Lucky Luciano

yes it was a bust season that they tried to salvage with luke warm success by ending the strike. the actual games were attended, if i remember right, less than even preseason games. i believe when the strike happened buddy ryan (maybe ditka too?) told their respective teams not to walk the line which they ALL did not if i remember correctly. that said, there were a few scab nfl players who did cross the line throughout the league but i never remember them refusing the benefits won by the nfl players union that they didn't stand behind. 1987 was a sad ending for walter paytons career (who to his fantastic credit DID stand fast in solidarity).

and as usual you have come to the wrong conclusions and add nothing even mildly important to the conversation with the exception of the usual jibes and acidic giant-head wit expected from an infantile meglomaniac.

first... would you like some cheese with your whine? if you can't take someone asking you to elaborate, or to question, define, or prove the validity of your statements and EVEN opinions or comments then what is the point at all? if not just state that as a qualifier in all your posts and save yourself (and me) a lot of typing and wasted space (not that the post you are replying to was even directed at you in the first place). second... just what are you even talking about? it's an opinion? so what. does that make it untouchable? in fact if you read it carefully it does not read as an opinion but as a statement of fact or an opinion BASED on fact. take your pick. jason: Nearly all the risk is on the owners, and the players get an abnormally large portion of the pie compared to numerous other industries. Just look online at various pro sports teams that have lost money on a fairly consistent basis while their players continued to rack up millions. And what choices did the owners have? Either risk financial future by keeping up with other teams, or get rid of the team and cut losses. next... you are "not sure anyone has said" teams are losing money? LOL!!! did you even read the specific post you are defending? if not read the paragraph above. moving on... nfoligno: Players are quite willing to be equal partners when it comes to taking the money, but when times are down, they don't seem to want that same level of committment. sounds like it would be utopia if they did doesn't it? now i want to ask anyone on this ENTIRE board if they think fair is fair in good times and bad times whether the owners of any NORMAL healthy corporation would accept it if you put it to them thus: we as employees will accept the percentage of company loss in cut wages in the bad years if you share ALL the excess profit percentages in good years exclusively among us (we also want to see the books to be sure you aren't loading them). they would laugh you right out of their rosewood offices!!! don't believe it? ask anyone who owns or runs a corporation and especially one with stockholders. why? because the upside for profit is too great unless your company is swirling around the rim and ready to go down anyway. that is the way business works and to have them complain about salaries being lowered in specific bad years by healthy flourishing companies is posturing for sympathy to the ignorant and is pure balderdash. that is an interesting 2 edged sword. I believe the greatest aspect of where players get a piece of the pie is a more constant number, stemming from media contracts and such. and you don't think that is a major portion of where the owners get their piece of the "pie" from? you act like the players get ALL of the gross revenue. how much is allotted every single year to the owners? (please take into account my mathematical ignorance and if the figures are not correct please feel free to do it correctly and post it) last year the cap was about $138 million dollars. so that means if the players are getting 65% (?) of total revenue for the cap the owners just got about $74 million dollars to pay their franchise expenses and consider profits NOT INCLUDING what isn't collected by the nfl to determine the cap figures. also when the NEXT years totals come up to figure the SALARY CAP everyone gets less money if the gross totals add up to less don't you think? isn't THAT having the players take a pay cut or is there some magic involved that the players still get more? hmmmmm.... ummmm... well then why don't you spend a little time doing just a LITTLE research on your own to substanciate your claims or statements and post links to information to dispute facts and opinions i state? i'm certainly willing to change my mind if you or anyone else finds real evidence or valid, educated (even non educated) opinions contrary to this. in fact it would save ME hours looking up things you SHOULD have. but oh yea, i forgot. you never do that. i put this in to give the reader a look at how some of the other owners of sport franchises in DIFFERENT sports operate or think and included this article from another country to show a different perspective or owners psyche. if you don't think it was interesting, so it goes. and your entire paragraph means just what in regards to this post? times are tough and jerry jones can't sell naming rights after building a BILLION DOLLAR stadium? LOL!! which teams struggle to sell out these days? what are the reasons you SUPPOSE would cause that besides times are tough? why does soldier field sell out as has been stated in the past (not getting full attendance but selling out)? why do you think the bears attendence records were so GOOD this season while times are so tough? yea, what would a flake like *Dr. William S. Kern as interim chair of the Department of Economics at Western Michigan University know about stuff like this. *"William S. Kern has been a faculty member since 1987. His areas of specialization include microeconomics, comparative economic systems, and environmental and natural resource economics. He also has written and made presentations on the impact of sports franchises and new stadiums on regional economics. Prior to coming to WMU, he taught at Franklin and Marshall College for five years and also held faculty positions at Colorado State and Emporia State universities. He earned a bachelor's degree from Florida International University in 1976, a master's degree from Louisiana State" yea an opinion piece by a journalist and sport radio host: Dwight Jaynes You may remember me from my 25 years at The Oregonian and Oregon Journal. Or my stint at the Portland Tribune or appearances on local talk radio. They call me "The Godfather" now, especially in the mornings, from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. on the "Morning Sports Page" with Gavin Dawson and Chad Doing, on Portland's No. 1 sports station, 95.5 The Game. ok let's look at this... did you not site snyder in the past as being a bad owner who grossly overpays for players in the past, present and future? doesn't that shoot to hell the notion that players salaries are killing the owners? or do you now believe because he has 30 thousand more seats in his stadium that makes him more money than the freaking new york yankees?

