Hub Arkush: Bears Low-Balled Chud

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Evidently Hub Arkush is of the perception that the Bears low-balled Chud and that is the reason he isn't our OC. Per Hub, The Bears apparently offered Chud a contract but the value was well lower than what a typical OC gets paid.

 

If true, what a freakin disgrace.

[madlithuanian]

Same as it ever was...

 

Evidently Hub Arkush is of the perception that the Bears low-balled Chud and that is the reason he isn't our OC. Per Hub, The Bears apparently offered Chud a contract but the value was well lower than what a typical OC gets paid.

 

If true, what a freakin disgrace.

 

[chitownman]

This surprises you why? This is the organization's standard M.O. and it does not appear to ever be changing.

[madlithuanian]

Bingo!

 

This surprises you why? This is the organization's standard M.O. and it does not appear to ever be changing.

 

[nfoligno]

I disagee with is the standard. I don't recall many coaches over walking away disgusted at our offers. At the same time, the story doesn't shock me. Not nearly so much due the the rep of our owners, but due to the situation we are in.

 

If another coach would accept a one year deal, I would bet we would pay well for that one year. Unfortunately, no one is going to join the team for a one year deal. That puts ownership in a position of having to offer a deal w/ the expectation not having that coach on the payroll in a year. If Lovie is gone a year from now, then they are all fired, and that means the new coach is fired too. Did anyone really think these guys were going to be offered sizable contacts w/ such a high level of expectation of dead money down the road?

 

We all saw it coming, but keeping Lovie on staff has truly crippled this team. No one wants to join the team under such circumstances.

 

Bingo!

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

This surprises you why? This is the organization's standard M.O. and it does not appear to ever be changing.

The last few years the Bears haven't been cheap. They've given out huge bonuses, traded for a pro-bowl QB, given that QB an extension, and paid big money to there coaches (Lovie is one of the highest paid).

 

I would have liked to think that meant things had changed. This all coincided with us having a new stadium which was supposed to mean more revenue anyway.

 

Basically put, I kind of thought the Bears were behaving like a different organization but now it doesn't seem like that is the case, despite the franchise drawing so much revenue.

[Connorbear]

Evidently Hub Arkush is of the perception that the Bears low-balled Chud and that is the reason he isn't our OC. Per Hub, The Bears apparently offered Chud a contract but the value was well lower than what a typical OC gets paid.

 

If true, what a freakin disgrace.

Wow. Now you guys are listening to Hub Arkush. I thought most everyone felt he was a tool????? Crackerdog would be very disappointed in you.

 

Peace

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Wow. Now you guys are listening to Hub Arkush. I thought most everyone felt he was a tool????? Crackerdog would be very disappointed in you.

 

Peace

I can't say I listen to him much, but he seems to have some solid NFL sources. I know out on the west coast he is thought of pretty highly. Albeit, I've heard he tends to be a Bear hater.

[madlithuanian]

Dave McGinnis?

 

Bottom line, it just is more bad PR...

 

A vast majoity of us called this from way back. Keeping Smith would hinder us and we'd pay the price for it down the road.

 

I disagee with is the standard. I don't recall many coaches over walking away disgusted at our offers. At the same time, the story doesn't shock me. Not nearly so much due the the rep of our owners, but due to the situation we are in.

 

If another coach would accept a one year deal, I would bet we would pay well for that one year. Unfortunately, no one is going to join the team for a one year deal. That puts ownership in a position of having to offer a deal w/ the expectation not having that coach on the payroll in a year. If Lovie is gone a year from now, then they are all fired, and that means the new coach is fired too. Did anyone really think these guys were going to be offered sizable contacts w/ such a high level of expectation of dead money down the road?

 

We all saw it coming, but keeping Lovie on staff has truly crippled this team. No one wants to join the team under such circumstances.

