[Lefty Noob]

Interesting comments from Cincy president Mike Brown in an AP report today.

"Economically, this is a very good deal for the players, it's a good deal for the high-revenue clubs, (but) it's a challenging deal for the low-revenue clubs," Brown said. "We didn't feel it was in the best interest of our team financially. That's why I voted against it."

What does everyone think about his thoughts about the new CBA? Will it really hurt the small market teams and, if so, why is he the only one speaking out against it?

[Who Dey]

You must understand Mike Brown's position. He is one of the last, what you call "mom and pop" owners in the NFL. Meaning his football team is his job, in fact it is the family buisness. All of the other owners in the league today have sources of outside revenue.
This created a problem for many years in Cincinnati. Poor practice facilities, poor scouting, and undemanned coaching staffs were the norm for the Bengals. You see, just because there is a salary cap does not mean that 1 team can not go out and use his extra resources to gain an advantage on another team.
A perfect example is Coaches. Coaches salaries do not count against the salary cap. When Dick Lebeau was making $350,000 to be the head coach of the Cincinnati Bengals, Marvin Lewis was making 1.1 million dollars to be the defensive coordinator of the Washington Redskins.
It is a problem. Now we all are still quite angry at Mike Brown because of the very choice stadium deal we gave him and the poor product that was given in return. However, he did reach down and pay for a head coach, and give that head coach the freedom to put together a winning team.
At the end of the day it will hurt small market teams, if the small market owner is willing to make a profit of 1 million dollars a year v. a profit of 5 or 6 million dollars a year. If they are then the team will still compete, they are not then they probably will not.