PDA

View Full Version : Rumors fly that Broncos are available for purchase



claymore
02-11-2010, 09:00 AM
Rumors fly that Broncos are available for purchase
Posted by Mike Florio on February 11, 2010 8:38 AM ET
The fact that the Rams have found a buyer reminded me of a rumor that snaked its way through the grapevine last week.

There's talk that the Denver Broncos could be available to be purchased from current owner Pat Bowlen.

And there's a connection between the Rams and the Broncos. If Shahid Khan will be buying not only the 60 percent of the Rams currently held by Chip Rosenbloom and Lucia Rodriguez but also the 40 percent owned by Stan Kroenke, Kroenke could couple the cash he gets from Shahid with a chunk of his wife's Wal-Mart money and purchase the Broncos.

Kroenke already owns the NHL's Colorado Avalanche and the NBA's Denver Nuggets. He reportedly was interested in acquiring controlling interest in the Rams, but the league's cross-ownership rules require teams in multiple leagues to be located in the same market.

We need to be clear on this one. We're not saying that the Broncos are for sale; we're saying that there's a rumor they're for sale. And we're speculating that Kroenke could be interested, especially if he's cashing out his chips in St. Louis.

Chris90210
02-11-2010, 09:47 AM
very interesting

broncofaninfla
02-11-2010, 10:06 AM
I hope this is just a rumor. I'm ready for some stability from this franchise.......

Nomad
02-11-2010, 10:09 AM
Rumor is Valium is the #1 med. sold amongst a number of BRONCO fans!!:D

T.K.O.
02-11-2010, 11:06 AM
look at the bright side.....rush limbaugh is'nt making any offers.

TXBRONC
02-11-2010, 11:13 AM
look at the bright side.....rush limbaugh is'nt making any offers.

That's the bright side in what way? Rush is very knowledgeable about football. That aside, I have a lot respect for what Bowlen has done for the Broncos and I would hate see him sell the team.

claymore
02-11-2010, 11:17 AM
That's the bright side in what way? Rush is very knowledgeable about football. That aside, I have a lot respect for what Bowlen has done for the Broncos and I would hate see him sell the team.

Id rather him sell it to Kroenke, than go into Al Davis mode. Then again I thought McDaniels would be a great fit before he wass hired. :D

T.K.O.
02-11-2010, 11:27 AM
That's the bright side in what way? Rush is very knowledgeable about football. That aside, I have a lot respect for what Bowlen has done for the Broncos and I would hate see him sell the team.

nothing against rush,and i know he and bowlen are friends,but the negative press involved at such a critical time for the team would not be a good thing.
look at what happened when he showed interest in the rams

Denver Native (Carol)
02-11-2010, 11:56 AM
If there is anything to this rumor, don't count out #7

Northman
02-11-2010, 11:57 AM
You know oddly enough, i believe it. It would actually make a lot of sense in some ways.

TXBRONC
02-11-2010, 11:59 AM
nothing against rush,and i know he and bowlen are friends,but the negative press involved at such a critical time for the team would not be a good thing.
look at what happened when he showed interest in the rams

So it's Rush's fault that the Rams stunk?

claymore
02-11-2010, 12:00 PM
You know oddly enough, i believe it. It would actually make a lot of sense in some ways.

I predicted this before the season started, so I am not shocked at all. It would almost make me feel better to know I wasnt crazy.

rationalfan
02-11-2010, 12:02 PM
assuming this rumor is true, i think it speaks more to the possibility of a longterm uncapped NFL than anything else. from what i understand, bowlen's pockets aren't deep enough to compete in that world - assuming that world will need big spending to compete for the super bowl, which is bowlen's only goal.

anyone have any additional insight/sourcing to this theory?

underrated29
02-11-2010, 12:03 PM
Thats fine. I would be all for it.


Kroenke is a great owner and we know that he would keep the team here and not move them to a different market. Which is always unlikely, but with stan it would be certain that we stay here.


That would be sweet if he did and could make a package bundle... Get 5 bronco games and 5 avs games and 5 nugs games for $$...

TXBRONC
02-11-2010, 12:06 PM
I predicted this before the season started, so I am not shocked at all. It would almost make me feel better to know I wasnt crazy.

If your sanity is dependent on you being right about this one thing then there is only one thing I can say. You're screwed. :D J/K

claymore
02-11-2010, 12:09 PM
If your sanity is dependent on you being right about this one thing then there is only one thing I can say. You're screwed. :D J/K

LOL! No kidding. Man Im screwed!

SOCALORADO.
02-11-2010, 12:10 PM
Thats fine. I would be all for it.


Kroenke is a great owner and we know that he would keep the team here and not move them to a different market. Which is always unlikely, but with stan it would be certain that we stay here.


That would be sweet if he did and could make a package bundle... Get 5 bronco games and 5 avs games and 5 nugs games for $$...

This would be sweet, cause i would be much more interested in coming to DEN if i could do a bunch of DEN sports games in one trip.
It would be kinda difficult, but it would be much more worth it.

claymore
02-11-2010, 12:12 PM
assuming this rumor is true, i think it speaks more to the possibility of a longterm uncapped NFL than anything else. from what i understand, bowlen's pockets aren't deep enough to compete in that world - assuming that world will need big spending to compete for the super bowl, which is bowlen's only goal.

anyone have any additional insight/sourcing to this theory?

An uncapped NFL is better for the owners than most would think. Profit sharing is gone, but then there is no ceiling or floor for teams.

The owners wont continue to give 60% of the revenue to the players anymore.

They could field a team for 30 million vs 120 mill and we would be just as happy.

Nomad
02-11-2010, 12:13 PM
I predicted this before the season started, so I am not shocked at all. It would almost make me feel better to know I wasnt crazy.

So you think McD drove Bowlen over the edge!!:madgrin:

rationalfan
02-11-2010, 12:17 PM
An uncapped NFL is better for the owners than most would think. Profit sharing is gone, but then there is no ceiling or floor for teams.

The owners wont continue to give 60% of the revenue to the players anymore.

They could field a team for 30 million vs 120 mill and we would be just as happy.

yes, operating without a salary floor could save money for owners. but if bowlen truly wants to strive for the super bowl he won't be able to operate at the floor and compete with teams unafraid to spend whatever it takes to win - unless McD is way better than any of realize.

that's why it would make sense to sell now, realizing the game is changing drastically and old operation models don't work like they did before.

also, there's possibility of lockouts and strike to darken the future revenue streams.

claymore
02-11-2010, 12:24 PM
yes, operating without a salary floor could save money for owners. but if bowlen truly wants to strive for the super bowl he won't be able to operate at the floor and compete with teams unafraid to spend whatever it takes to win - unless McD is way better than any of realize.

that's why it would make sense to sell now, realizing the game is changing drastically and old operation models don't work like they did before.

also, there's possibility of lockouts and strike to darken the future revenue streams.

There are only a few teams that could operate that way. And they are all business men. NFL will only get stronger, and they will cap themselves.

