Ted Phillips interview

[Connorbear]

Ted was on the SCORE this morning with Mully & Hanley. The interview will be available on their website soon.

 

Highlights (paraphrasing Ted):

 

- The fact that a player like DA comes in at the end of the year and plays very well makes you question what is going on.

- Believes Lovie and Jerry give the best chance to turn around the team quickly.

- Playoffs are the standard for next year.

- Hanley asked if Lovie and Jerry were out of contract, would he have extended them. Ted did not really want to answer. Said he didn't want to answer hypotheticals but that money was not the issue.

 

Overall, good interview.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

Interesting. The whole DA thing is very insightful. Finally someone other than media and fans are quenstioning Smith benching/starting philosophy.

 

Ted was on the SCORE this morning with Mully & Hanley. The interview will be available on their website soon.

 

Highlights (paraphrasing Ted):

 

- The fact that a player like DA comes in at the end of the year and plays very well makes you question what is going on.

- Believes Lovie and Jerry give the best chance to turn around the team quickly.

- Playoffs are the standard for next year.

- Hanley asked if Lovie and Jerry were out of contract, would he have extended them. Ted did not really want to answer. Said he didn't want to answer hypotheticals but that money was not the issue.

 

Overall, good interview.

 

Peace

 

[DaBearSox]

Ted was on the SCORE this morning with Mully & Hanley. The interview will be available on their website soon.

 

Highlights (paraphrasing Ted):

 

- The fact that a player like DA comes in at the end of the year and plays very well makes you question what is going on.

- Believes Lovie and Jerry give the best chance to turn around the team quickly.

- Playoffs are the standard for next year.

- Hanley asked if Lovie and Jerry were out of contract, would he have extended them. Ted did not really want to answer. Said he didn't want to answer hypotheticals but that money was not the issue.

 

Overall, good interview.

 

Peace

 

 

So he contradicted his actions again....nice

[AZ54]

So he contradicted his actions again....nice

 

 

Not necessarily. I believe there was a desire to link JA and Lovie together to determine where things stand once and for all on the talent level of the roster. It was made clear that Lovie was stripped of ALL personnel authority which means they are telling JA to make the final call on the roster. Doesn't mean Lovie has no input just that he's no longer equal to JA. We have no idea who was responsible for which personnel decisions since the Superbowl but the fact Lovie was stripped of this authority means his choices have not been good. As posted in another thread the 2008 draft class was pretty good. 2007, Lovie's first with influence was bad. 2009 we went after Cutler. If JA was the one pushing that and if Love drove most of the 07 draft and JA most of the 08 perhaps the owners want to see if JA is worth keeping around.

 

I wanted Lovie gone, still do but it's not all bad having the GM and Lovie linked together rather than JA bringing in another head coach only to find out he's not what we want as a GM. Putting money aside perhaps they just felt that JA is worth keeping around another year and that even if it's not ideal to keep Lovie around it's more logical to keep him and if necessary fire both next year and let the new GM choose his head coach. Fans may not agree with this approach but that doesn't mean this isn't how the owners and Philips feel.

 

I agree it's not realistic to say money wasn't a factor because it always is in any business rather I think Philips means it was not the driving factor. One other factor that had to influence the decision was the collective bargaining situation. These owners remember the previous lockout and replacement teams. They have to look at this as another possibility this year, at least I do. Why bring in a new GM or head coach now only to lose a year of performance evaluation on their contract? Reality is if you have a good coach or GM you extend contracts usually with a year left. On a 4 yr deal, if there's a lockout, that would give you only two seasons to evaluate them. Not ideal. Or you give 5 yr deal up front but that's not ideal either.

[madlithuanian]

I just look at it as chickensh*t. The owners were scared. Scared to eat $11+M. Scared to hire a legit big boy coaching staff. Scared of what might or might not transpire with the CBA. Plain scared.

 

Success comes from those who take risks...not from those that play it safe. If Halas played it safe, he'd have been a viny; siding salesman. (Or whatever...) Not a pro football mogul. It appears his successors are content playing it safe. Maybe that is better, and the next generation of McCaskey's after Michael will get it. Until the ownership stops playing it safe, we're going to see the reults we've been seeing over the last 20 years. Lots of down, a few ups, and not enough to raise the Lombardi.

 

There should be more than enough in the McCaskey coffers to weather out a lost season, payoff the current staff and sget a new expensive one.

 

If you do not spend money, you do not make money. This is a marathon, not a sprint. An old Lithuanian addage is the cheap guy pays twice. We'll pay for Smith and JA, then have to pay for a new regime. In the meantime, lost revenue in merch and opportunity cost as players age and fall victim to mutliple playbooks will occur. You pay now, for the payoff later.

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily. I believe there was a desire to link JA and Lovie together to determine where things stand once and for all on the talent level of the roster. It was made clear that Lovie was stripped of ALL personnel authority which means they are telling JA to make the final call on the roster. Doesn't mean Lovie has no input just that he's no longer equal to JA. We have no idea who was responsible for which personnel decisions since the Superbowl but the fact Lovie was stripped of this authority means his choices have not been good. As posted in another thread the 2008 draft class was pretty good. 2007, Lovie's first with influence was bad. 2009 we went after Cutler. If JA was the one pushing that and if Love drove most of the 07 draft and JA most of the 08 perhaps the owners want to see if JA is worth keeping around.

 

I wanted Lovie gone, still do but it's not all bad having the GM and Lovie linked together rather than JA bringing in another head coach only to find out he's not what we want as a GM. Putting money aside perhaps they just felt that JA is worth keeping around another year and that even if it's not ideal to keep Lovie around it's more logical to keep him and if necessary fire both next year and let the new GM choose his head coach. Fans may not agree with this approach but that doesn't mean this isn't how the owners and Philips feel.