 

[madlithuanian]

All true...we paid Smith a boatload for instance. However, if this story is correct, then it simply adds to the fire that this is a cheap ownerhsip. They don't want to get rid of Smith due to money, they are afraid of the impeding stike (money), they don't want to bring in big name coordinators ($)...it just all reads as bad PR that the org is cheap.

 

Whether the reality of it may be different, which I kind of doubt (I feel that the team was uber pressured into paying the staff), the perception is just plain bad. And that starts seeping through every aspect of this business and through the grapevine.

 

The last few years the Bears haven't been cheap. They've given out huge bonuses, traded for a pro-bowl QB, given that QB an extension, and paid big money to there coaches (Lovie is one of the highest paid).

 

I would have liked to think that meant things had changed. This all coincided with us having a new stadium which was supposed to mean more revenue anyway.

 

Basically put, I kind of thought the Bears were behaving like a different organization but now it doesn't seem like that is the case, despite the franchise drawing so much revenue.

 

[Uncle Buck]

These guys are killing me.

 

Every step this organization takes seems to further cement the idea they are stumbling, bumbling idiots. If Chudsinski was the guy for them and they low balled them......what the hell were they thinking? So we are searching high and low for a OC and seemingly find one we like, then decided to be cheap. WOW

[AZ54]

I don't want to get too caught up in this hearsay, at least not until more facts are known but in general the Bears have been fair with salaries lately. What I wouldn't be surprised with is that Chud wanted 3yr contract or 3yr of money on a 2yr deal. Chud is not an experienced OC so nobody knows what he was demanding either. Regardless I think Lovie's situation is the biggest issue we have getting someone in here.

[LT2_3]

I don't want to get too caught up in this hearsay, at least not until more facts are known but in general the Bears have been fair with salaries lately. What I wouldn't be surprised with is that Chud wanted 3yr contract or 3yr of money on a 2yr deal. Chud is not an experienced OC so nobody knows what he was demanding either. Regardless I think Lovie's situation is the biggest issue we have getting someone in here.

 

That's exactly the take I had on this. Chud wanted a 3 yr deal which would have guaranted him annual salary x3. The Bears offered him a reasonable salary x2. That equals less money.

 

I'm really getting tired of all the whining. Can we just wait until they hire someone before we bitch too much?

[Connorbear]

That's exactly the take I had on this. Chud wanted a 3 yr deal which would have guaranted him annual salary x3. The Bears offered him a reasonable salary x2. That equals less money.

 

I'm really getting tired of all the whining. Can we just wait until they hire someone before we bitch too much?

Can't do that. Don't you know the Bears are the laughing stock of the league!!!!! The funny thing is this reminds alot of when Jerry Krause was trying to get top tiered free agents to come to Chicago. I remember them bringing Benny the Bull to the airport to meet Tracy McGrady. I wonder if Staley greets our candidates at Halas Hall???

 

I agree with you. Let's just wait this out and see what happens.

 

Peace

[Lucky Luciano]

This surprises you why? This is the organization's standard M.O. and it does not appear to ever be changing.

 

i agree. although in my opinion it is STILL the standard M.O. that it was in the past people don't seem to see the light even when it's shining in their collective eyes.

 

1. people point to lovie as an example of how we have changed and pay our employees above standard. it is not true if you look closely at how we operate. we lowball the initial candidates, per lovie who was one of the lowest paid HC's in the entire nfl (the same can be said with angie), and in the same breath HAVE to lowball his assistants otherwise they would make more than the HC/GM.

 

if the HC performs even reasonably well we then give him a raise and extension. in the meantime the costs of coaching salaries has risen over the years our coaches were getting paid a pittance. this in itself dumbs down the amount of the raise. so you have to average the salaries these coaches get over their entire tenure in chicago which gives you the true salary base of what you pay your employees. it's an old business accounting trick that makes you seem like you are really in the upper echelon in salary scale when at best you are average or below when enticing current/future employees.