Id be happy if the cap was at 10 million dollars.

TXBRONC
02-11-2010, 12:26 PM
yes, operating without a salary floor could save money for owners. but if bowlen truly wants to strive for the super bowl he won't be able to operate at the floor and compete with teams unafraid to spend whatever it takes to win - unless McD is way better than any of realize.

that's why it would make sense to sell now, realizing the game is changing drastically and old operation models don't work like they did before.

also, there's possibility of lockouts and strike to darken the future revenue streams.

From the things that I have read I wasn't under the impression that an uncapped NFL would be indefinite.

Denver Native (Carol)
02-11-2010, 12:30 PM
This would be sweet, cause i would be much more interested in coming to DEN if i could do a bunch of DEN sports games in one trip.
It would be kinda difficult, but it would be much more worth it.

You can attend different sports games in Denver now. We are one of the few cities to have 4 major sports teams.

Also, doesn't the NFL now have to give their approval if a team wants to relocate? If so, I can't see any way they would approve the Broncos to move from Denver, based on consecutive sell outs for how many years, etc.

DenBronx
02-11-2010, 12:34 PM
yeah and the broncos are moving to LA. :rolleyes:

TXBRONC
02-11-2010, 12:42 PM
You can attend different sports games in Denver now. We are one of the few cities to have 4 major sports teams.

Also, doesn't the NFL now have to give their approval if a team wants to relocate? If so, I can't see any way they would approve the Broncos to move from Denver, based on consecutive sell outs for how many years, etc.

I don't think so. Remember that the NFL tried to stop Davis from moving the Raiders from Oakland to L.A. via a lawsuit and NFL lost the lawsuit. That being said if it's that true that Kroenke is looking to purchase the franchise then why would he want to move it considering he already owns two of the franchises that are in Denver?

SR
02-11-2010, 12:44 PM
Like others have said, I don't want Bowlen to sell, but if he does sell I don't think there is anyone better to sell to than Stan Kroenke.

Denver Native (Carol)
02-11-2010, 12:52 PM
I don't think so. Remember that the NFL tried to stop Davis from moving the Raiders from Oakland to L.A. via a lawsuit and NFL lost the lawsuit. That being said if it's that true that Kroenke is looking to purchase the franchise then why would he want to move it considering he already owns two of the franchises that are in Denver?

Agree - He also owns the Colorado Rapids - soccer team

underrated29
02-11-2010, 12:54 PM
yes, operating without a salary floor could save money for owners. but if bowlen truly wants to strive for the super bowl he won't be able to operate at the floor and compete with teams unafraid to spend whatever it takes to win - unless McD is way better than any of realize.

that's why it would make sense to sell now, realizing the game is changing drastically and old operation models don't work like they did before.

also, there's possibility of lockouts and strike to darken the future revenue streams.



But you have to understand that there will be a labor agreement in the future. maybe even after a year lockout, whoknows. The point is though, once there is a new agreement in place it will MOST certainly have a Salary Cap in it.

Then those high paying roster teams will be cleaning house just to get under the cap...





This is the same thing the Avalanche had to do when hockey came back from the lockout. They had a GREAT, high payroll team, after the lockout they had to lose Forsberg, blake, and quite a few other great big name players. Just to get under the cap. They did, but then we also sucked balls up until this year too.

I do not want to see the broncos do that, for a 1 year gamble that we do not need to make. I believe they will not let a lockout happen. They saw what it did to hockey and do not want to take the chance it happens in the NFL.

dogfish
02-11-2010, 12:58 PM
i'd be fine with drunken pat handing off to silent stan. . .


otherwise, not good. . .

silkamilkamonico
02-11-2010, 02:26 PM
But you have to understand that there will be a labor agreement in the future. maybe even after a year lockout, whoknows. The point is though, once there is a new agreement in place it will MOST certainly have a Salary Cap in it.

Then those high paying roster teams will be cleaning house just to get under the cap...



Everything I'm hearing from people associated with the player's union as well as the owners side, are saying that there will not be a salary cap in the new labor union. The players don't benefit from it and the majority of the owners have changed from wanting it to not wanting it. The only exception would be in the future if the economy not only rose to where it's flourished, but showed continued progress of flourishing.

Every impression from the players union as well as the owners, and economists in general are saying that there will be no salary cap in the future of the NFL. Even owners of other sports that operate without salary caps have spoken about how the poor economy has hurt the NFL's revenue in relation with the salary cap. Mark Cuban was also on SPortsNation this morning discussing it.

claymore
02-11-2010, 02:36 PM
Forbes' valuation of Rams was nearly $200 million off
Posted by Mike Florio on February 11, 2010 1:33 PM ET
The value of NFL franchises has been increasing in recent years, due to significant growth in profits. And as the value of a team rises, the return on the investment -- the profit -- must remain strong in order to justify the increased value of the team.

If, for example, a billion-dollar business merely breaks even on a consistent basis, it won't remain a billion-dollar business for very long.

And that's possibly what has happened to the Rams. In September 2009, Forbes pegged the franchise at a total value of $913 million, down from $915 million the year before. According to Howard Balzer of Globe-Democrat.com, however, the total value of the team was pegged at between $725 million and $750 million in connection with the sale of the 60-percent interest held by Chip Rosenbloom and Lucia Rodriguez to Shahid Khan.

So the next time NFLPA Executive Director De Smith laughs off (as he did last Thursday) a drop in operating profit for a team like the Packers from $34 million to $20 million, keep in mind that sagging financial performance makes the franchise less valuable than it was -- and it makes folks with the wherewithal to own a team less inclined to get in, and it could make those who already hold the keys to a club more inclined to consider getting out.

A reminder that is a Business first.

Lonestar
02-11-2010, 02:38 PM
Everything I'm hearing from people associated with the player's union as well as the owners side, are saying that there will not be a salary cap in the new labor union. The players don't benefit from it and the majority of the owners have changed from wanting it to not wanting it. The only exception would be in the future if the economy not only rose to where it's flourished, but showed continued progress of flourishing.

Every impression from the players union as well as the owners, and economists in general are saying that there will be no salary cap in the future of the NFL. Even owners of other sports that operate without salary caps have spoken about how the poor economy has hurt the NFL's revenue in relation with the salary cap. Mark Cuban was also on SPortsNation this morning discussing it.


As business man I would never go for uncapped salaries. There has to be a limit on what a team can pay for talent or this become another MLB where the yankees win by default.

and minor league cities (read small market) like DEN, GB, KC, PHX, become their farm teams.

I do not see it happening.

silkamilkamonico
02-11-2010, 02:47 PM
As business man I would never go for uncapped salaries. There has to be a limit on what a team can pay for talent or this become another MLB where the yankees win by default.

and minor league cities (read small market) like DEN, GB, KC, PHX, become their farm teams.

I do not see it happening.

I myself don't know anything about business.

One thing Mark Cuban said was the business of owning a professional sports team is it isn't a regular business, especially dealing with the NFL, because the NFl doesn't have a competitor.