 

I agree it's not realistic to say money wasn't a factor because it always is in any business rather I think Philips means it was not the driving factor. One other factor that had to influence the decision was the collective bargaining situation. These owners remember the previous lockout and replacement teams. They have to look at this as another possibility this year, at least I do. Why bring in a new GM or head coach now only to lose a year of performance evaluation on their contract? Reality is if you have a good coach or GM you extend contracts usually with a year left. On a 4 yr deal, if there's a lockout, that would give you only two seasons to evaluate them. Not ideal. Or you give 5 yr deal up front but that's not ideal either.

 

[Mongo3451]

I just look at it as chickensh*t. The owners were scared. Scared to eat $11+M. Scared to hire a legit big boy coaching staff. Scared of what might or might not transpire with the CBA. Plain scared.

 

Success comes from those who take risks...not from those that play it safe. If Halas played it safe, he'd have been a viny; siding salesman. (Or whatever...) Not a pro football mogul. It appears his successors are content playing it safe. Maybe that is better, and the next generation of McCaskey's after Michael will get it. Until the ownership stops playing it safe, we're going to see the reults we've been seeing over the last 20 years. Lots of down, a few ups, and not enough to raise the Lombardi.

 

There should be more than enough in the McCaskey coffers to weather out a lost season, payoff the current staff and sget a new expensive one.

 

If you do not spend money, you do not make money. This is a marathon, not a sprint. An old Lithuanian addage is the cheap guy pays twice. We'll pay for Smith and JA, then have to pay for a new regime. In the meantime, lost revenue in merch and opportunity cost as players age and fall victim to mutliple playbooks will occur. You pay now, for the payoff later.

Nice one, Madlith. I wholeheartedly agree. I really bet that the ownership did not factor how pissed us fans are. I'm sure my boycott will do little, but if a million Bear fans refuse to buy their shit, they would think differently. It is corporate thinking that rules our team. Take maximized dividends and hope the market does not fall lower than forcasted. It reeks of cheap, but it is their business.

[Connorbear]

I just look at it as chickensh*t. The owners were scared. Scared to eat $11+M. Scared to hire a legit big boy coaching staff. Scared of what might or might not transpire with the CBA. Plain scared.

 

Success comes from those who take risks...not from those that play it safe. If Halas played it safe, he'd have been a viny; siding salesman. (Or whatever...) Not a pro football mogul. It appears his successors are content playing it safe. Maybe that is better, and the next generation of McCaskey's after Michael will get it. Until the ownership stops playing it safe, we're going to see the reults we've been seeing over the last 20 years. Lots of down, a few ups, and not enough to raise the Lombardi.

 

There should be more than enough in the McCaskey coffers to weather out a lost season, payoff the current staff and sget a new expensive one.

 

If you do not spend money, you do not make money. This is a marathon, not a sprint. An old Lithuanian addage is the cheap guy pays twice. We'll pay for Smith and JA, then have to pay for a new regime. In the meantime, lost revenue in merch and opportunity cost as players age and fall victim to mutliple playbooks will occur. You pay now, for the payoff later.

The vast majority of their revenue comes from the TV and then ticket sales. Neither will be affected. Merch sales are minimum. This will really not affect them.

 

Look, I don't agree with the decision. I wanted a house cleaning as most of us did. However, I do see it as a smart business decision given the pending lockout. If they were to fire Lovie and hire a new coach and then there is a lockout, they would be paying 2 salaries during the downtime.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

 

 

I'm sure the owners are aware of the anger...but I don't think to the extent. I just hope the many angered fans keep up their noise up and through the season.

 

Nice one, Madlith. I wholeheartedly agree. I really bet that the ownership did not factor how pissed us fans are. I'm sure my boycott will do little, but if a million Bear fans refuse to buy their shit, they would think differently. It is corporate thinking that rules our team. Take maximized dividends and hope the market does not fall lower than forcasted. It reeks of cheap, but it is their business.

 

[LT2_3]

I'm sure the owners are aware of the anger...but I don't think to the extent. I just hope the many angered fans keep up their noise up and through the season.

 

Guys, there is absolutely no way you can spin it that failing to fire Lovie and hire someone else will cost them any money. Not only that, but doing that would cost them more money than otherwise.

 

When it comes to merchandise sales, it is all split league wide. So feel free to not buy stuff if you like, but it's not really going to affect anything meaningful for the Bears.

 

As for how angry some people are, I think you expect that everyone feels the same way as yourself. They don't. Most fans don't really have an opinion. Most fans don't even know the Offensive or Defensive coordinator's names. People on message boards are more fanatical and vocal than other fans and also make up a minscule sliver of overall fandom. It's the same with TV show message boards. BECAUSE they talk about stuff in excruciating detail online, they figure everyone else does too. Most fans of TV shows just watch the frakking shows.

 

As for taking risks to earn rewards, give me a break. You make that statement like it's an absolute and never attempt to quantify the downside.

 

It's like if I speed and drive crazy to get to the movie I want to see, I'll be rewarded by getting to see it - but fail to realize that passing traffic in a no passing zone might get me killed. Is it worth it then. Obviously no. Is it worth it in the case of the Bears? I can't say for sure because I don't know what the potential consequences might be if there is a lockout. The family lives off of team dividend checks. If there is no income, those dividend checks will be drastically reduced. Having to pay and extra 10-15 million when there is zero income would be a strain on any enterprise.

 

I get what you're saying and wanted Lovie fired too. But trying to suggest the team is cheap when we're talking millions of dollars offset by zero income, and you're just bat-shiat-insane.

 

BTW - Anyone wanting to boycott the team and give up their season tickets, feel free to do so - in fact I encourage it.