 

2. again and yet again i will point out that the nfl pays ALL salaries and bonus's out of the salary cap allotment. the difference would be to be considered SUPER cheap like bidwell in arizona was some time ago when he basically was at or below the minimum that the nfl agreement forced teams to pay out in salary. what you pay players in salary and bonus's means nearly nothing in considering the owners of any franchise being considered cheap or not unless they pull the bidwell trick to it's fullest extent.

 

finally... unless you as a president and GM are complete morons (not only in nfl football operations but even in accounting) by threatening the HC with termination upon set conditions because he is a failure (and if you expect to hire good new assistants to work with him after firing the previous ones) YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THEM MORE MONEY than you normally might have to pay assistants whose job security is not a factor!!! it's basic common sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

to lowball anyone when the candidates hold the trump cards is plain out ridiculous yet again we plod on with business as usual for this cheap arced franchise run by fools.

 

 

[nfoligno]

I don't think McGinnis was low-balled. At least that isn't he version I recall. As I recall, he was ticked off that we announced we had hired him before he had even said yes.

 

Dave McGinnis?

 

Bottom line, it just is more bad PR...

 

A vast majoity of us called this from way back. Keeping Smith would hinder us and we'd pay the price for it down the road.

 

[nfoligno]

Sorry, but there is (IMHO) a difference between being cheap and doing things that make business sense, even if it doesn't make fans happy. I think more than a few owners are cutting back right now when it comes to finances. Look at the amount of turnover w/ coaches and staff the last two year, and then look at this year. Very minimal. More teams than just we choose to stick w/ what they have, even if they were not thrilled, due to finances. Further, just wait for FA. While you may have a few teams that buck the trend, I bet most teams hold back on spending big bucks.

 

Its one thing to be cheap. Its another to hold back on spending huge sums of money when in a situation as teams find themselves this year.

 

All true...we paid Smith a boatload for instance. However, if this story is correct, then it simply adds to the fire that this is a cheap ownerhsip. They don't want to get rid of Smith due to money, they are afraid of the impeding stike (money), they don't want to bring in big name coordinators ($)...it just all reads as bad PR that the org is cheap.

 

Whether the reality of it may be different, which I kind of doubt (I feel that the team was uber pressured into paying the staff), the perception is just plain bad. And that starts seeping through every aspect of this business and through the grapevine.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Can't do that. Don't you know the Bears are the laughing stock of the league!!!!! The funny thing is this reminds alot of when Jerry Krause was trying to get top tiered free agents to come to Chicago. I remember them bringing Benny the Bull to the airport to meet Tracy McGrady. I wonder if Staley greets our candidates at Halas Hall???

 

I agree with you. Let's just wait this out and see what happens.

 

Peace

 

Right now the perception out west is that the Bears are flailing at everyone. They don't get talked about too much on west coast radio but right now, they are getting hit pretty hard.

[nfoligno]

1. people point to lovie as an example of how we have changed and pay our employees above standard. it is not true if you look closely at how we operate. we lowball the initial candidates, per lovie who was one of the lowest paid HC's in the entire nfl (the same can be said with angie), and in the same breath HAVE to lowball his assistants otherwise they would make more than the HC/GM.

 

What a horrible notion. Make someone prove themselves before we shell out millions upon millions. What an awful idea. Sorry, but we are not the only team that follows this model. As I have said before, Jerry Jones follows this model, and few call him a cheap owners.

 

if the HC performs even reasonably well we then give him a raise and extension. in the meantime the costs of coaching salaries has risen over the years our coaches were getting paid a pittance. this in itself dumbs down the amount of the raise. so you have to average the salaries these coaches get over their entire tenure in chicago which gives you the true salary base of what you pay your employees. it's an old business accounting trick that makes you seem like you are really in the upper echelon in salary scale when at best you are average or below when enticing current/future employees.

 

I can not due the math as I do not recall what Lovie's original deal was, but I would like to see you show some math that proves he was, at the end of the day as you say, paid average or below average. While his initial deal was not huge, his later deal made him the top paid HC in the NFL. Even if you add up all the dollars and divide by years, I bet he still ends up w/ a solid and above average per year salary.