He also stated, with a salary cap, there's revenue sharing among the owners as well as the NFL, but because there is a floor cap that teams have to spend, some of the smaller market teams are still losing money, and expenses are higher than revenue. He used Jacksonville, Buffalo, and one other team as NFl teams that have expenses that are higher than revenue. They just can't sustain themselves, which is why you're hearing about possible moves to LA, which is a bigger market.

And the farm team example also would not work. For one, the NFl is the only professional sport where coaching takes on a higher priority than players. Also, money has to come from somewhere, and these team's that want to go out and spend money after money after money for players, it doesn't always equal success. Cuban cited the Washington Redskins, and also stated another point that wihtout a salary cap, Washington would not be able to spend what they do now because there is no longer revenue sharing distributed from being liscenced by the NFL.

I didn't see it happening either. But when I'm hearing 99% of these guys talk on the subject that understand the situation say the salary cap is going to be gone for good, I'm certainly not arguing.

elsid13
02-11-2010, 02:57 PM
Everything I'm hearing from people associated with the player's union as well as the owners side, are saying that there will not be a salary cap in the new labor union. The players don't benefit from it and the majority of the owners have changed from wanting it to not wanting it. The only exception would be in the future if the economy not only rose to where it's flourished, but showed continued progress of flourishing.

Every impression from the players union as well as the owners, and economists in general are saying that there will be no salary cap in the future of the NFL. Even owners of other sports that operate without salary caps have spoken about how the poor economy has hurt the NFL's revenue in relation with the salary cap. Mark Cuban was also on SPortsNation this morning discussing it.

I understand were both side are coming but I think we need clear that owners wanting salary cap with ceiling, but no floor like today. While the union doesn't want ceiling, but sure want a floor to ensure owners don't act like the Marlins.

silkamilkamonico
02-11-2010, 03:02 PM
I understand were both side are coming but I think we need clear that owners wanting salary cap with ceiling, but no floor like today. While the union doesn't want ceiling, but sure want a floor to ensure owners don't act like the Marlins.

If that's the standard , does the union not understand that our economy is still in recession? Sounds like the Union want's an unlimited possibility of income (which I understand) without a balence of funds. The money has to come from somewhere, and as far as the NFL is concerned, it's proven that in the last few years it isn't what it used to be.

KyleOrtonArmySoldier#128
02-11-2010, 03:07 PM
Not going to happen, just the scrambling of journalists with nothing to talk about.

The Glue Factory
02-11-2010, 03:10 PM
One thing that nobody has mentioned is that IF the Broncos are for sale Ed Kaiser (previous owner of the Broncos) is first in line to buy. Bowlen accepted a condition that Kaiser has right of first refusal should Bowlen decide to sell. Does anyone remember the lawsuits a few years ago when Bowlen tried to give a portion of the Broncos to Elway? The claimant was Ed Kaiser suing that he wasn't provided the opportunity to trump Elway.

Nomad
02-11-2010, 03:21 PM
If that's the standard , does the union not understand that our economy is still in recession? Sounds like the Union want's an unlimited possibility of income (which I understand) without a balence of funds. The money has to come from somewhere, and as far as the NFL is concerned, it's proven that in the last few years it isn't what it used to be.

Players unions (unions in general) don't give a crap especially one that represents the NFL because the only way they start caring if the stadiums are empty on Sunday and fans quit watching.

Lonestar
02-11-2010, 03:22 PM
I myself don't know anything about business.

One thing Mark Cuban said was the business of owning a professional sports team is it isn't a regular business, especially dealing with the NFL, because the NFl doesn't have a competitor.

He also stated, with a salary cap, there's revenue sharing among the owners as well as the NFL, but because there is a floor cap that teams have to spend, some of the smaller market teams are still losing money, and expenses are higher than revenue. He used Jacksonville, Buffalo, and one other team as NFl teams that have expenses that are higher than revenue. They just can't sustain themselves, which is why you're hearing about possible moves to LA, which is a bigger market.

And the farm team example also would not work. For one, the NFl is the only professional sport where coaching takes on a higher priority than players. Also, money has to come from somewhere, and these team's that want to go out and spend money after money after money for players, it doesn't always equal success. Cuban cited the Washington Redskins, and also stated another point that wihtout a salary cap, Washington would not be able to spend what they do now because there is no longer revenue sharing distributed from being liscenced by the NFL.

I didn't see it happening either. But when I'm hearing 99% of these guys talk on the subject that understand the situation say the salary cap is going to be gone for good, I'm certainly not arguing.

I'm not saying it would work but the was what the smaller markets would become. there is no way that the marlins will ever be competitive LONG term with the yankees.

Same would apply to DEN vs WAS, NYC teams and DAL. We may hit the jackpot with a few draft choices and get 4-5 year contracts not hem but when it is time for FA the big fish will scoop them up with huge salaries. just like they do today BUT now they are limited to haw many they can carry.

G_Money
02-11-2010, 03:24 PM
One thing that nobody has mentioned is that IF the Broncos are for sale Ed Kaiser (previous owner of the Broncos) is first in line to buy. Bowlen accepted a condition that Kaiser has right of first refusal should Bowlen decide to sell. Does anyone remember the lawsuits a few years ago when Bowlen tried to give a portion of the Broncos to Elway? The claimant was Ed Kaiser suing that he wasn't provided the opportunity to trump Elway.

This. I was gonna bring it up too - until Kaiser dies, he's got the right to buy the Broncos before any other bidder. So while it would all make a lot of sense (Pat's kids don't want to run/own the Broncos, Stan loves football and would LOVE to own the Broncos, he looks like he could get out of the Rams...) I don't see it happening.

Bowlen won his appeal with the Elway 10% stake thing, but I don't see how he gets around Kaiser unless Kroenke buys him off.

~G

Lonestar
02-11-2010, 03:34 PM
This. I was gonna bring it up too - until Kaiser dies, he's got the right to buy the Broncos before any other bidder. So while it would all make a lot of sense (Pat's kids don't want to run/own the Broncos, Stan loves football and would LOVE to own the Broncos, he looks like he could get out of the Rams...) I don't see it happening.

Bowlen won his appeal with the Elway 10% stake thing, but I don't see how he gets around Kaiser unless Kroenke buys him off.

~G


Or prices it out of kaisers limited funds. and right now few banks are going to loan against team equity for any NFL,NBA,NHL team.

claymore
02-11-2010, 03:38 PM
Or prices it out of kaisers limited funds. and right now few banks are going to loan against team equity for any NFL,NBA,NHL team.

The Original Kaiser deal called for a price close to what it was sold for. BUt if Im Kaiser, I would take a mere $50 million just to look the other way.

Denver Native (Carol)
02-11-2010, 04:31 PM
In regards to Kaiser, I found the following on MHR:

http://www.milehighreport.com/2008/3/28/95852/2379

"When Kaiser had sold the Broncos to Bowlen, he included a special clause called "right of first refusal" which gave Kaiser the right to repurchase any part of the Denver Broncos franchise that Bowlen offered to sell to a third party on the same terms. In order to save us all from the legalise required to explain all this, it basically comes down to the fact that Kaiser wanted to purchase a Minority Interest of the Broncos for the exact price Bowlen had offered it to Elway."

