about it this way, but that is the reality. Most of the big names you talk about are retreads who are available because they failed for another team. In knocking going after the hot assistants, you are in a way advocating going after a veteran retread like Moose over drafting a WR.

 

Consider the SB. Both teams were led by coaches who had no prior HC experience.

 

I just do not understand why so many fans equate this to cheap.