 

Thanks - from someone on the waiting list.

[Mongo3451]

Way to trainwreck a perfectly good rant LT! Buzzkiller...

[azbearsfan]

Good post LT.

[Connorbear]

Good post LT.

Agreed100%

 

Peace

[LT2_3]

Thanks for the support Mongo, AZBearsfan, and Connerbear.

 

2 more points:

 

1. We went freakin 7-9. We ought to be able to improve by a few games with an ACTUAL OC and a qualified DC for which it's a full-time job.

 

2. A Billion dollar enterprise. They must have money right? It's like if you inherit a million dollar painting. Does that mean you have any money before you sell it?

[AZ54]

Thanks for the support Mongo, AZBearsfan, and Connerbear.

 

2 more points:

 

1. We went freakin 7-9. We ought to be able to improve by a few games with an ACTUAL OC and a qualified DC for which it's a full-time job.

 

2. A Billion dollar enterprise. They must have money right? It's like if you inherit a million dollar painting. Does that mean you have any money before you sell it?

 

Yes, there's a difference between net worth, revenues, and income. Most people don't realize how modest a life Virginia leads.

[madlithuanian]

No doubt!

 

Way to trainwreck a perfectly good rant LT! Buzzkiller...

 

[madlithuanian]

LT, I do appreciate the info. There were some area I was obviously not clear on.

 

However, besides throwing water on my burning rage...I think you miss some of the big picture I am referencing.

 

1. I made no gaurantee that fialing to fire Smith will cost them money. I simply siad it should. And those of use that have any remote power to do so, should attempt as such.

2. I wasn't aware merch sales was an even split between all teams. I had thought erroneously that the team rec'd a larger portion than the league. Thanks for pinting that out. However, doesn't hte merch at Soldier go direct to the team?

3. I agree, most fans are fair weather. Most may not even know a single player besides Cutler, Hester and Urlacher. But those fans aren't buying tickets to the game, buying that much merch (which you've pretty much said doesn't matter), aren't buying conessions, aren't calling radio shows, writing newspapers, etc. The guys that put up that billboard made some noise. It got on the evening news and the average joe fan saw it. If this type or ire is kept up by the fantatical fans, there's greater possibilty more visibility to ownership will occur. Is it jousting at windmills? Yeah, for the most part. But it's also therapuetic. A good chunk of us (to paraphrase William Shatner on his brilliant NSL skit...), should, "Get a Life!" Following the Bears to this extent could be considered a monumental waste of time. However, it serves as a pleasant distraction from life's woes and stresses. And once in a blue moon, makes us really happy when we win a Super Bowl once a generation.

4. I don't get your comment on risk v return? It's simple buisness knoweldge and common sense. It's simple, if you risk little, you tend to gain little. Yes, the Lottery winner is the exception to the rule. And the downside (I hate to say "obviously), is that your err and lose a lot of money. Hugh Hefner didn't get rich putting his money in an interest bearing account. He risked huge savings and future earnings on a publication that was predicted to eat it. It paid off for him. Others have tried, and lost their life savings. For the McCaskey's to risk 10's of millions, especially conpared to the bad signings of players,etc...really isn't that much. Unless they are far more debt strapped than I could imagine.

5. Please don't insult me by saying I'm insane that I'm forward thinking a 5 year plan than a "react now" plan. Yes, there are inherent risks with no gurantee. But if ownership fails to see the long term benefit and opportunity cost, we could very well be doomed to quick fixes for the entire duration of the McCaskey ownership. The last chapionship was set up by Mugs and George. Since then, we sniffed it with a plaet aligning season. I don't have faith in the Harvard grad or the matriarch to really make the best decision.

6. And please, why the jab again about selling your season tickets when I clearly made no mention of the sort. In fact, I basically encouraged folks to go, but not buy conessions. I'd love to get season tickets as well. As I'm sure ton other would. That is not the point.

 

In a nutshell, we fans have virtually no p[ower to express displeasure other than through calling talk radio,etc. Boycotting merch etc, at minimum at least makes me feel good personally that I'm con condoning the ownership's missteps.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do understand your point, and do really appreciated the info on how merch is split up for revenues. I just take a bit of offense to statment you're making about things I never said or encouraged. But I know it's for arguements' sake...

 

 

 

 

 

Guys, there is absolutely no way you can spin it that failing to fire Lovie and hire someone else will cost them any money. Not only that, but doing that would cost them more money than otherwise.

 

When it comes to merchandise sales, it is all split league wide. So feel free to not buy stuff if you like, but it's not really going to affect anything meaningful for the Bears.

 

As for how angry some people are, I think you expect that everyone feels the same way as yourself. They don't. Most fans don't really have an opinion. Most fans don't even know the Offensive or Defensive coordinator's names. People on message boards are more fanatical and vocal than other fans and also make up a minscule sliver of overall fandom. It's the same with TV show message boards. BECAUSE they talk about stuff in excruciating detail online, they figure everyone else does too. Most fans of TV shows just watch the frakking shows.

 

As for taking risks to earn rewards, give me a break. You make that statement like it's an absolute and never attempt to quantify the downside.

 

It's like if I speed and drive crazy to get to the movie I want to see, I'll be rewarded by getting to see it - but fail to realize that passing traffic in a no passing zone might get me killed. Is it worth it then. Obviously no. Is it worth it in the case of the Bears? I can't say for sure because I don't know what the potential consequences might be if there is a lockout. The family lives off of team dividend checks. If there is no income, those dividend checks will be drastically reduced. Having to pay and extra 10-15 million when there is zero income would be a strain on any enterprise.

 

I get what you're saying and wanted Lovie fired too. But trying to suggest the team is cheap when we're talking millions of dollars offset by zero income, and you're just bat-shiat-insane.