Based on the above, it appears Kaiser's "right of first refusal" does not apply to purchasing the whole team, but just a portion - especially the part that says "to sell to a third party on the same terms", would that just indicate a portion of the team, rather than Bowlen outright selling the team to someone else? If Kroenke buys the Broncos, I don't think he would be considered a "third party".

Broncolingus
02-11-2010, 05:20 PM
Rumors fly that Broncos are available for purchase
Posted by Mike Florio on February 11, 2010 8:38 AM ET
The fact that the Rams have found a buyer reminded me of a rumor that snaked its way through the grapevine last week.

There's talk that the Denver Broncos could be available to be purchased from current owner Pat Bowlen.

And there's a connection between the Rams and the Broncos. If Shahid Khan will be buying not only the 60 percent of the Rams currently held by Chip Rosenbloom and Lucia Rodriguez but also the 40 percent owned by Stan Kroenke, Kroenke could couple the cash he gets from Shahid with a chunk of his wife's Wal-Mart money and purchase the Broncos.

Kroenke already owns the NHL's Colorado Avalanche and the NBA's Denver Nuggets. He reportedly was interested in acquiring controlling interest in the Rams, but the league's cross-ownership rules require teams in multiple leagues to be located in the same market.

We need to be clear on this one. We're not saying that the Broncos are for sale; we're saying that there's a rumor they're for sale. And we're speculating that Kroenke could be interested, especially if he's cashing out his chips in St. Louis.

Clay, will you loan me about $975 million...?

I'd like to buy something...

T.K.O.
02-11-2010, 05:30 PM
i guess the rams deal is done ,the papers have been signed....not sure if its for the whole team or the 60% but apparently the majority share has been sold.
maybe pat is looking at this as a rebuilding time anyway and a good time to get out since his kids dont want the team (can you imagine?)

claymore
02-11-2010, 05:35 PM
i guess the rams deal is done ,the papers have been signed....not sure if its for the whole team or the 60% but apparently the majority share has been sold.
maybe pat is looking at this as a rebuilding time anyway and a good time to get out since his kids dont want the team (can you imagine?)

Never been a better time. Hope the new Owner hates JMCD!

Denver Native (Carol)
02-11-2010, 06:26 PM
Never been a better time. Hope the new Owner hates JMCD!

Sorry clay - It will be in the contract that JMCD is part of the deal :D

titan
02-11-2010, 07:25 PM
Been out all day and just saw this thread. I think it would be great if Kroenke owned the Broncos. Bowlen has been a good owner over the years, but there are repeated rumors of his cash problems. Kroenke has deep pockets and he just might the the right owner as the nfl moves to less revenue sharing and possibly no salary cap.

HORSEPOWER 56
02-11-2010, 07:41 PM
Been out all day and just saw this thread. I think it would be great if Kroenke owned the Broncos. Bowlen has been a good owner over the years, but there are repeated rumors of his cash problems. Kroenke has deep pockets and he just might the the right owner as the nfl moves to less revenue sharing and possibly no salary cap.

Hell Yeah! Vince Wilfork? Pay Da Man! Julius Peppers? Pay Da Man! Josh Cribbs? Pay Da Man!

Give me all your FAs says the owner with deep pockets and unto Broncos fans, I will deliver a Superbowl!

:rockon::madgrin:

NameUsedBefore
02-11-2010, 07:57 PM
I'm with Anubis; strange as it seems, it is also very believable.

ManchesterBroncoLUHG
02-11-2010, 08:09 PM
How rich is Stan Kroenke? I just ask because he is on the verge of buying Arsenal in the Premier League. He owns 29.9% already and if he purchases a few more shares then it triggers an compulsary buy out. I don't know how much that would set him back but you are talking hundreds of millions of pounds/dollars. I would be surprised if he could afford Arsenal and the Broncos.


Clay, will you loan me about $975 million...?

I'd like to buy something...

Ask Malcolm Glazer what bank he used. They managed to do just that to buy United :mad:

HORSEPOWER 56
02-11-2010, 08:12 PM
The Broncos (spoken: Joe "damage control" Ellis) are already denying any and all rumors that the Broncos are for sale.

Isn't it strange that any time a reporter writes a story about the Broncos it's NEVER true? Personally, I think the Broncos PR department keeps leaking little things to the press just to keep the franchise in the news.


As of now, I think we've been in the news more since Sunday than the Saints and they just won the Superbowl. Crazy...

Denver Native (Carol)
02-11-2010, 08:32 PM
Vic Lombardi just spoke on this rumor, and said there is absolutely no truth to it. The Broncos were contacted today, and issued a statement that the Bowlen family plans on owning the Broncos for many, many years.

Lonestar
02-11-2010, 08:34 PM
Vic Lombardi just spoke on this rumor, and said there is absolutely no truth to it. The Broncos were contacted today, and issued a statement that the Bowlen family plans on owning the Broncos for many, many years.

Queing the Josh/Joe/Xman haters to speak about them lying just one more time.


Four


Three


Two


One

Denver Native (Carol)
02-11-2010, 09:55 PM
I knew that I had heard that the sale of an NFL team had to be approved:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8165894f&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

If approved by a 75 percent vote of NFL owners, Chip Rosenbloom and Lucia Rodriguez, the children of the late Rams owner Georgia Frontiere, will sell their 60 percent stake to Shahid Khan, the 55-year-old president of an auto parts manufacturer, Flex-N-Gate, in Urbana, Ill.

WARHORSE
02-11-2010, 11:42 PM
Well, if we did sell, I propose we sell to a very, very,very rich man.

Just my thought on it.


How about BILL GATES? Id like to tap into that motherload please.

Leave the football part of it to me.:salute:

Shazam!
02-11-2010, 11:59 PM
Shahid Khan... sounds more like a rich terrorist.

claymore
02-12-2010, 07:47 AM
Queing the Josh/Joe/Xman haters to speak about them lying just one more time.


Four


Three


Two


One



We disagree all things Broncos. But I think we can mutually agree that no NFL team ever tells the truth. Nor should they.

elsid13
02-12-2010, 05:08 PM
Never been a better time. Hope the new Owner hates JMCD!

The best theory on the mane, is that next in line for the ownership of the broncos is >>>> Joe Ellis, current CEO and one actually hired McDaniels.

When you stop crying and come out of the corner I'm sure Slim or King will hug the hurt away. :D

Tned
02-12-2010, 08:35 PM
The best theory on the mane, is that next in line for the ownership of the broncos is >>>> Joe Ellis, current CEO and one actually hired McDaniels.

When you stop crying and come out of the corner I'm sure Slim or King will hug the hurt away. :D

Does Ellis have the kind of money it takes to buy an NFL franchise?

Superchop 7
02-12-2010, 09:20 PM
AAAAAIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH !!!!!!