 

[nfoligno]

Agreed also as to the Chud aspect. That was also my first thought. I doubt his per year salary was so low that he was considered lowballed, but he was likely looking for a 3 year deal (if not more) and we offered 2, which would make the total money look very lowballed.

 

Disagree though on the rest. You say it is whining and we should just wait until they hire someone, but the Bears are making themselves look like blundering idiots, and I think fans have every reason to be upset at the moment. In terms of the media, the Bears at the moment are just a step below that of Al Davis, and many are even pointing out that a coach choose Al Davis over us. That sort of embarassment warrants comments.

 

I think there may be a tad less complaint if our history of coaching moves was better. But lets be honest. We are not entering this w/ a great rep in hiring coaches, and the manner is which the team has gone about this makes it appear even worse.

 

That's exactly the take I had on this. Chud wanted a 3 yr deal which would have guaranted him annual salary x3. The Bears offered him a reasonable salary x2. That equals less money.

 

I'm really getting tired of all the whining. Can we just wait until they hire someone before we bitch too much?

 

[Lucky Luciano]

1. people point to lovie as an example of how we have changed and pay our employees above standard. it is not true if you look closely at how we operate. we lowball the initial candidates, per lovie who was one of the lowest paid HC's in the entire nfl (the same can be said with angie), and in the same breath HAVE to lowball his assistants otherwise they would make more than the HC/GM.

 

What a horrible notion. Make someone prove themselves before we shell out millions upon millions. What an awful idea. Sorry, but we are not the only team that follows this model. As I have said before, Jerry Jones follows this model, and few call him a cheap owners.

 

if the HC performs even reasonably well we then give him a raise and extension. in the meantime the costs of coaching salaries has risen over the years our coaches were getting paid a pittance. this in itself dumbs down the amount of the raise. so you have to average the salaries these coaches get over their entire tenure in chicago which gives you the true salary base of what you pay your employees. it's an old business accounting trick that makes you seem like you are really in the upper echelon in salary scale when at best you are average or below when enticing current/future employees.

 

I can not due the math as I do not recall what Lovie's original deal was, but I would like to see you show some math that proves he was, at the end of the day as you say, paid average or below average. While his initial deal was not huge, his later deal made him the top paid HC in the NFL. Even if you add up all the dollars and divide by years, I bet he still ends up w/ a solid and above average per year salary.

 

1. believe me, there is a reason certain candidates initially get paid lots more than others.

 

by your set standard of lowballing unknown candidates you exclude every and all real top notch candidates, PERIOD. this seems what you are happy with... the unproven bottom of the barrel candidates we always hire and hope we find lightning in a bottle. if this is right then why do you even complain about the lovies and jaurons. it should be standard procedure for your way to run a franchise and business.

 

i will have to get back with you on the articles for lovies and angelo's salaries as i am out of town. i gave them to you or others in the past but obviously you seem to have forgotten. you could try doing some research yourself, it's not that hard, and post it on here.

 

2. as far as his current salary... yes i believe he IS making a high salary at this point. but again you and others always seem to fail to take into account that time is money and interest on money you do or don't get is income or lack thereof. so money promised in the future is worth less than if you got it today. so add the average to this equasion and what do you get?

[nfoligno]

Lovie's average salary.

 

Okay, did a bit of checking. Per the info I found, Lovie's original deal was to pay him an average of $1.45m per season. Prior to the final season, he signed a 5yr/$22m extension. $2m of this extension was to be added to the original $1.45 he was set to earn.

 

Thus, at the end of the day, he ended up w/ an 8 year deal (original 4, plus new 4) for a total of $27.8 ($5.8m from original 4yr deal plus new $22m). Remember, he didn't lose the money from the final year of his original deal. The extension added to that final year, rather than replacing it.

 

So if you divide that $27.8m total by the 8 years of his two contracts, you will end up just shy of $3.5m per season. Doing some checking, I found this,

 

According to Sports Business Daily, the average annual salary for an NFL head coach is $2.5 million per year.