 

BTW - Anyone wanting to boycott the team and give up their season tickets, feel free to do so - in fact I encourage it.

 

Thanks - from someone on the waiting list.

 

[LT2_3]

1. I made no gaurantee that fialing to fire Smith will cost them money. I simply siad it should. And those of use that have any remote power to do so, should attempt as such.

2. I wasn't aware merch sales was an even split between all teams. I had thought erroneously that the team rec'd a larger portion than the league. Thanks for pinting that out. However, doesn't hte merch at Soldier go direct to the team?

 

Ummmm yes and no. They get a percentage of all things sold at Soldier Field during games, but it's no different for merchandise than it is for beer.

 

3. I agree, most fans are fair weather. Most may not even know a single player besides Cutler, Hester and Urlacher. But those fans aren't buying tickets to the game, buying that much merch (which you've pretty much said doesn't matter), aren't buying conessions, aren't calling radio shows, writing newspapers, etc. The guys that put up that billboard made some noise. It got on the evening news and the average joe fan saw it. If this type or ire is kept up by the fantatical fans, there's greater possibilty more visibility to ownership will occur. Is it jousting at windmills? Yeah, for the most part. But it's also therapuetic. A good chunk of us (to paraphrase William Shatner on his brilliant NSL skit...), should, "Get a Life!" Following the Bears to this extent could be considered a monumental waste of time. However, it serves as a pleasant distraction from life's woes and stresses. And once in a blue moon, makes us really happy when we win a Super Bowl once a generation.

 

You would be surprised. I know many people that are season ticket holders, and almost all of them (other than the ones that I met through message boards) don't follow the team like us ubergeeks . An example is one time back in 2001, I went to a game with Bastardson from a previous incarnation of this board. We sat next to a season tisket holder that was absolutely amazed that between us, we knew just about everything about every player on the team - B-son rattling off various stats like YPC and average yards per game, and myself proffering contract lengths and cap hits. The guy was amazed at how much we knew, but one thing that I remember specifically was that he asked who Blache was when I made some comment about him being lucky to have Washington and Traylor to work with instead of Flanigan and Wells. My point is that even among season ticket holders, most of them don't presume to have an opinon on the coaches one way or another.

 

4. I don't get your comment on risk v return? It's simple buisness knoweldge and common sense. It's simple, if you risk little, you tend to gain little. Yes, the Lottery winner is the exception to the rule. And the downside (I hate to say "obviously), is that your err and lose a lot of money. Hugh Hefner didn't get rich putting his money in an interest bearing account. He risked huge savings and future earnings on a publication that was predicted to eat it. It paid off for him. Others have tried, and lost their life savings. For the McCaskey's to risk 10's of millions, especially conpared to the bad signings of players,etc...really isn't that much. Unless they are far more debt strapped than I could imagine.

 

Your analogies of people risking lots of money in business are irrelevant. You are suggesting spending more money (the risk) in hopes of winning a championship (the reward). The problem is that they don't earn that much more money even if they do win it all. You aren't suggesting they spend more money for business reasons. The Bears are already a profitable enterprise. You're basically suggesting they spend more money for no extra profit.

 

My other point about Risk v. Reward is that you can't contemplate going for a reward without determining what the risk actually is. You have no idea what the risk is. The "Family" lives off of dividend checks. I don't know how much they get per year, but the risk of a lockout could mean that they get nothing that year and having to pay 2 coaching staffs could mean that they get nothing or less in following years as well. Your assumption that "they can afford it" is exactly that, an assumption. We don't know.

 

5. Please don't insult me by saying I'm insane that I'm forward thinking a 5 year plan than a "react now" plan. Yes, there are inherent risks with no gurantee. But if ownership fails to see the long term benefit and opportunity cost, we could very well be doomed to quick fixes for the entire duration of the McCaskey ownership. The last chapionship was set up by Mugs and George. Since then, we sniffed it with a plaet aligning season. I don't have faith in the Harvard grad or the matriarch to really make the best decision.

 

I'm sorry, what's the difference between getting new coaches this year instead of next year except that we would have more money available next year and more draft picks to implement a new scheme? The bottom line is that a change of HC makes alot more sense next year.

 

6. And please, why the jab again about selling your season tickets when I clearly made no mention of the sort. In fact, I basically encouraged folks to go, but not buy conessions. I'd love to get season tickets as well. As I'm sure ton other would. That is not the point.

 

I made the point about season tickets because it's pretty much the only way that ownership gauges fan opinion. In other cities, fans can just not buy tickets. Get a few blackouts and it gets their attention. Here in Chicago, we not only sell out consistently, but there is a waiting list for people who want season tickets. I'm on that list. I sent them $400 just for the privilege to be on the waiting list. My point about people giving up their season tickets was two-fold: 1. to point out that things aren't bad enough for Ownership to really pay attention and 2. I'd really like to move up the list so I can get season tickets and I don't care if them not firing Lovie achieves that or not.

 

In a nutshell, we fans have virtually no p[ower to express displeasure other than through calling talk radio,etc. Boycotting merch etc, at minimum at least makes me feel good personally that I'm con condoning the ownership's missteps.

 

I recommend saying the Serenity prayer: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

 

How the Bears are run falls under the catagory of things you cannot change. Accept it and you'll be a much happier person.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do understand your point, and do really appreciated the info on how merch is split up for revenues. I just take a bit of offense to statment you're making about things I never said or encouraged. But I know it's for arguements' sake...

 

 

I apologize if you thought I meant that you said all those things. I was responding to many of the issues that have been brought up by many people, I just didn't quote each one. Your post about the owners not understanding the depth of the anger was just a jumping off point.

[madlithuanian]

Interesting points....