The right of first refusal belongs to Edgar Kaiser.

Pat CANNOT sell the team to anyone but him.

If Kaiser refuses to buy it (or is paid off).......then he can sell it to someone else.

Denver Native (Carol)
02-12-2010, 09:45 PM
AAAAAIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH !!!!!!


The right of first refusal belongs to Edgar Kaiser.

Pat CANNOT sell the team to anyone but him.

If Kaiser refuses to buy it (or is paid off).......then he can sell it to someone else.

In regards to Kaiser, I found the following on MHR:

http://www.milehighreport.com/2008/3/28/95852/2379

"When Kaiser had sold the Broncos to Bowlen, he included a special clause called "right of first refusal" which gave Kaiser the right to repurchase any part of the Denver Broncos franchise that Bowlen offered to sell to a third party on the same terms. In order to save us all from the legalise required to explain all this, it basically comes down to the fact that Kaiser wanted to purchase a Minority Interest of the Broncos for the exact price Bowlen had offered it to Elway."

Guess "third party" needs to be defined. Would a new owner be considered a third party???? I don't know - I am asking.

elsid13
02-12-2010, 09:47 PM
Does Ellis have the kind of money it takes to buy an NFL franchise?

His first cousin to George W Bush, what do you think?

atwater27
02-12-2010, 10:22 PM
look at the bright side.....rush limbaugh is'nt making any offers.

He'd make better decisions than Bowlen has over the last couple of seasons.

atwater27
02-12-2010, 10:24 PM
nothing against rush,and i know he and bowlen are friends,but the negative press involved at such a critical time for the team would not be a good thing.
look at what happened when he showed interest in the rams

**** the press

TXBRONC
02-12-2010, 10:40 PM
In regards to Kaiser, I found the following on MHR:

http://www.milehighreport.com/2008/3/28/95852/2379

"When Kaiser had sold the Broncos to Bowlen, he included a special clause called "right of first refusal" which gave Kaiser the right to repurchase any part of the Denver Broncos franchise that Bowlen offered to sell to a third party on the same terms. In order to save us all from the legalise required to explain all this, it basically comes down to the fact that Kaiser wanted to purchase a Minority Interest of the Broncos for the exact price Bowlen had offered it to Elway."

Guess "third party" needs to be defined. Would a new owner be considered a third party???? I don't know - I am asking.

Here's the exact definition:

third party

An individual or other entity who is not a direct party to a contract or agreement, but who somehow has an interest in or is affected by it. For example, an insured driver is at fault in a traffic accident that damages the car of another person, who becomes the third party. The insured driver and his or her insurance company are the direct parties to the contract.

In short Bowlen and Kaiser are the two parties of the original agreement. Elway was a thrid party because he was part orignal deal that Bowlen and Kaiser agreed too when Bowlen bought the team.

slim
02-12-2010, 11:09 PM
AAAAAIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH !!!!!!


The right of first refusal belongs to Edgar Kaiser.

Pat CANNOT sell the team to anyone but him.

If Kaiser refuses to buy it (or is paid off).......then he can sell it to someone else.

LOL...that is the funniest thing I have heard all year.

You are precious.

dogfish
02-12-2010, 11:15 PM
hey, maybe NTL can buy the broncos. . . .

Denver Native (Carol)
02-12-2010, 11:34 PM
http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2010/02/11/broncos-not-for-sale/

Another day, another rumor.

Wednesday, Broncos officials refuted a rumor that they would be interested in acquiring Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb. Thursday, Broncos chief operating officer Joe Elllis strongly refuted an internet report that Broncos owner Pat Bowlen was said to be shopping the team.

“The team is not for sale. The rumor is false,” Ellis said.

Ellis gave his emphatic response amid speculation that the St. Louis Rams are for sale. Reports have said that if Urbana, Ill., businessman Shahid Khan’s bid meets the NFL’s approval, then Khan would then try to buy the 40 percent of the team currently owned by Avalanche and Nuggets owners Stan Kroenke.

The reports then speculated that Kroenke, could then try to buy the Broncos. However,Kroenke, because of the NFL’s cross-ownership rules, cannot buy a majority stake in the Rams or another NFL team if he owns the majority stake in another major-league sports franchise in another NFL team’s home market.

Besides, as Ellis emphasized, Bowlen is not shopping the franchise.

claymore
02-13-2010, 11:51 AM
They also said cutler wasnt going anywhere and the trade runors were false.

Lonestar
02-13-2010, 12:21 PM
They also said cutler wasnt going anywhere and the trade runors were false.

I'll bite, they said that josh was not actively shopping him but received calls about him, and they said NO.

and Cutler forced his way out of town with his actions.. Someday Y'all will acknowledge those are the facts.

If jay had not acted like a little girl and answered Joshes or PATS calls this would be a non story.

I repeat
Someday Y'all will acknowledge those are the facts.

Denver Native (Carol)
02-13-2010, 12:30 PM
I'll bite, they said that josh was not actively shopping him but received calls about him, and they said NO.

and Cutler forced his way out of town with his actions.. Someday Y'all will acknowledge those are the facts.

If jay had not acted like a little girl and answered Joshes or PATS calls this would be a non story.

I repeat
Someday Y'all will acknowledge those are the facts.

Cutler told the Broncos TWICE that he wanted to be traded - the FIRST time - right after Shanahan and Bates were fired - that was BEFORE Coach McD had been hired.

HORSEPOWER 56
02-13-2010, 12:36 PM
Cutler told the Broncos TWICE that he wanted to be traded - the FIRST time - right after Shanahan and Bates were fired - that was BEFORE Coach McD had been hired.

That's not true at all. Bates was still on the staff when McDaniels was hired. HE fired Bates after Cutler asked Bowlen not to. Then Cutler left town for the offseason. There were rumors we wasn't happy, but he seemd fine about McDaniels at the probowl. He never formally asked to be traded until after both the telephone conference and the face to face with McDaniels.

Denver Native (Carol)
02-13-2010, 12:45 PM
That's not true at all. Bates was still on the staff when McDaniels was hired. HE fired Bates after Cutler asked Bowlen not to. Then Cutler left town for the offseason. There were rumors we wasn't happy, but he seemd fine about McDaniels at the probowl. He never formally asked to be traded until after both the telephone conference and the face to face with McDaniels.

You are right - it was after Bates was let go.

Lonestar
02-13-2010, 12:56 PM
That's not true at all. Bates was still on the staff when McDaniels was hired. HE fired Bates after Cutler asked Bowlen not to. Then Cutler left town for the offseason. There were rumors we wasn't happy, but he seemd fine about McDaniels at the probowl. He never formally asked to be traded until after both the telephone conference and the face to face with McDaniels.


You are right - it was after Bates was let go.


Actually bates let not fired was after Josh came to town and after he got his panties in a wad because Josh said he was going to call the plays into the QB.

Then he left to go to USC and after that decided he did not want to coach jay again as OC in chicago. WOnder what at has to say about bates' alligience to jay.