what other industries are you talking about? pro sports is an industry where the employees ARE what is sold to the public. NAME the amount of nfl teams that lose money on a fairly consistent basis. what is that percentage as a whole? show me the bottom line from their financial statements. show me what they do different from the ones you don't consider losing money. is geography/location a factor? poor football operations management policies which includes personnel and their salary along with the final results in wins/losses? overpaying initially for the franchise? overestimation of sport popularity or initial profits in specific areas? poor borrowing practice? is it a planned tax break for the owners? overestimating the value their franchise will rise and be worth? do you consider the owner/CEO salary factors in your estimation? or is it just a wide brush whitewashing statement that the players are to blame because of salary? sorry but until i see the actual financial statements by owners and how they are losing money just for the good of the fans i ain't buyin it. some interesting reading: http://www.sandiego.gov/chargersissues/doc...waystowin.shtml http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wealth/b...iressports.html http://www.bos.frb.org/peanuts/sptspage/inning4.htm 2000: Zimbalist suggests that if the NBA owners are truly serious about competitive balance, they should pursue the NFL’s strategy of revenue sharing, but that faces serious obstacles in both basketball and baseball. The best solution, he argues, is one also suggested by Fort: Foster competition by breaking up the existing leagues and creating new ones. With two leagues in each sport, largemarket teams would have to share their market with teams from competing leagues, and cities would not have to compete against one another by offering new stadiums to attract teams. http://www.upjohninst.org/publications/ch1/kern-sports.pdf 2009: The NFL is different. It’s still a money machine, the country’s most popular sport and it has leverage. Ironically, since it’s so popular, it’s still in a position to dictate terms to cities. And those terms are terrible. They want stadiums that are now costing up to a billion dollars and are not a good civic investment, since many are used only about 20 times a year and look like giant blimp hangers blighting the landscape. http://www.dwightjaynes.com/owners-getting...orts-facilities 2009: As the Redskins close out a decade of losing, one thing is undeniable: off the field, the team has been a roaring success. The Washington Redskins make more money than any other professional sports franchise in the United States. Their estimated annual revenue is $345 million, according to Forbes. Their closest contender, the New York Yankees, bring in somewhere around $320 million a year--but the Yankees bring home championships, 27 and counting. http://www.wopular.com/redskins-revenues-h...pro-sports-team here is some fun reading that is dated, 2001: http://espn.go.com/page2/s/2001/0710/1224543.html

i agree that the way pro sports are run in todays world is atrocious. it's pure greed that is driving the nfl today. it's all geared up for bottom line profit structure and whether the game is hurt or changed for the worse is a 2nd or even 3rd consideration. in fact what you are seeing today is not the same game that was played 25 years ago. the media contracts have forced rule changes and even the way you watch football. how many times have you seen a game that comes back from one of the dozens of commercials they force into every pause in the game to actually have missed plays? that would NEVER have happened even 15 years ago yet now is reasonably common. the nfl is geared for offense because they (the media) have determined that mindless fans would become restless if the scores don't resemble basketball scores and changed the rules of the game. the accountablility for player performance is certainly a problem with no real solution. performance can be hindered by injury, fellow players, coaches or scheme. i don't know how you could account for this fairly on a year by year evaluation of salary. although if they made contracts shorter with no bonus money and the contracts guaranteed to be paid 'might' be a way to counter some of the problems. for instances if you sign a player at X dollars for 2-3 years you pay him that salary for 2-3 years and there are no bonus bucks paid up front or on the backside or any way out of the contract unless you bought the player out. it would probably raise the actual amount of yearly salary but wouldn't hold teams accountable for unpaid money that was backloaded. in my opinion the rookie contracts need especially to be worked out fairly for both owners and players. this is also a complex arrangement on potential as some positions (qb for instance) take longer for the player to learn to play at a high level. agree on this. the 82 and 87 strike years were sham seasons that changed the way the nfl operated. the owners bet on the 'more money for them' horse and it appeared to come in last. nobody cared or wanted to watch scabs play during the 87 year and the entire year was a bust. same with the shortened 82 season. some good reading if this interests you can be found here that will give you some insight on how the nfl progressed and how the players actually started getting what they SHOULD have from robber baron owners and fought for basic rights that that should have been a given especially considering the amount of money involved: http://nflplayers.com/user/template.aspx?f...1036&type=c

for me this says everything. if they are legitimate paupers why not let the world see their profit percentages and if player salaries are bleeding them out, i will cry along with them. until then i have no sympathy what-so-ever. just curious, do the corporations like kraft have to make statements to their boards on profits/losses in this area? if so i would like to see them. as far as nfl players getting too much? compare it to any other major sport in the world. total paid out in salary compared to length of time able to play due to injury vs age retirement and complete physical condition when they do. baseball players are averaging what? 5-10+ million a season? how many are forced to retire due to physical injury including concussions compared to football players.

although getting up in age he should still have 2-3 years of good productivity. the main concern is the season ending injury he suffered and how serious that will effect his future. that said, kampman was one of if not the best LDE in football. he has pretty much done this on his own without the help of a pro-bowl RDE like ogy had in miami. if he were a year or two younger and the injury had no effect i would offer the moon for this guy. as it is if his knee is not wrecked i would offer a good contract for him. his stats: sacks 09 - 3.5 08 - 9.5 07 - 12 06 - 15.5 05 - 6.5 04 - 4.5 03 - 2 02 - .5 http://www.nfl.com/players/aaronkampman/ca...ts?id=KAM725424

if anyone in charge, including coaches, gm, and president of this franchise really understands what they are doing shouldn't they know what they are looking for? in my opinion we don't need yes men for cutler to grow as a qb in the nfl. just someone who is smarter than he is and understands how to get the most out of his players on and off the field. as far as wishing ill on our season or employees... i hope you are not inferring that i am in that category of "i told you so" as being more important than the REAL long term health of this club no matter who is running it. i have voiced my displeasure involving the management and truly believe we are seriously lacking good competent people in charge but i don't wish to lose to prove that i am right and they are wrong. it will come out in the final results of what is done or not done. but so far i don't see their side winning anything past or present. even this small point.

i have to ask... what gap is ted phillips bridging? could the reason you haven't heard a "peep" from the family for 10 years be because ted phillips is simply a parrot and all along we are hearing the family (mikey) through ted phillips mouth? another reality again is that the money paid to our players comes strictly from the nfl and the only convincing by ted the head would be to spend what is doled out for that specific purpose on what it was intended for instead of pocketing it. to me it starts at the top. if we don't win superbowls that is the place to lay the blame. without someone in charge of football operations that is even reasonably competent to make the major decisions regarding scouting or the job our gm is doing how can we be successful except by accident?

just curious... who decided to change the topic of my post?

exactly. what organization that isn't on it's way to oz to look for a brain really lets a 4th year qb have any major input for their offensive coordinator jobs? is there any limit to the stupidity and complete incompetence the upper echelon of this franchise displays to the rest of the world?

if we did offer him a contract was it for as much money or length as the giants? this again goes to the problems of not firing this entire staff and instead holding the sword of damacles over their heads for next season. to get quality coordinators we will have to really either throw out the cash to bring them in or go for dark horse candidates. a lose/lose situation from our upper management.

maybe you're right? who knows. but the season has been over since january 3rd. we bring him in for an interview a full week after the season ended. did they even offer him a contract last monday?

LOL!!!! well at least they can use us to get better contracts.

well, if we had contacted bates or fewell and given them the nod the day after the season ended would we be still looking? BTW.. not saying i endorse either of these coaches. just saying if the bears seriously had them on the radar screen they are gone for consideration 'probably' because of timing or the lack there of.

just heard it on the score. adam shefter (sp) put this out i believe.

going to the giants in all probability for those in this guys corner.

here is the problem i have with this... at this time of year if you snooze you lose. if you drag your feet or are uncertain in the direction you are going you can miss the best candidates to fill your vacancies. this compounds the problems filling assistant coaching positions as when new OC's or DC's come in quickly, they have a larger pool to choose from for the coaches under them. this again brings up the concept of good management not only in your GM but the president in charge of football operations. these people should have a list of every candidate from gm to waterboy and whether employed in pro, semi-pro, or college ranks and how each ranks in quality and availability. so when vacancies happen you can jump on them before the competition does. take holmgren for instance. he comes in and hires a gm and talks to his coaches and determines whether to keep them or not within a very short period of time. yet we still are determining who to bring in even for interviews and for whatever reason are consulting our qb on who it should be.

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? 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? 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 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 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. 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. 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 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?? "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.

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? 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. 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

i accept your explanation. i am dense at times. so it goes. i personally have no problem insulting or questioning george halas when it needs to be done. although a great man in "football" terms by no means should we worship him like a golden idol. he deserved plenty of criticism in his lifetime of sports and his faults and failures SHOULD be brought up and learned from and not gilded over in time or smoothed over in history. in fact anyone is fair game in my opinion who puts on the hat in professional sports. that includes virginia (halas) mccaskey if she wants to be involved in any way running a professional sporting franchise. she gets treated no different than the roony's or the al davis's or the young guns like the snyders or the jones's. and if she can't take the anger, sarcasm, parody or verbal barbs, or her family can't bear to see her take it, then get her out completely in ANY decision making that relates to this franchise or the way professional football is operated. things i won't do and find appalling: 1. i never have (or hope i haven't) ever suggested or wished for real, serious, physical harm or death to anyone or their families, pets or friends for any reason related to sports. 2. i never take shots at someones specific family or children when they themselves are not personally involved or have ever been involved in sports or sporting decisions. 3. i never take shots at anyone involving their real life handicap, religion, race or creed. real life morons, imbeciles, and idiots think like this and i strive hard not to be one. WARNING!! unless you live in raccoon city you really don't have to stock up on ammunition and build bomb shelters on this posters say-so. ALL of this posters comments relate exclusively to sports and there is no intent, real or imagined, to bring fear into the readers lives.

ok, gotcha. just a sport. wheww, thanks. are you upset that i "insulted" an 87 year old woman who puts her mark on this franchises health and future direction by the decisions she makes or upset that i "insulted" george halas's daughter? WARNING!! unless you live in raccoon city you really don't have to stock up on ammunition and build bomb shelters on this posters say-so. ALL of this posters comments relate exclusively to sports and there is no intent, real or imagined, to bring fear into the readers lives.

hahahhahahahaha dude you really are delusional or is it just you will grasp at any straw no matter how finitely small to prove you are never wrong? alright let's go with that. ginny and mike have no opinion one way or the other on one of the most important decisions that can be made in a sporting franchise and leave it up to their accountant to figure out. now that i've seen it in that light it makes perfect sense to me. sure i believe you. you walk up to your boss and tell him you are thinking of firing the entire staff, in a department you know absolutely nothing about, and he says "let me know when you make the final decision and i'll have their checks ready if you fire them all". sure it's possible. that is why he SPECIFICALLY stated each individual by name or SPECIFICALLY stated the board decided thus or... oh wait... he didn't do any of that. but it is possible the president of a billion dollar corporation just doesn't know how to convey critical information to not only his subordinates but to the media HE called to announce it. leap? forget your draft fobias for a moment and think about it. is it a sure lock positive mikey is involved like i stated? no. but it sure is a very possible probability and until i hear it spelled out differently from the person who stated it or proven by other reliable source/s, other than you, to be wrong i can only take him at his spoken word and use plain common sense to govern the outcome of my conclusions.

didn't you just tell me in a previous post a few weeks ago that you would be afraid/concerned if we fired ted phillips, like i suggested, because mikey might step in and be involved in management again so you were against it? yet now we hear that mikey and not the board, not the mccaskey consensus of family members voting on propositions, nobody else except ginny and mikey actually had the final say in the discussions according to phillips himself? that means every major decision made is in those two's hands exclusively if teddy is to be believed. like whether or not to hire a new president and who? this seems to come with complete control over every major decision he makes. like complete control over what the supposed gm does in his capacity like hiring and firing coaches or even player acquisition? who our scouts are and how many we employ? isn't THIS the entire football operations portion of a franchise and is it not actually controlled by mike mccaskey whether he sits in the freaking control room draft day or not?? all phillips appears to be is a shield for the mccaskey family. same with angelo. they take the heat and the slings and arrows that mikey and the mummy would get if major decisions turn bad and fall flat. no wonder teddy is such an important cog in their machine. he does the dirty work.

to all those who thought mikey was just the gardener the truth will set you free... who teddy, angelo AND lovie are really accountable to: a 1000 year old unwrapped mummy and mike mccaskey. it really is business as usual and has been since phillips took over.