 

I still beg to differ on risk vs return. I'm not sure how much Seteve Jobs, Hugh Hefner, etc knew they were risking, nor how much they'd gain. But I do realize that today's NFL isn't quite what it was back in the day. Maybe due to the extreme fan loyalty, rev sharing,etc...any boycott may not really matter. But, it'll help me.

 

I readily know that Chicago fans are the world's best. We go and support teams that, really, don't deserve such loyalty! (See the Cubs...) Henceforth, why I'd never ask a fan to give up season tickets. I know I wouldn't.

 

I can't go for the "Serenety Now"... Bottling it up just doesn't work! Didn't work for Llyod Braun, Frank Costanza or Cosmo Kramer! But, in all honesty, I am kind of doing that. I'm attempting to have an impact on the one thing I can impact. That's not going to a single game (as I'm not a season ticket holder), not to buy merch, not to buy consessions, and to hold a light up to management's failings. I appear to be following in Don Quixote's footsteps!

 

 

 

Ummmm yes and no. They get a percentage of all things sold at Soldier Field during games, but it's no different for merchandise than it is for beer.

 

 

 

You would be surprised. I know many people that are season ticket holders, and almost all of them (other than the ones that I met through message boards) don't follow the team like us ubergeeks . An example is one time back in 2001, I went to a game with Bastardson from a previous incarnation of this board. We sat next to a season tisket holder that was absolutely amazed that between us, we knew just about everything about every player on the team - B-son rattling off various stats like YPC and average yards per game, and myself proffering contract lengths and cap hits. The guy was amazed at how much we knew, but one thing that I remember specifically was that he asked who Blache was when I made some comment about him being lucky to have Washington and Traylor to work with instead of Flanigan and Wells. My point is that even among season ticket holders, most of them don't presume to have an opinon on the coaches one way or another.

 

 

 

Your analogies of people risking lots of money in business are irrelevant. You are suggesting spending more money (the risk) in hopes of winning a championship (the reward). The problem is that they don't earn that much more money even if they do win it all. You aren't suggesting they spend more money for business reasons. The Bears are already a profitable enterprise. You're basically suggesting they spend more money for no extra profit.

 

My other point about Risk v. Reward is that you can't contemplate going for a reward without determining what the risk actually is. You have no idea what the risk is. The "Family" lives off of dividend checks. I don't know how much they get per year, but the risk of a lockout could mean that they get nothing that year and having to pay 2 coaching staffs could mean that they get nothing or less in following years as well. Your assumption that "they can afford it" is exactly that, an assumption. We don't know.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, what's the difference between getting new coaches this year instead of next year except that we would have more money available next year and more draft picks to implement a new scheme? The bottom line is that a change of HC makes alot more sense next year.

 

 

 

I made the point about season tickets because it's pretty much the only way that ownership gauges fan opinion. In other cities, fans can just not buy tickets. Get a few blackouts and it gets their attention. Here in Chicago, we not only sell out consistently, but there is a waiting list for people who want season tickets. I'm on that list. I sent them $400 just for the privilege to be on the waiting list. My point about people giving up their season tickets was two-fold: 1. to point out that things aren't bad enough for Ownership to really pay attention and 2. I'd really like to move up the list so I can get season tickets and I don't care if them not firing Lovie achieves that or not.

 

 

 

I recommend saying the Serenity prayer: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

 

How the Bears are run falls under the catagory of things you cannot change. Accept it and you'll be a much happier person.

 

 

 

I apologize if you thought I meant that you said all those things. I was responding to many of the issues that have been brought up by many people, I just didn't quote each one. Your post about the owners not understanding the depth of the anger was just a jumping off point.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

1. I made no gaurantee that fialing to fire Smith will cost them money. I simply siad it should. And those of use that have any remote power to do so, should attempt as such.

 

it's been said that if fans don't show up or buy merchandise it doesn't hurt the bears because money is doled out by the nfl who collects these revenues anyway. i don't agree totally with this.

 

chicago is literally the 2nd biggest market in pro football. if the money faucet is turned off by fans this in reality does effect not only the bears but the entire nfl. could this be one reason the nfl stepped in just prior to when we hired jauron and tried to sort out the mike mccaskey mess in chicago with disgruntled fans and media? so i believe if chicago fans are spending $20-50 mil (just a wild guess on this figure with no fact involved) on nfl merchandise a year and this goes into the nfl collective and this is suddenly dried up because fans just aren't interested or are disgruntled in supporting this franchise it DOES hurt both the mccaskey's and the nfl. although it may be small amounts in comparrison to the amounts generated by the nfl's telecast money it still is not chump change.

 

speaking of media contracts... if people are not watching a disaster of a team on local broadcast stations does this not hurt the national and local advertising stream? without advertisers or with a lowering of advertising charges to fill time slots both locally and nationally does this not lower the amount of money to some degree of what the media will offer for nfl rights to air their games in the future?

 

if you lose a generous amount of "Sunday Ticket" sales that specific fan bases control does this also not hurt the future of media contract negotiations?

 

if concession sales and parking revenue for at least 8 games a season (not including pre-season or post season games) drops dramatically this also lowers the final income to be distributed by the nfl to each franchise not to mention their cut. example: if you fill a stadium to capacity and each person spends and average of $30-50 each for beer, hot dogs, parking etc. how much does this lost income add up to during a complete season?

 

finally, even if all season tickets are sold out for years, aren't there a block of tickets sold at gameday? if those seats are left empty does that effect the income the nfl collects? if ticket holders stay home how does empty stadiums look on tv or if there are more opponents fans in the stands than home team? how happy are other owners in seeing that their money is going to be proportioned out to help fund an inept franchise that can't generate their potential income?