Denver Native (Carol)
02-13-2010, 01:32 PM
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/13/broncos-give-bates-ok-talk-raiders/

Broncos quarterbacks coach Jeremy Bates has been granted permission by the team to talk with the Oakland Raiders about a job on that team's coaching staff.

Raiders owner Al Davis, who has been hospitalized in recent weeks, has been interviewing head-coaching candidates. The Raiders sought, in writing, and were granted permission to speak with Bates about a role on a new coaching staff, possibly even head coach.

However, McDaniels has already said he will call plays in the Broncos' offense, so Bates' role moving forward could be limited to coaching the quarterbacks and participating in the game planning.

elsid13
02-14-2010, 08:32 AM
Actually bates let not fired was after Josh came to town and after he got his panties in a wad because Josh said he was going to call the plays into the QB.

Then he left to go to USC and after that decided he did not want to coach jay again as OC in chicago. WOnder what at has to say about bates' alligience to jay.

It had less to do with Jay, and more to do with money he getting from Paul Allen and stability that Seahawks are offering with Carroll. Lovie Smith is on the hot seat, and most likely gone after this season, Bates made a smart move to go with coach that going to have more then 1 year run.

Lonestar
02-14-2010, 01:06 PM
It had less to do with Jay, and more to do with money he getting from Paul Allen and stability that Seahawks are offering with Carroll. Lovie Smith is on the hot seat, and most likely gone after this season, Bates made a smart move to go with coach that going to have more then 1 year run.

So let me see if I got this right.

He turned down an opportunity to become an OC in the NFL because he did not think he could:


Hack it

Turn jay into the QB that some on here think he could be.

Be the hero that saves Lovies job.

Ahahahahha

I think he knew what kind of jerk jay was and decided that there was no way to accomplish polishing the guy he knew in DEN into anything more than he is a coach killer.

Do you really think that when he was given the option to interview with Oak and then USC it was because they (Josh and Xman) did not think he could get those jobs.

Just admit it bates wanted out of DEN because he knew what jay really was an EGO that could not be contained. Someone that wanted to do it his way and would never aquiese to the changes that were coming. Afterall he was on the coaching staff and got them from the horses mouth and I'm sure was asked to evaluate jay. How he would do in the coming scheme change.

I do not believe for a minute he left because he was to going to get to call in the plays to jay. He knew that there were going to be major sparks between Josh and jay and wanted out.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

elsid13
02-14-2010, 02:01 PM
So let me see if I got this right.

He turned down an opportunity to become an OC in the NFL because he did not think he could:


Hack it

Turn jay into the QB that some on here think he could be.

Be the hero that saves Lovies job.

Ahahahahha

I think he knew what kind of jerk jay was and decided that there was no way to accomplish polishing the guy he knew in DEN into anything more than he is a coach killer.

Do you really think that when he was given the option to interview with Oak and then USC it was because they (Josh and Xman) did not think he could get those jobs.

Just admit it bates wanted out of DEN because he knew what jay really was an EGO that could not be contained. Someone that wanted to do it his way and would never aquiese to the changes that were coming. Afterall he was on the coaching staff and got them from the horses mouth and I'm sure was asked to evaluate jay. How he would do in the coming scheme change.

I do not believe for a minute he left because he was to going to get to call in the plays to jay. He knew that there were going to be major sparks between Josh and jay and wanted out.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel.

He wanted out of Denver because he wanted to be OC and McDaniels wasn't going to give him that. Bates at the end of the day wants to be HC, and right is on the hot track to achieve that goal. Working for McDaniels wasn't going to improve his chances of reaching that goal.

Lonestar
02-14-2010, 02:27 PM
He wanted out of Denver because he wanted to be OC and McDaniels wasn't going to give him that. Bates at the end of the day wants to be HC, and right is on the hot track to achieve that goal. Working for McDaniels wasn't going to improve his chances of reaching that goal.

I agree with that but MY point was he had a stepping stone in CHI he did not want to touch.

I do not believe he has a better or faster chance in going to SEA as assistant coach is better than turning jay into a superstar would have been.

At the time he was asked to go there CHI, I believe Carrol was still at USC although my time line may be off here..


Correct me if I'm off base here.

silkamilkamonico
02-14-2010, 02:38 PM
I wouldn't touch that stepping stone in Chicago either. To have your immediate future decided in the hands of the inept Lovie Smith, no thanks.

Lonestar
02-14-2010, 02:48 PM
I wouldn't touch that stepping stone in Chicago either. To have your immediate future decided in the hands of the inept Lovie Smith, no thanks.

lovie is a good coach that was handed a lousy offense not his Forte (pardon the pun).

All he needed was a franchise QB and someone that could make him great. Everyone with half a brain knew that the guy who would not offer a scholarship to an in state QB phenom Jay Cutler coming out of HS to play QB at U of Indiana but wanted him as a safety (turner) was not going to be a good fit. The Jeff George was showing as he killed another coach (turner) because he could not rein him in.

That said IF he is what he thinks he is then by turning Jeff george into A franchise QB renamed Jay Cutler he could have made Lovie a hero. and he would not have been a one year rental.

BUT either he knew it could not be done, improve Jay or he knows he will never be a HC.


Thats how I see it. Hero or fired = no balls. instead he took the safe route .

silkamilkamonico
02-14-2010, 03:00 PM
Lovie is arguably the most uninspirational coach in the NFL. Even a good majoirty of his fanbase doesn't like him.

He's shown to be terrible at making on the fly changes when his scheme isn't working, his personnel decisions have been shoddy at best, and he himself has even admitted that the cover 2 scheme, the only defensive scheme he knows in detail, is not making the impact around the NFL that it used too, which is why the Buccaneers, the Vikings, and others are starting too look to either abandon it, or make some major changes.

claymore
02-14-2010, 08:51 PM
I'll bite, they said that josh was not actively shopping him but received calls about him, and they said NO.

and Cutler forced his way out of town with his actions.. Someday Y'all will acknowledge those are the facts.

If jay had not acted like a little girl and answered Joshes or PATS calls this would be a non story.

I repeat
Someday Y'all will acknowledge those are the facts.

Jay flew to Denver and met with Josh durring McJay gate. Its at that meeting that things blew up for the worst. Something that seems to be a regular occurance with JMCD.

sakic_avs
02-14-2010, 09:36 PM
Jay flew to Denver and met with Josh durring McJay gate. Its at that meeting that things blew up for the worst. Something that seems to be a regular occurance with JMCD.

He didn't like that he had to be an equal. I think that that's pretty clear. Don't have to be that smart to figure that out at this point.

The Bears had to fly Martz out to Nashville to get his approval for the hire. Dude is the Whitney Houston of football. He can hit the high note, but he does too much crack to be effective every week.

rcsodak
02-14-2010, 09:38 PM
Jay flew to Denver and met with Josh durring McJay gate. Its at that meeting that things blew up for the worst. Something that seems to be a regular occurance with JMCD.