 

So, according to this report, at the end of the day, Lovie will receive about $1m per year more than the league average for HCs. That is well above average. Now, I am no accountant, and would not have a clue how to calculate the interst stuff you were talking about, but I can not believe the interest would come remotely close to offsetting this figure to the point of making his salary even average, much less below average.

 

So you can argue the method of original hires, but it would seem your argument that, even if you consider his extension, the bears are still cheap, is sort of blown out of the water.

 

1. believe me, there is a reason certain candidates initially get paid lots more than others.

 

by your set standard of lowballing unknown candidates you exclude every and all real top notch candidates, PERIOD. this seems what you are happy with... the unproven bottom of the barrel candidates we always hire and hope we find lightning in a bottle. if this is right then why do you even complain about the lovies and jaurons. it should be standard procedure for your way to run a franchise and business.

 

i will have to get back with you on the articles for lovies and angelo's salaries as i am out of town. i gave them to you or others in the past but obviously you seem to have forgotten. you could try doing some research yourself, it's not that hard, and post it on here.

 

2. as far as his current salary... yes i believe he IS making a high salary at this point. but again you and others always seem to fail to take into account that time is money and interest on money you do or don't get is income or lack thereof. so money promised in the future is worth less than if you got it today. so add the average to this equasion and what do you get?

 

[madlithuanian]

I'm sure salary was part of the reason he had yet to sign...

 

I don't think McGinnis was low-balled. At least that isn't he version I recall. As I recall, he was ticked off that we announced we had hired him before he had even said yes.

 

[madlithuanian]

We just differ in opinion.

 

Forward thinking business look ahead, those in trouble or poorly run try to stop the bleeding.

 

Do we realy think the NFL sill stop playing games for over a year? Any decent franchise can weather that out. And if you don't act, others with more balls will.

 

Sorry, but there is (IMHO) a difference between being cheap and doing things that make business sense, even if it doesn't make fans happy. I think more than a few owners are cutting back right now when it comes to finances. Look at the amount of turnover w/ coaches and staff the last two year, and then look at this year. Very minimal. More teams than just we choose to stick w/ what they have, even if they were not thrilled, due to finances. Further, just wait for FA. While you may have a few teams that buck the trend, I bet most teams hold back on spending big bucks.

 

Its one thing to be cheap. Its another to hold back on spending huge sums of money when in a situation as teams find themselves this year.

 

[madlithuanian]

Bottom line, getting to the SB when his contract was pretty much up forced the hand. And Teddy Boy overpaid with a poor contract (for the Bears).

 

Had we not reached the SB, the contract would have been FAR less. I'd say, maybe look at the average of coaches that got to the Super Bowl. not that I have...but I think that would give a better comparision.

 

Lovie's average salary.

 

Okay, did a bit of checking. Per the info I found, Lovie's original deal was to pay him an average of $1.45m per season. Prior to the final season, he signed a 5yr/$22m extension. $2m of this extension was to be added to the original $1.45 he was set to earn.

 

Thus, at the end of the day, he ended up w/ an 8 year deal (original 4, plus new 4) for a total of $27.8 ($5.8m from original 4yr deal plus new $22m). Remember, he didn't lose the money from the final year of his original deal. The extension added to that final year, rather than replacing it.

 

So if you divide that $27.8m total by the 8 years of his two contracts, you will end up just shy of $3.5m per season. Doing some checking, I found this,

 

According to Sports Business Daily, the average annual salary for an NFL head coach is $2.5 million per year.

 

So, according to this report, at the end of the day, Lovie will receive about $1m per year more than the league average for HCs. That is well above average. Now, I am no accountant, and would not have a clue how to calculate the interst stuff you were talking about, but I can not believe the interest would come remotely close to offsetting this figure to the point of making his salary even average, much less below average.

 

So you can argue the method of original hires, but it would seem your argument that, even if you consider his extension, the bears are still cheap, is sort of blown out of the water.