 

3. I agree, most fans are fair weather. Most may not even know a single player besides Cutler, Hester and Urlacher. But those fans aren't buying tickets to the game, buying that much merch (which you've pretty much said doesn't matter), aren't buying conessions, aren't calling radio shows, writing newspapers, etc. The guys that put up that billboard made some noise. It got on the evening news and the average joe fan saw it. If this type or ire is kept up by the fantatical fans, there's greater possibilty more visibility to ownership will occur. Is it jousting at windmills? Yeah, for the most part. But it's also therapuetic. A good chunk of us (to paraphrase William Shatner on his brilliant NSL skit...), should, "Get a Life!" Following the Bears to this extent could be considered a monumental waste of time. However, it serves as a pleasant distraction from life's woes and stresses. And once in a blue moon, makes us really happy when we win a Super Bowl once a generation.

 

in my opinion there is a fantastic amount of growth not only in the number of fans but the amount of educated fans in todays world and they are light years ahead of what fan knowledge was in the 60's 70's and even 80's.

 

1. there is the internet that major portions of the populace has readily available. just the number of sporting sites alone in this venue and the depth of the knowledge available is certainly astounding and as has to be accounted for.

 

2. the number of sporting magazines and papers has increased by leaps and bounds. sporting news, the chicago bear report, the packer report being just a small portion of them.

 

3. you have local/cable/satellite sporting stations that keep much of the populace up to date. some of those being ESPN, locally comcast sporting network chicago, your local broadcasting channels that dedicate many programs to specific sporting venues throughout the year.

 

4. you now have sports radio which does bring with it a large audience. this could include not only the score, but espn radio and the serius satellite radio.

 

4. I don't get your comment on risk v return? It's simple buisness knoweldge and common sense. It's simple, if you risk little, you tend to gain little. Yes, the Lottery winner is the exception to the rule. And the downside (I hate to say "obviously), is that your err and lose a lot of money. Hugh Hefner didn't get rich putting his money in an interest bearing account. He risked huge savings and future earnings on a publication that was predicted to eat it. It paid off for him. Others have tried, and lost their life savings. For the McCaskey's to risk 10's of millions, especially conpared to the bad signings of players,etc...really isn't that much. Unless they are far more debt strapped than I could imagine.

 

the difference in this is just how much does the franchise owners want to spend to generate winners and goodwill in their own community. do they just want to milk the public for goal oriented profits where decisions are continuously based soley on profits/losses? in any corporation you may have to take a percentage loss in certain years to generate not only goodwill but a better product that gives you more future profits and sustain and reward your existing customer base that caused you to be a viable commodity in the first place.

 

it also needs to be said that even if we run into a non capped season (and they may have limited or no income for ONE season) is it possible to believe that this franchise exists paycheck to paycheck after 80 years of business and has no working capital to sustain it in such a limited time? just ONE example... where has all the player portion of leftover salary cap money gone since the salary cap started 15 years ago? if they had saved just this portion of it they could afford to hire and fire 2 or 3 lovies this year.

 

don't forget also that more than likely the the chicago bear 'corporation' employs it's owners and pays them salary above and beyond any dividends it may or may not pay out. the surplus (and there CERTAINLY has to be some) in the corporate entity will STILL pay it's 'employees' whether the season plays out or not. so unless the mccaskey family and their corporate employees are making minimum wage and have been for nearly a century where is the real pain involved?

 

so to believe the mccaskey family will be getting their homes repossessed, end up on food stamps or standing in soup lines if >>THEY

 

 

[madlithuanian]

Great points Lucky! ...a fun read as well.

[LT2_3]

it's been said that if fans don't show up or buy merchandise it doesn't hurt the bears because money is doled out by the nfl who collects these revenues anyway. i don't agree totally with this.

 

It doesn't have an appreciable effect. It would be the difference of you or I getting shorted by $10 on our paycheck. It just doesn't mean much.

 

"chicago is literally the 2nd biggest market in pro football. if the money faucet is turned off by fans this in reality does effect not only the bears but the entire nfl. could this be one reason the nfl stepped in just prior to when we hired jauron and tried to sort out the mike mccaskey mess in chicago with disgruntled fans and media? so i believe if chicago fans are spending $20-50 mil (just a wild guess on this figure with no fact involved) on nfl merchandise a year and this goes into the nfl collective and this is suddenly dried up because fans just aren't interested or are disgruntled in supporting this franchise it DOES hurt both the mccaskey's and the nfl. although it may be small amounts in comparrison to the amounts generated by the nfl's telecast money it still is not chump change. "

 

Some of what you say is true, but we aren't talking about ALL fans not buying stuff, we're talking about a few ubergeeks spending a bit less. It IS chump change.

 

speaking of media contracts... if people are not watching a disaster of a team on local broadcast stations does this not hurt the national and local advertising stream? without advertisers or with a lowering of advertising charges to fill time slots both locally and nationally does this not lower the amount of money to some degree of what the media will offer for nfl rights to air their games in the future?

 

Nope, thos things are worked out in advance. If there are poor ratings, it's the advertisers that lose out. The fees for the NFL are set on a national level. It doesn't matter if a team sucks. The league gets the same money no matter what.

 

if you lose a generous amount of "Sunday Ticket" sales that specific fan bases control does this also not hurt the future of media contract negotiations?

 

Yea, I suppose it might, but it never has so far. DirecTV is spending a fortune to have exclusivity. They would pay through the nose for that or someone else would outbid them.

 

if concession sales and parking revenue for at least 8 games a season (not including pre-season or post season games) drops dramatically this also lowers the final income to be distributed by the nfl to each franchise not to mention their cut. example: if you fill a stadium to capacity and each person spends and average of $30-50 each for beer, hot dogs, parking etc. how much does this lost income add up to during a complete season?