You mean where McD laid down the law? Told cutler how this was going to be a team-first, and not a ME-first team? How he had to quit throwing pics? How he had to start taking responsibility for his actions?

Don't know for fact that's what was said, but it makes sense thats why cutler got butt-hurt.

He can't take coaching or criticism.

HORSEPOWER 56
02-14-2010, 09:56 PM
You mean where McD laid down the law? Told cutler how this was going to be a team-first, and not a ME-first team? How he had to quit throwing pics? How he had to start taking responsibility for his actions?

Don't know for fact that's what was said, but it makes sense thats why cutler got butt-hurt.

He can't take coaching or criticism.

Yeah but here's the 10 million dollar question...

Who will still have his current NFL job the longest: McDaniels or Cutler? It will be interesting to see if Cutler truly is the hardest man in the world to work with, whiner, spoiled brat, baby, whatever or if McDaniels really is the wunderkind head coach everyone thought he'd be.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see on this one...

Lonestar
02-14-2010, 10:25 PM
Jay flew to Denver and met with Josh durring McJay gate. Its at that meeting that things blew up for the worst. Something that seems to be a regular occurance with JMCD.

Get serious here YOU never go into a meeting with your agent/Lawyer present if YOU wish to make nice.

Come on guy your better than this.

HE was only there to set in motion his departure from DEN..

IIRC he had already placed his houses up for sale at that point.

rcsodak
02-14-2010, 10:36 PM
Yeah but here's the 10 million dollar question...

Who will still have his current NFL job the longest: McDaniels or Cutler? It will be interesting to see if Cutler truly is the hardest man in the world to work with, whiner, spoiled brat, baby, whatever or if McDaniels really is the wunderkind head coach everyone thought he'd be.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see on this one...

I'd venture to bet Cutler will go through more HC's/OC's than McD will teams.

Lonestar
02-14-2010, 10:39 PM
I'd venture to bet Cutler will go through more HC's/OC's than McD will teams.


Well so far he has gotten mike HC and tuner OC and next year will get both his new OC and love fired.

Well on his way to beat jeff as a coach killer.

Denver Native (Carol)
02-14-2010, 10:40 PM
Get serious here YOU never go into a meeting with your agent/Lawyer present if YOU wish to make nice.

Come on guy your better than this.

HE was only there to set in motion his departure from DEN..

IIRC he had already placed his houses up for sale at that point.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3983805

"The Denver Broncos confirm that Jay Cutler has requested a trade," team spokesman Jim Saccomano told The Associated Press on Monday.

Broncos owner Pat Bowlen told The Denver Post on Sunday that he was disappointed with how Cutler has handled the situation. In a telephone interview with ESPN, McDaniels was reluctantly expansive on the story.

"I really have wanted to avoid a he-said, she-said thing but it's only fair for us to present the Bronco side of the story rather than let things get taken out of context," McDaniels said. "There's been a pattern here for the past two weeks the way things [have been represented] in our communications. I don't think anything that happened [Saturday] was out of the ordinary. At the end of the meeting, Jay said he had thought about things quite a bit and requested a few more hours to mull things over. He said he wanted to talk to Bus on how to proceed. He was gonna call me on my cell phone and that never happened. Instead, Bus called [GM] Brian [Xanders].

"Again, I think that's been a pattern. I couldn't get [Cutler] to talk to me for two weeks or to talk to Mr. Bowlen. Then when he came here this weekend, we couldn't get a one-on-one meeting, just me and him alone. He wanted Bus in there, so I had Brian sit in, too. And it was the four of us. There wasn't any yelling, none of that. I can't believe we get to a totally different [interpretation].

rcsodak
02-14-2010, 10:45 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3983805

"The Denver Broncos confirm that Jay Cutler has requested a trade," team spokesman Jim Saccomano told The Associated Press on Monday.

Broncos owner Pat Bowlen told The Denver Post on Sunday that he was disappointed with how Cutler has handled the situation. In a telephone interview with ESPN, McDaniels was reluctantly expansive on the story.

"I really have wanted to avoid a he-said, she-said thing but it's only fair for us to present the Bronco side of the story rather than let things get taken out of context," McDaniels said. "There's been a pattern here for the past two weeks the way things [have been represented] in our communications. I don't think anything that happened [Saturday] was out of the ordinary. At the end of the meeting, Jay said he had thought about things quite a bit and requested a few more hours to mull things over. He said he wanted to talk to Bus on how to proceed. He was gonna call me on my cell phone and that never happened. Instead, Bus called [GM] Brian [Xanders].

"Again, I think that's been a pattern. I couldn't get [Cutler] to talk to me for two weeks or to talk to Mr. Bowlen. Then when he came here this weekend, we couldn't get a one-on-one meeting, just me and him alone. He wanted Bus in there, so I had Brian sit in, too. And it was the four of us. There wasn't any yelling, none of that. I can't believe we get to a totally different [interpretation].



Geez, carol....

you must be new!

Don't you KNOW facts aren't allowed in cutler discussions? :coffee:

HORSEPOWER 56
02-14-2010, 10:53 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3983805

"The Denver Broncos confirm that Jay Cutler has requested a trade," team spokesman Jim Saccomano told The Associated Press on Monday.

Broncos owner Pat Bowlen told The Denver Post on Sunday that he was disappointed with how Cutler has handled the situation. In a telephone interview with ESPN, McDaniels was reluctantly expansive on the story.

"I really have wanted to avoid a he-said, she-said thing but it's only fair for us to present the Bronco side of the story rather than let things get taken out of context," McDaniels said. "There's been a pattern here for the past two weeks the way things [have been represented] in our communications. I don't think anything that happened [Saturday] was out of the ordinary. At the end of the meeting, Jay said he had thought about things quite a bit and requested a few more hours to mull things over. He said he wanted to talk to Bus on how to proceed. He was gonna call me on my cell phone and that never happened. Instead, Bus called [GM] Brian [Xanders].

"Again, I think that's been a pattern. I couldn't get [Cutler] to talk to me for two weeks or to talk to Mr. Bowlen. Then when he came here this weekend, we couldn't get a one-on-one meeting, just me and him alone. He wanted Bus in there, so I had Brian sit in, too. And it was the four of us. There wasn't any yelling, none of that. I can't believe we get to a totally different [interpretation].



Strange how he wouldn't say what was said so we could make our own interpretation. Cutler had no problem divulging pretty much everything McDaniels said. You guys are funny, though. Now, just like back then, you want to believe McDaniels so you do. It's just that simple and really no use arguing about anymore.

Denver Native (Carol)
02-14-2010, 11:00 PM
Strange how he wouldn't say what was said so we could make our own interpretation. Cutler had no problem divulging pretty much everything McDaniels said. You guys are funny, though. Now, just like back then, you want to believe McDaniels so you do. It's just that simple and really no use arguing about anymore.

