Doc
-
Posts
66,107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Doc
-
-
The ONLY reason that the Bills were not mentioned in that article is because AIG was contacting teams now about a sale now. The Bills are not for sale at all now because of Ralph. I'm sure they contacted the Bills and were told the Bills are not for sale. That is why they are not a candidate now. Nothing has changed in that regard.
None of the other teams mentioned look to be for sale either. The Bills weren't mentioned because they are happy where they are. Not so of the other teams mentioned.
That said, I don't expect the Bills to relocate at all after Ralph passes, to LA or Toronto or anywhere else.I agree.
-
And football may or may not have been the most popular professional sport in the late 80's, but the TV contracts were a small fraction of what they would become over the next 20 years. They went from less than 500 mil per year to over 3 billion a year in that time frame. That's a reflection of the exponential increase in the popularity of the league from the late 80's to 2006. That explosion in popularity had little to do with Hunt (a billionaire) and Wilson (a multi-millionaire son of a rich man). It was due to the increased national popularity of teams like the 49ers, the Cowboys, the Steelers, the Colts (new owner since 97) and the Patriots--teams with "new breed" owners, excepting the Steelers.
The league's popularity derived primarily from the salary cap and revenue sharing (thanks to Wellington Mara, as old guard as you can get) and the feeling that the playing field was level, with no team being able to outspend another, as had been the case beforehand. The explosion in TV money was due to that popularity and Fox entering the picture, which created a scarcity for the NFL product, which led to bidding wars in subsequent contract negotiations, which led to the league selling itself to the networks. This was set in motion mostly by the old guard of owners.
The teams/owners responsible for making the league popular were secondary, but if we are to talk about them, the early 90's Bills teams were immensely popular and had a large hand in the league's popularity, far more than you fancy the Patriots did in the mid-90's (by the time the Pats started winning SB's in the 2000's, the league had long-since been established as the premier pro sports league). The 49'ers were basically only good under Eddie DeBartolo, an old guard owner. And Jim Irsay essentially inherited the team from his billionaire dad, which makes him more old guard than new. The only true new guard owner whose team helped make the league popular (talking about the formative years) was Jones.
-
A warrant affidavit is usually written by a police officer. If this is the case, that is proper terminology for what you did.
What I did???????? You are really not getting the point here.
He meant "what you allegedly did," and the officer wrote the report in officer-speak based on what the (again, alleged) witnesses told her.
-
Barry's been such a horror show so far, I'd take any of them over voting for that charlatan again. Could things get worse? Possibly. But at this point, I'm willing to take the chance.
-
Might as well start another war.
-
I think Warner is wrong. What do the team owners bring or add to the pro football product?
It used to be that businessmen like Mr. Ralph were the only ones with either capital or the cajones to risk there money. They proved their point and were richly compensated for their original risk, In fact the last few years after the players forced the owners to essentially accept them as partners with the CBA forced upon the owners after the last lockout has brought them even more money.
Warner us right that the players got a great deal in the last negotiation, they essentially not only were recognized as partners but arguably the majority partners as the deal gave them a majority of the total receipts.
The owners caved rather than compete against each other in a free market.
By locking out the players and being sued by Brady et al. the owners have allowed a lawsuit by individuals asserting that they be allowed to compete in the free market for personal service contracts. In general, I support free market approaches like this rather than the social compact of the team owners. I think by holding the free market line the players can force a reconfiguration of pro football which essentially cuts out the economic inefficiency and drag of the owners. Not only are their ample sources of capital from the networks, other rich investors (even lowly Buffalo has three options with the assets Pegula, Golisano, or the Jacobs family), municipal areas following the Packers model, perhaps the players themselves pooling assets or something else I have not thought of.
The Packers model also demonstrates that the management of the team needed and provided by the Halas's, Mara's and Rooneys can also be replaced.
I think the situation is clear, if the players were to win their lawsuit there is pro football again. If the owners win their lawsuit there is a lockout and labor struggle. How can any fan be against there being football beside some weird doctrinal beliefs which trumps their desire for the game.
I think the players are moving slowly as they rather would not kill the teams writing them big checks. However, the team owners need to be replaced as they are not the product the players are the game.
The reality is that the players are wholly replaceable. Players (great, good, mediocre, and bad) come and go, and the games still march on. And when you get down to it, fans ultimately want to see their team win, no matter how it happens and regardless of whether their superstar(s) play(s) well.
Sure the league sells itself now and owners can be replaced, just like in other established businesses. But that's neither here nor there.
And the players have other options to pursue to play professional football. There is the UFL. There is the CFL. There is even the AFL. At no time were players promised to only play for just the NFL, or even be guaranteed a certain level of compensation.
-
Warner is right. The players did get a really good financial deal the last time and need to pull back a little bit.
-
So, in your fantasy world The Senator is the only one with a lightspeed car? In my practical world I assume that the cops had them first.
Thanks to Obama's auto industry bailout.
<_< -
This is like UBL all over again. The previous administration starts the process, Barry climbs aboard later and claims full credit for it.
-
You are one of those Bills fans that think that any Bills player that has never played a down should be in the hall of fame. Like those that think Jasper will be starting mid way into the season. Where does the idiocy come from?
I dunno. Where does the dickheadedness come from?
-
Excellent illustration of the double standard here.
What was Craig's crime again?
-
Ralphie and Mike Brown of the Bengals stand alone as the NFL's Cheapies, head and shoulders above anyone else. But in their favor though, they were the only two owners that voted against the CBA that expired, of which a few years later just about every owner agreed that it wasn't a good agreement for them and opted to take the out clause on it. I guess the moral of the story is, if you want to make money take advice from the cheapest people on the block, since that is what they are all about.
-
Congrats to Rafa Nadal on his sixth French Open championship in seven years. The only other to win this many French Opens by age 25 was the great Bjorn Borg, BUT, Rafa would have most certainly had seven had he not gone down to injury in 2009. Federer can thank his lucky stars for that injury too, cause otherwise Federer would not have been able to add the career grand slam to his resume.
Anyway, I have played tennis since age 4, and it's a sport I have loved all my life. Clay is the ultimate surface for baseliners, and this match today was an amazing display by the most dominant clay player of all time. It's not common at all to see players dominate on BOTH grass and clay, but Rafa already has two Wimbledon titles to go with his six French Open trophies. It's really very impressive, and in my opinion he's easily the greatest player alive right now.
I know there are at least a few tennis fans on here...Ramius, Lana, etc...hope you guys at least catch the highlights, cause some of these points were AMAZING.
Federer's also lucky to have played/dominated during arguably the worst era of tennis.
-
Personally, I believe that many of the staffs that disavowed the Amicus did so to cover their asses and protect themselves from the wrath of management. I think it's also possible that in some cases, ownership asked the staffs to disavow the Amicus as a litmus test for their loyalty with an implicit threat attached.
You make some good points SJBF, but again as I said, it was dumb for the coaches to file the brief, especially in favor of the players. It accomplished nothing except for likely angering their bosses.
-
Or we can cut him and he can go to the patriots like aiken
Aiken did little with Pats and even less with the Bills. His best year was 2009 and that was with Brady throwing to him, but Jones almost matched that last year as a rookie and with Fitz throwing to him.
-
Well let's see.
As was stated numerous times when the brief was filed, the dynamic for coaches is very difficult. They're caught between a rock and a hard place.
On one hand they are employees of the team. However, so are the players so in that regard, the coaches are more in the same boat as the players. It's similar to if a Hotel Owner locked out the Housekeeping staff but kept the Valet Staff employed because they had different contracts. The Valets probably sympathize more with the Housekeeping staff than they do the owner but because they are still employed and paid by the owner, they can't really publicly support the Housekeeping staff.
Many of the coaching staffs are losing money right now. The fact that the owners locked out the players means that ultimately, if there is no game, there is less or no pay for coaches. Regardless of how people want to break it down, the Owners opted out of the CBA and then locked out the players. I know there are extenuating circumstances but these are the simple facts. Given those facts, who are the coaches more likely to support (even if secretly)?
Finally, only Head Coaches have guaranteed contracts. Most coaches (I remember talking to Bruce DeHaven about this) are vagabonds or "cowboys" as he put it. They rarely stay long in one place, they have very little job security, and most of them work long hours for marginal pay. I know that many coaches hope to see the day when their profession is unionized. However organizing a union shop where one does not exist is a very challenging task. Many owners of big businesses are anti-union and are hostile to efforts to organize. Coaches already have very shaky job security. Publicly supporting unions or efforts to unionize only make their jobs that much less secure.
If you're caught between a rock and a hard place, the best option is to remain silent unless forced to talk, which I doubt was the case. It was stupid for them to throw their support behind the players because it looks bad politically (i.e. to their bosses) and realistically it does nothing to settle the matter since it's a fight between the owners and players.
The players could end this today by accepting the owners' last offer. Or they could look elsewhere for employment. Nowhere were they guaranteed to a) keep making a greater percentage of total revenues OR b) play in the NFL. And it's not like they're being forced to accept anything close to unfair wages.
And finally, as you said, only HC's have guaranteed contracts. You would think that they'd be the ones less likely to support the Amicus brief, not the assistants like Modkins, who don't have guaranteed contracts and who will see their pay reduced. And I don't think it says anything that Modkins was the guy to come out against the brief and I doubt he broke ranks with Gailey to do so.
-
Why would the coaches side with anyone, much less the players?
-
The P.I. idea is good advice. I am trying to gather resources. And I wrote a letter to the mayor.
Dear sir,
I met you last year at a press conference and Friends of Barton Springs pool cleaning event. I was volunteering that day, the same day the president was in town, a busy day for you. I spend most of my time as a Florida newspaper reporter. I am in Austin again researching and planning to start a hosteling facility here. On Tuesday April 13th, I was arrested at Zilker Park, and charged with Indecent Exposure. I am completely innocent of this charge. Because I wasn't missing, and because of a ridiculously high bond, I spent 34 days in your jail before I managed to bond out. It was only then I was able to see the full report of my accusers and arresting officer. I have yet to stand before a judge. My accusers have fabricated a horrible story. And yet, there is no evidence. No video, no pictures, and no collaborating witnesses. It is a complete lie. Broad daylight with 30 or so people around, yet only these two people seemed to have noticed this event they describe. The female arresting officer, made no sincere investigation about the allegation, but only assumed the complaint was true. Anyone who knows me, knows it is not true. While in jail I was encouraged to take a plea deal several times. I won't do that. So what I want to know is, is this how you treat tourists, entrepreneurs, and parents of local college students? Is this a way to treat someone who has have spent thousands of dollars in your city in the past year. And someone looking to start a business that will bring tax revenue? My daughter is taking a 4.0 into her sophomore year at Concordia. I don't see how I can ever visit her here again. This is either a complete breakdown and failure of your legal system, or absolute corruption. One of the main things international travelers assure me that they are concerned about while in the U.S. is safety. I could not not say that Austin is a safe place to be. Two people falsely accused me of something no one else or evidence could validate. Your police didn't care to do anything but make an arrest. Your courts are not looking for justice, only a conviction as a resolution. And it is an awful thing to stand accused of. Just saying you didn't do it, would probably sound guilty to most jury pools in today's world. So the allegation should have been looked at more seriously by the police. And battle it I must. I must clear my name, if that is possible. This is unacceptable sir. This is an alleged sex crime. How would I be able or be allowed to continue to write stories like this one if I have lost the public trust?
http://www.sevobserver.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2104:illuminating-minds&Itemid=53
I hold you accountable as mayor to explain how someone can make up a story to the police, knowing with confidence that the police will just go with it, without question or evidence. Was this sport? Did these people just not like how I looked? Maybe your Chamber of Commerce would like to know how Austin treats visiting businessmen. Or maybe the national media would interested in the lack of due process for a journalist. Or all international travelers.
Sincerely,
JC
Can you get your editor to do a story about your plight? Bad press might get something done.
-
The Heart of Atlanta motel case isn't relevant since it wasn't forcing black people to spend their money. Much less be fined/taxed if they didn't.
The sooner SCOTUS votes against this Obamanation of a/the law the better. Playing games, indeed.
-
Glad he is going to do that after the press caught hold of this. Very big of him.
As opposed to the others who have been publicly criticized and repaid money?
-
Looks like Christie will reimburse NJ for all his trips, not just the helicopter ride: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110602/ap_on_re_us/us_christie_helicopter
Where's the outrage now?
-
LOL.....anyone who thinks Darius was a bad pick just instantly loses credibility.
Not only was he one of the best players in the draft....he also was a player at one of our most glaring needs......
PFW has lacked cred since Buschbaum died. It's stupid stuff like this that reminds me that they're still around.
-
And Von Miller was easily blocked by TE's at times in college. What does it all mean? We'll find out when they get on the field, not based on what PFW, John Fox, or Sal Sunsieri speculate.
-
I dunno. Can his sweat cure cancer?
Ralph has been Good
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
He's never spent even close to the minimum on players' salaries during the salary cap era. And as for moving, he's never gone even close to as far as Bob Kraft did with his deal with Hartford, that he backed-out on at the 11th hour.