 

That is something to worry about for teams that don't sellout their games, but the Bears always do.

 

finally, even if all season tickets are sold out for years, aren't there a block of tickets sold at gameday? if those seats are left empty does that effect the income the nfl collects? if ticket holders stay home how does empty stadiums look on tv or if there are more opponents fans in the stands than home team? how happy are other owners in seeing that their money is going to be proportioned out to help fund an inept franchise that can't generate their potential income?

 

There are no "gameday tickets" for the Bears. Single game tickets go on sale sometime in June via Ticketmaster and sell out in minutes.

 

in my opinion there is a fantastic amount of growth not only in the number of fans but the amount of educated fans in todays world and they are light years ahead of what fan knowledge was in the 60's 70's and even 80's.

 

1. there is the internet that major portions of the populace has readily available. just the number of sporting sites alone in this venue and the depth of the knowledge available is certainly astounding and as has to be accounted for.

 

2. the number of sporting magazines and papers has increased by leaps and bounds. sporting news, the chicago bear report, the packer report being just a small portion of them.

 

3. you have local/cable/satellite sporting stations that keep much of the populace up to date. some of those being ESPN, locally comcast sporting network chicago, your local broadcasting channels that dedicate many programs to specific sporting venues throughout the year.

 

4. you now have sports radio which does bring with it a large audience. this could include not only the score, but espn radio and the serius satellite radio.

 

Ok. That's all true. Let me also bring up that the sky is blue and water is wet. So, what's the point?

 

the difference in this is just how much does the franchise owners want to spend to generate winners and goodwill in their own community. do they just want to milk the public for goal oriented profits where decisions are continuously based soley on profits/losses? in any corporation you may have to take a percentage loss in certain years to generate not only goodwill but a better product that gives you more future profits and sustain and reward your existing customer base that caused you to be a viable commodity in the first place.

 

Well, to counter hyperbole with hyperbole, the decisions need to not be solely made emotionally and without regard to profits and loss either. If pure profit driven decisions are on one end of the spectrum, and emotional, "will to win" decisions are on the other end of the spectrum, I would propose that the decisions should (in reality) be somewhere in the middle. I think for the most part they are or Lovie never would have been given a $5 mil/year contract in the first place.

 

it also needs to be said that even if we run into a non capped season (and they may have limited or no income for ONE season) is it possible to believe that this franchise exists paycheck to paycheck after 80 years of business and has no working capital to sustain it in such a limited time? just ONE example... where has all the player portion of leftover salary cap money gone since the salary cap started 15 years ago? if they had saved just this portion of it they could afford to hire and fire 2 or 3 lovies this year.

 

Ok, first off, the uncapped season doesn't mean they will be without revenues. The year 2011 where there may be a lockout and there are no games is where their lack of income would come from. Team's all have a "war chest" to account for that eventuality, but it's not unlimited and would impact dividend checks for the "stock holders". When looking at the open books for the Packers, their player salaries are around $130ish million and their entire budget is about $260 million. So, while they wouldn't have to pay the players, they also DO have other employees and other expenses that they have to pay whether there is football being played/income coming in or not.

 

don't forget also that more than likely the the chicago bear 'corporation' employs it's owners and pays them salary above and beyond any dividends it may or may not pay out. the surplus (and there CERTAINLY has to be some) in the corporate entity will STILL pay it's 'employees' whether the season plays out or not. so unless the mccaskey family and their corporate employees are making minimum wage and have been for nearly a century where is the real pain involved?

 

SOME of the family have jobs with the Bears, but most do not and live on their dividend checks. You're making them to be alot wealthier than they really are.

 

so to believe the mccaskey family will be getting their homes repossessed, end up on food stamps or standing in soup lines if >>THEY

 

I don't think anyone is proposing that they would be on food stamps or standing in soup lines. However, they would probably have to live on less than they are used to during a lockout and paying for 2 sets of coaches during that time is simply something they don't have to do and would make it worse.

[Lucky Luciano]

1. It doesn't have an appreciable effect. It would be the difference of you or I getting shorted by $10 on our paycheck. It just doesn't mean much.

 

2. Some of what you say is true, but we aren't talking about ALL fans not buying stuff, we're talking about a few ubergeeks spending a bit less. It IS chump change.

 

really?

 

League representatives estimate that they lose a significant amount of money each year to hawkers using NFL teams' names, although they could not provide a figure. Anastasia Danias, an attorney for the league, said that U.S. businesses lose about $250 billion a year in revenue because of the counterfeit market. - http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-01-1...icensed-apparel

 

if they "lose about $250 billion a year in revenue" how much do they make in sales legitimately? even if it were projected to be the unbelievable amount of HALF projected losses due to counterfeit merchandise, that amount still would be a QUARTER OF A TRILLION DOLLARS in revenue yearly!!

 

2. sorry but i don't believe that. even if you think that many fans are fair weather fans or uninformed with the exception of "ubergeeks" they would have had to been living in ice caves at the arctic circle to not have watched a single game or heard the chicago bear team getting lambasted by the media and even other fans for the atrocious seasons as they unfolded. you think the uninformed and especially fair weather fans are going to throw out $60-100 for replica jersy's for themselves or their kids to wear to school after the last 3 seasons and after the cutler bubble burst?

 

Nope, thos things are worked out in advance. If there are poor ratings, it's the advertisers that lose out. The fees for the NFL are set on a national level. It doesn't matter if a team sucks. The league gets the same money no matter what.

 

if you lose a generous amount of "Sunday Ticket" sales that specific fan bases control does this also not hurt the future of media contract negotiations?

 

Yea, I suppose it might, but it never has so far. DirecTV is spending a fortune to have exclusivity. They would pay through the nose for that or someone else would outbid them.

 

and you don't believe that the major stations/cable/satellite pay any attention to their ratings to determine their future marketing strategies? sure they are under short term contracts but eventually contracts expire and the market is reevaluated or don't you believe that either? and you believe, i presume, that advertisers will be willing to continue to run losses or lower profit market projections just for the priveledge to advertise nfl games?

 

so DTV would be oblivious to market loss as long as they get the final product monopoly? are we talking about the same rupert murdock?

 

if concession sales and parking revenue for at least 8 games a season (not including pre-season or post season games) drops dramatically this also lowers the final income to be distributed by the nfl to each franchise not to mention their cut. example: if you fill a stadium to capacity and each person spends and average of $30-50 each for beer, hot dogs, parking etc. how much does this lost income add up to during a complete season?

 

That is something to worry about for teams that don't sellout their games, but the Bears always do.

 

hmmm..... selling out games and attendance are two different animals. even on this site i have seen people selling their season tickets because it's just not worth going. below are some interesting facts:

 

wanny years attendance no shows during the season

 

1991 - 43,950

1992 - 57,093

1993 - 69,768

1994 - 67,537

1995 - 58,965

1996 - 79,204

1997 - 113,625

*1998 - 94,563

2000 - 8,563 - the first year of a new coach dick jauron

 

the difference just in stadium concession sales could run more than $5.5 mil a season

 

"On December 27th, Chicago was hosting Green Bay in the season finale. The feeling on the street was that this was a make or break game for Wannstedt. Rumors had been circulating that the McCaskey family was not happy to see a half-filled Soldier Field, with most of the fans being those of the opposition's." http://www.bearshistory.com/seasons/1998chicagobears.aspx

 

There are no "gameday tickets" for the Bears. Single game tickets go on sale sometime in June via Ticketmaster and sell out in minutes.

 

sold out but sold?

 

January 12, 2007 - It seems StubHub and other brokers might have overestimated Bears fans in the wake of last year's early exit, but as the game gets closer and the forecast gets clearer, prices are likely to come down. And fans are likely to scoop up the remaining tickets, hopefully. - http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....y_of_bears.html

 

in my opinion there is a fantastic amount of growth not only in the number of fans but the amount of educated fans in todays world and they are light years ahead of what fan knowledge was in the 60's 70's and even 80's.

 

1. there is the internet that major portions of the populace has readily available. just the number of sporting sites alone in this venue and the depth of the knowledge available is certainly astounding and as has to be accounted for.

 

2. the number of sporting magazines and papers has increased by leaps and bounds. sporting news, the chicago bear report, the packer report being just a small portion of them.

 

3. you have local/cable/satellite sporting stations that keep much of the populace up to date. some of those being ESPN, locally comcast sporting network chicago, your local broadcasting channels that dedicate many programs to specific sporting venues throughout the year.

 

4. you now have sports radio which does bring with it a large audience. this could include not only the score, but espn radio and the serius satellite radio.

 

Ok. That's all true. Let me also bring up that the sky is blue and water is wet. So, what's the point?

 

some believe there is a tiny percentage of fans that are informed about their team. i disagree, that is the point and i listed some of the reasons i believe that. if you want to believe most fans are dumb ignorant sheep in this media age that is your perogative but it doesn't make it so.

 

Well, to counter hyperbole with hyperbole, the decisions need to not be solely made emotionally and without regard to profits and loss either. If pure profit driven decisions are on one end of the spectrum, and emotional, "will to win" decisions are on the other end of the spectrum, I would propose that the decisions should (in reality) be somewhere in the middle. I think for the most part they are or Lovie never would have been given a $5 mil/year contract in the first place.

 

i think you confuse goodwill in a corporate strategy with strictly emotional decisions. they are not the same.

 

you imply lovie's extension/raise like this is/was strictly an emotional decision. same with dick jauron if you want to look at it this way. for the most part i disagree. in these instances a very large portion of this is a cold calculated corporate money decision. poorly made but still decided on dollars and cents by non-football intelligent entities.

 

Ok, first off, the uncapped season doesn't mean they will be without revenues. The year 2011 where there may be a lockout and there are no games is where their lack of income would come from. Team's all have a "war chest" to account for that eventuality, but it's not unlimited and would impact dividend checks for the "stock holders". When looking at the open books for the Packers, their player salaries are around $130ish million and their entire budget is about $260 million. So, while they wouldn't have to pay the players, they also DO have other employees and other expenses that they have to pay whether there is football being played/income coming in or not.

 

first, didn't you just state the exact same thing i did in your reply? second, we are not talking about the packers or the patriots but this franchise. so what exactly is >>your

 

SOME of the family have jobs with the Bears, but most do not and live on their dividend checks. You're making them to be alot wealthier than they really are.

 

you seem well informed about this. state every mccaskey not on the board or on salary for this franchise who is strictly living on dividend checks with no other source of income and how many of them are living hand-to-mouth. can you even state for positive that these dividends will not be paid in any case if there is indeed a lockout? can you even name how many mccaskey's there are??

 

I don't think anyone is proposing that they would be on food stamps or standing in soup lines. However, they would probably have to live on less than they are used to during a lockout and paying for 2 sets of coaches during that time is simply something they don't have to do and would make it worse.

 

"they would have to live on less." less than what? for how long? for what end results? would they have to limit their vacations to 3 months rather than 4? hold back on buying a small country in europe for another year?

 

how long do you believe the strike will last? seriously, more than one season? you don't believe there is enough money in the corporate franchise to compensate salary and EVEN dividends for this after nearly a hundred years of extremely profitable business?

 

finally... you seem to be gilding over that the reason there would even be a lockout in the first place is because the owners want more of the pie than they currently are getting. so the lockout brings all the owners MORE cash in probably less than a single year. how awful for them.