Cutler had no problem saying what he WANTED people to THINK Coach McD said - MAJOR DIFFERENCE. No one will ever convince me that Cook had not contacted the Bears long before this blew up with the Broncos. I read an article that after the trade was announced, Cutler's sister was talking with him on the phone, asking if it was really true, and Cutler stated he could hear his Mom yelling "we are going home". Yeah - just a coincidence that he ended up with the team he had rooted for when he was growing up - the team his family had rooted for.

rcsodak
02-14-2010, 11:06 PM
Strange how he wouldn't say what was said so we could make our own interpretation. Cutler had no problem divulging pretty much everything McDaniels said. You guys are funny, though. Now, just like back then, you want to believe McDaniels so you do. It's just that simple and really no use arguing about anymore.

You that easy, that you're sold on uncontested "word"?

You were told ONE side, which happened to be by an unhappy, whiney player, who CLEARLY had an agenda.

Now who's the lackey? :lol:

HORSEPOWER 56
02-14-2010, 11:13 PM
Cutler had no problem saying what he WANTED people to THINK Coach McD said - MAJOR DIFFERENCE. No one will ever convince me that Cook had not contacted the Bears long before this blew up with the Broncos. I read an article that after the trade was announced, Cutler's sister was talking with him on the phone, asking if it was really true, and Cutler stated he could hear his Mom yelling "we are going home". Yeah - just a coincidence that he ended up with the team he had rooted for when he was growing up - the team his family had rooted for.

Umm, that means a lot. It could've just meant they were "going home" to their house? It doesn't have to be a conspiracy thing, Carol. I find it incredibly ridiculous that there was some backdoor pre-trade deal between the Bears and Bus Cook. That would be tampering and illegal. The Bears still also had to compete with other teams to even get Cutler.

You're trying really, really hard to villainize Cutler and completely absolve McDaniels for any of the way this turned out. Like I said, you believe McDaniels because you want to believe him. It's okay, you know. You don't have to get all mad about it.

HORSEPOWER 56
02-14-2010, 11:20 PM
You that easy, that you're sold on uncontested "word"?

You were told ONE side, which happened to be by an unhappy, whiney player, who CLEARLY had an agenda.

Now who's the lackey? :lol:

Oh, I don't know maybe I believed Cutler's side because he actually discussed what was said. It's amazing that when you only hear one side of a story, it makes it hard not to believe it. The Broncos didn't rebut what Cutler said. McDaniels just said , "gee that's not how we interpreted it". Sounds like double talk to me. Who would you believe, the guy who talks about what happened in specifics or the guy that just sat back and smirked and said "Nuh Uh" at the press conference.

He's the same guy that said, "we just picked up the phone", remember? That was later proven false by his own admission. McDaniels was caught in a lie early in the process and because of that many of us don't trust him about what happened during the whole fiasco. Cutler has never been caught in a bold faced lie about anything that happened. Seems pretty simple to me, actually.

Denver Native (Carol)
02-14-2010, 11:26 PM
Umm, that means a lot. It could've just meant they were "going home" to their house? It doesn't have to be a conspiracy thing, Carol. I find it incredibly ridiculous that there was some backdoor pre-trade deal between the Bears and Bus Cook. That would be tampering and illegal. The Bears still also had to compete with other teams to even get Cutler.

You're trying really, really hard to villainize Cutler and completely absolve McDaniels for any of the way this turned out. Like I said, you believe McDaniels because you want to believe him. It's okay, you know. You don't have to get all mad about it.

http://www.michiganavemag.com/MA_SP09_100_NEW.html

MA: Let’s talk about when you were traded; what was going through your mind?
JC: We heard rumors that Chicago was in it early on but they dropped out of the whole race. It was kind of the end of the day, it was five-ish and I was going to work out. I got a phone call from my agent and he said, “Maybe something tomorrow. I’ll call you later tonight if I hear anything.” I was walking into the gym [at Vanderbilt University] and an 847 number called and I didn’t answer it. I was just letting everything go to voicemail at that point. It was Bobby DePaul [the Bears’ senior director of pro personnel]. He left a number and said, “Give me a call back.” Usually the other team doesn’t just call you up like that. I was like, maybe they just want to ask me a question about, my history, something like that, before they make a move. I called back right away and he answered, “You got your bags packed? You’re going to be a Bear now.”

MA: Your sister told me that your parents—who had followed you to Denver—were so excited when they heard the news that she could hear them chanting on the phone, “We’re going home!”
JC: I called my parents up and they had just heard it on the radio and they wanted to know if it was true. I was like, “Yeah, absolutely it’s true!” They threw the phone down and they were yelling and screaming.

HORSEPOWER 56
02-14-2010, 11:32 PM
http://www.michiganavemag.com/MA_SP09_100_NEW.html

MA: Let’s talk about when you were traded; what was going through your mind?
JC: We heard rumors that Chicago was in it early on but they dropped out of the whole race. It was kind of the end of the day, it was five-ish and I was going to work out. I got a phone call from my agent and he said, “Maybe something tomorrow. I’ll call you later tonight if I hear anything.” I was walking into the gym [at Vanderbilt University] and an 847 number called and I didn’t answer it. I was just letting everything go to voicemail at that point. It was Bobby DePaul [the Bears’ senior director of pro personnel]. He left a number and said, “Give me a call back.” Usually the other team doesn’t just call you up like that. I was like, maybe they just want to ask me a question about, my history, something like that, before they make a move. I called back right away and he answered, “You got your bags packed? You’re going to be a Bear now.”

MA: Your sister told me that your parents—who had followed you to Denver—were so excited when they heard the news that she could hear them chanting on the phone, “We’re going home!”
JC: I called my parents up and they had just heard it on the radio and they wanted to know if it was true. I was like, “Yeah, absolutely it’s true!” They threw the phone down and they were yelling and screaming.

So after he was traded? Where's the conspiracy there Carol? What are you even talking about? I know Cutler demanded a trade after the face to face meeting and was traded shortly thereafter. Why do you keep posting articles that have nothing to do with what you were talking about? You made it sound earlier like Cutler knew he was going to be a Bear before he was even traded. That, everyone knows, is false. Read my post again, i said there was no back-door pre-trade deal....

Denver Native (Carol)
02-14-2010, 11:42 PM
So after he was traded? Where's the conspiracy there Carol? What are you even talking about? I know Cutler demanded a trade after the face to face meeting and was traded shortly thereafter. Why do you keep posting articles that have nothing to do with what you were talking about? You made it sound earlier like Cutler knew he was going to be a Bear before he was even traded. That, everyone knows, is false.

Read what you posted to me, and then you will realize why I posted what I did

- i.e. Umm, that means a lot. It could've just meant they were "going home" to their house?

You think what you want, and I will think what I want.

HORSEPOWER 56
02-14-2010, 11:45 PM
Read what you posted to me, and then you will realize why I posted what I did

- i.e. Umm, that means a lot. It could've just meant they were "going home" to their house?

You think what you want, and I will think what I want.

Sorry, I was thinking they were saying that pre-trade. Either way, I don't know what it has to do with the Cutler trade other than his family was happy about him going to Chicago - how dare they?! :confused: