So Should Ralph be happy?

[Mr. WEO]

"Pretty smart?" LOL! Yeah, that potential lockout in 2011 looks REAL smart. In face of the 13 years of true "labor peace" prior to 2006.

 

I already told you that they agreed to the CBA because the big 3 didn't want to have to cut players after the NFLPA refused to move the FA period back a 3rd time. What was actually "smart" was the players getting a 4.5% raise AND telling the larger markets to subsidize the smaller ones.

 

Speaking of which, take a look at NFL team payrolls pre-2006 to those over the past 4 years (http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005). Even if you factor-in the increase in revenue from the TV contracts, it's not even debatable that they saw a raise in pay.

 

You're a one man band here, doc. I'd dare you to find someone, ANYONE, who makes the absurd claim that that 2006 CBA was even a fair deal...for the owners.

Yes, and the NFLPA agreed to the FA period after the owners told them they were going to "get" 59.5% of revenue----which has STILL never happened.

 

Why? because teams aren't spending all that money on players salaries! Two years after the CBA, there is this (yahoo.sports):

 

(I've highlighted the parts you're having trouble with)

 

Though a quarter or more of that collective money will be used to sign rookies after the draft in April, teams still figure to have around $360 million in remaining salary cap space going into the 2008 season. Barring unilateral raises for all players, much of that money will go unspent.

 

 

“There’s nothing left to buy in free agency,” one agent said. “The market is just about dead now. Yeah, you have the rookies, but that’s not the big deal that everybody makes it out to be. A couple of guys get huge deals, but everything else is slotted.

 

 

“Really, the way the cap is now, teams don’t have to sweat the cap. There’s a ton of money out there to spend, but they’re not spending. It’s not like five or six years ago.”

 

 

While several teams figure to start the ’08 season well under the $116.2 million cap, the available room will decrease significantly. From year to year, teams are required to spend a designated percentage amount of the cap. Last year, the salary floor was $81.75 million with the cap being $109 million. This year, the floor percentage has increased to 86.4, forcing teams to spend at least $100 million.

 

 

Since teams have so much money, some agents believe that more veteran players will seek to renegotiate their contracts. New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress, for example, is making $3 million a year for the next three seasons, but is hoping to get a raise after his impressive 2007 season. Likewise, Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora has been hinting at a raise, although he has five years left on his contract.

 

 

The massive amount of money remaining around the league comes despite a flurry of rich contracts, including some unexpected ones. For instance, Oakland gave wide receiver Javon Walker a reported six-year, $50 million contract which included an $11 million signing bonus despite the fact that Walker was hurt last season and has missed 23 of 48 games over the past three seasons.

 

 

The Jets, who also signed the likes of Pro Bowl guard Alan Faneca and fullback Tony Richardson, have committed approximately $150 million in contracts so far, including $80 million in guarantees.

 

 

Still, those and many other contracts have barely scratched the surface of the extended cap. Fact is: Player salaries are not keeping pace with the expansion of the salary cap. The unspent capital figures will only get worse next year as teams find ways to carryover unused cap money from year to year.

 

 

A prime example of that is the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who sit atop the list of unused cap money with more than $42 million to spend. The Buccaneers have added a number of veterans – cornerback Sammy Davis, linebacker Teddy Lehman, and defensive end Jimmy Wilkerson among others – but have yet to make any big-splash signings. And at this point, there’s no way to spend anything close to that in real dollars.

 

As for your payroll citation---better take a closer look. The "big 3" were spending as follows:

 

NE 2005: 94M

NE 2009: 97M

Wash 2005: 66M (117M in 2004, chief)

Wash 2009: 105M

Dallas 2005: 82M

Dallas 2009: 90M

 

So it looks like the CBA had little impact on the expenditures of these teams based on the data you provided. Aren't they busy ruining the league?

[Doc]

Yes, and the NFLPA agreed to the FA period after the owners told them they were going to "get" 59.5% of revenue----which has STILL never happened.

 

Why? because teams aren't spending all that money on players salaries! Two years after the CBA, there is this (yahoo.sports):

 

(I've highlighted the parts you're having trouble with)

 

As for your payroll citation---better take a closer look. The "big 3" were spending as follows:

 

NE 2005: 94M

NE 2009: 97M

Wash 2005: 66M (117M in 2004, chief)

Wash 2009: 105M

Dallas 2005: 82M

Dallas 2009: 90M

 

So it looks like the CBA had little impact on the expenditures of these teams based on the data you provided. Aren't they busy ruining the league?

Where you're having trouble is assuming that every team spent to the salary cap every year prior to 2006. They didn't. In 2005, 24 teams spent less than the $85.5M salary cap. The article you linked could have just as easily been written about 2005, with the number being something like $200M being left unspent.

 

And interesting you used just 2009 to compare with 2005. I know why.

 

And I'm still waiting on the link where someone, ANYONE, says anything positive about the 2006 CBA.

[dave mcbride]

Where you're having trouble is assuming that every team spent to the salary cap every year prior to 2006. They didn't. In 2005, 24 teams spent less than the $85.5M salary cap. The article you linked could have just as easily been written about 2005, with the number being something like $200M being left unspent.

 

And interesting you used just 2009 to compare with 2005. I know why.

 

And I'm still waiting on the link where someone, ANYONE, says anything positive about the 2006 CBA.

I don't know what the problem with the 2006 CBA was, honestly. On balance, everyone made a lot of money -- the players, the owners, the networks -- and the league remained at a reasonable competitive equilibrium despite the ever increasing disparity in stadium revenues. I suspect that it'll be difficult finding links celebrating the CBA's success because the press typically shies away from writing sports business stories that aren't conflictual. It's a boring story, and therefore not really "news." As for the owners' desire to obtain a bigger slice of the pie next time 'round, well, I've never had much sympathy for the plutocrat class. Frankly, I could care less about the state of their various fortunes. I'm also unsure why I should care about how much teams spent one year versus the next. They still made very healthy profits in the late 2000s. I mean, why begrudge the players a raise? They're the only reason you're on this board -- not the owners.

 

EDIT - I certainly don't agree with some of the specifics here, but in the larger sense Whitlock is right:

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/talk-of...is-pure-madness

[K-9]

I don't know what the problem with the 2006 CBA was, honestly. On balance, everyone made a lot of money -- the players, the owners, the networks -- and the league remained at a reasonable competitive equilibrium despite the ever increasing disparity in stadium revenues. I suspect that it'll be difficult finding links celebrating the CBA's success because the press typically shies away from writing sports business stories that aren't conflictual. It's a boring story, and therefore not really "news." As for the owners' desire to obtain a bigger slice of the pie next time 'round, well, I've never had much sympathy for the plutocrat class. Frankly, I could care less about the state of their various fortunes. I'm also unsure why I should care about how much teams spent one year versus the next. They still made very healthy profits in the late 2000s. I mean, why begrudge the players a raise? They're the only reason you're on this board -- not the owners.

 

EDIT - I certainly don't agree with some of the specifics here, but in the larger sense Whitlock is right:

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/talk-of...is-pure-madness

 

So, if I read his words correctly the TV deal pays the owners even in the event of a lockout in 2011? Seems like a TON of incentive for the owners to have a lockout. And Whitlock seems to contradict himself by suggesting that the NFL is SO popular yet would fall on its face if there were a lockout. The historical evidence of previous NFL work stoppages suggests otherwise as well. What, Manning and all the other great QBs aren't going to be as compelling in 2012? There won't be other star QBs like Rivers, Brees, etc. to carry on? God, how did the league survive when the great class of '83 QBs all retired?

 

If each team is going to get its 100 million dollar plus in TV revenue share in 2011 and not have to pay 60% of it to players well even the big boys in addition to cheap ole RW could appreciate the sudden margin. And while I fully expect it NOT to come down to a lockout and the players to capitulate on several issues, that fact is just too important to ignore. The owners can afford it.

 

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Mr. WEO]

Where you're having trouble is assuming that every team spent to the salary cap every year prior to 2006. They didn't. In 2005, 24 teams spent less than the $85.5M salary cap. The article you linked could have just as easily been written about 2005, with the number being something like $200M being left unspent.

 

And interesting you used just 2009 to compare with 2005. I know why.

 

And I'm still waiting on the link where someone, ANYONE, says anything positive about the 2006 CBA.

You're the one that put that page up as proof that salaries were continuously going up. I pointed out that this was clearly not true. Pick '08--the Pats spent less than '04. So did the skins. All 3 spent more in '06 but then spent less by '09--the highest cap year to date.

 

If the article I linked could have written before the CBA then it's hard to argue that the CBA made it more difficult for the teams to make money. All it proves is that there is only a pay raise for a select few players and even then at the discretion of the owners.

 

I don't know what the problem with the 2006 CBA was, honestly. On balance, everyone made a lot of money -- the players, the owners, the networks -- and the league remained at a reasonable competitive equilibrium despite the ever increasing disparity in stadium revenues. I suspect that it'll be difficult finding links celebrating the CBA's success because the press typically shies away from writing sports business stories that aren't conflictual. It's a boring story, and therefore not really "news." As for the owners' desire to obtain a bigger slice of the pie next time 'round, well, I've never had much sympathy for the plutocrat class. Frankly, I could care less about the state of their various fortunes. I'm also unsure why I should care about how much teams spent one year versus the next. They still made very healthy profits in the late 2000s. I mean, why begrudge the players a raise? They're the only reason you're on this board -- not the owners.

 

EDIT - I certainly don't agree with some of the specifics here, but in the larger sense Whitlock is right:

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/talk-of...is-pure-madness

Well put, Dave. None of this is too hard to envision, but it's not as simple as some here would force themselves to believe. These are businessmen making business decisions. I've seen no concrete explanation as to how the owners were damaged (raped, robbed, etc) by the CBA. Nothing. Their actions have proven wildly successful and shrewd. The game's popularity and its profits are at a peak. It's amazing that anyone could agrue otherwise.

 

Whitlock is provocative, but it's an interesting read. Mostly common sense----you would think!

[Doc]

You're the one that put that page up as proof that salaries were continuously going up. I pointed out that this was clearly not true. Pick '08--the Pats spent less than '04. So did the skins. All 3 spent more in '06 but then spent less by '09--the highest cap year to date.

 

If the article I linked could have written before the CBA then it's hard to argue that the CBA made it more difficult for the teams to make money. All it proves is that there is only a pay raise for a select few players and even then at the discretion of the owners.

Game, set, match.

 

Three years ago, the owners and players union signed a CBA that [Ravens' owner Steve] Bisciotti labeled "a bad deal" for the owners.

[dave mcbride]

Game, set, match.

You're coming across as a shill for plutocrats. I suspect that's not how you actually feel.

 

As for Bisciotti:

 

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da

Pronunciation: \-prä-pə-gan-də

Function: noun

Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV †1623

Date: 1718

1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

[Doc]

You're coming across as a shill for plutocrats. I suspect that's not how you actually feel.

 

As for Bisciotti:

 

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da

Pronunciation: \-prä-pə-gan-də

Function: noun

Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV †1623

Date: 1718

1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

I'm not shilling for anyone, per se. But if creating a salary cap situation that's more favorable to the Bills and any potential future owners, my allegiance lies with the owners.

As for propaganda, I knew that would be the reply. And even if you want to doubt Bisciotti in that the owners are getting hurt, the players aren't getting hurt by having to accept less. They're far from starving.

[GrudginglyPessimistic]

I'm not shilling for anyone, per se. But if creating a salary cap situation that's more favorable to the Bills and any potential future owners, my allegiance lies with the owners.

As for propaganda, I knew that would be the reply. And even if you want to doubt Bisciotti in that the owners are getting hurt, the players aren't getting hurt by having to accept less. They're far from starving.

The fact actually is that neither the players or the owners are getting hurt by this in total. Both are making far more money under the current CBA than they did back in the mid-80s when after the owners totally kicked the NFLPA's but in the lockout dispute that year.

 

This thrashing was a necessary thing as it finally forced the players away from the old AFL-CIO method of fighting and negotiating with the owners as opponents and instead threaten to decertify the NFLPA as their bargaining agent.

 

Such a surrender would have denied the individual owners their collaborator in the conspiracy to restrain individual player rights through things like the draft.

 

Once longer term labor peace was established and the networks felt secure enough in provision of a product for a longer term they rolled their armored car up to the teams and unloaded tons of cash,

 

The current CBA definitely cuts the owners off from the hegemony they had over the players demonstrated in the mid 80s lockout and their setting up a designated gross receipts catch to the initial new CBA.

 

However, though the owners gave up old rights big time they voted to do this because the current CBA delivers them more cash than they could have imagined coming from ownership of an NFL team 20 years ago.

 

No body got raped as this is a forced sex act. This clearly is consensual sex which even if gets a little rough everybody involved should be enjoying it. Neither the players nor the owners deserve any sympathy. Nor does either deserve any loyalty from anyone their not sharing a check with.

[Mr. WEO]

Game, set, match.

The owner's GM seems to disagree with his boss's histrionic ranting (except for the last bit about profit):

 

Ravens president Dick Cass said the club is "doing well compared to other teams around the league. But just because we're still doing well in revenues, that doesn't mean we're generating a lot of profit."

 

Since the CBA, Bisciotti has banked $68 million---not including last season's take. His team is in the top 10 in revenue every year. The estimated value of his team has increased by $133 million---in 3 years. In '08 with revenues of 240m, his payroll was 90m, second lowest in the league (per your previous link). Yet you find him credible. Then again, you find Ralph credible when he tells the world how hard it is for him to make a dime with the Bills in Buffalo.

 

As Dave says--this guy is spouting nothing but pure propaganda to shape the perception of the public so as to make those that are prone to such gross manipulation more sympathetic to thier position. Guess it worked, you didn't even bat an eye when he came out with that ridiculous claim---"game, set, match" Mr. Bisiotti!

 

You should really learn to recognized when someone is trying to roll you, son.

[Doc]

The owner's GM seems to disagree with his boss's histrionic ranting (except for the last bit about profit):

 

Since the CBA, Bisciotti has banked $68 million---not including last season's take. His team is in the top 10 in revenue every year. The estimated value of his team has increased by $133 million---in 3 years. In '08 with revenues of 240m, his payroll was 90m, second lowest in the league (per your previous link). Yet you find him credible. Then again, you find Ralph credible when he tells the world how hard it is for him to make a dime with the Bills in Buffalo.

 

As Dave says--this guy is spouting nothing but pure propaganda to shape the perception of the public so as to make those that are prone to such gross manipulation more sympathetic to thier position. Guess it worked, you didn't even bat an eye when he came out with that ridiculous claim---"game, set, match" Mr. Bisiotti!

 

You should really learn to recognized when someone is trying to roll you, son.

You should really learn to admit when you're wrong.

[Mr. WEO]

You should really learn to admit when you're wrong.

There's the white flag---took you a while.

 

Look, you're comfortable ignoring the data (some of which YOU provided) that clearly shows these owners are contolling their payroll, keeping tons of money from their players and making many millions in profit, despite their Ralph-cries of poverty (Mr. Wilson's Legacy!). It was dishearteningly easy to prove Mr. Bisciotti was not being very honest with you, doc.

 

Rather than thinking, I guess it is easier just to repeat the same misconceptions enslessly. Maybe you'll truly convince yourself of these things at some point.

[CountDorkula]

I have been thinking about this for awhile;(these are just rough guess-timates)

 

The NFL salary cap is $128,000,000.00

 

the average team spends about $115,000,000.00

 

32 teams in the league x32 $3,680,000,000.00 just in salary

 

The average NFL ticket is $50

 

Aveager attendance is i believe is ballpark 45,000 ( it may be higher) 45,000 X $50 =$2,250,000.000

 

8 home games per team 32 teams = $576,000,000.00

 

 

Total $$$ Just in the NFL as a business in theses areas is $4,256,000,000.00 (not adding TV Contracts, merchandise etc..)

 

I dont blame some owners for trying to drive the cost down especially with the economy as is.

 

The NFL has become gretty on all sides what 6 million a year is not good enough to live off of anymore. On the owners side Jerry Jones do you need that extra 50 million dollars?

[JohnC]

You should really learn to admit when you're wrong.

 

It is odd that true believers like you continue to buy into the impoverished claims of a low revenue club owner who has made over a quarter of Billion $$$ over the last decade (according to Forbes), the same decade that his product has been almost unbearable to watch.

 

As WEO stated he can control his costs (and he does) by manipulating his payroll downwards when he wants to squeeze more profit out of his franchise. How in the world can the CBA be so unfair and onerous to Ralph Wilson when his bottom line is envied by the larger revenue market owners?

 

The curmudgeon owner doesn't need you or anyone else to fight for his financial interests. He is a tiger when it comes to protecting his financial interests.

 

Make no mistake about my view on the CBA. There should be revenue sharing from the large revenue markets to the smaller markets for the sake of the viability of the league in general. The impetus for the opt out of the CBA comes from the higher revenue owners such as Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder. I understand why they are fighting for a greater retention of their own revenues; they are under tremendous financial pressures to pay off stadium bonds. But the old guard such as Rooney, Brown and even Wilson are on the right side when they poiint out that the success of the league is predicated on the success and viability of all the markets. If the CBA is working exceptionally well for the owners and players then why go back and reopen the issue? Sometimes it is very difficult to control one's greed, even when in the long run it can be self-destructive.

[Doc]

There's the white flag---took you a while.

 

Look, you're comfortable ignoring the data (some of which YOU provided) that clearly shows these owners are contolling their payroll, keeping tons of money from their players and making many millions in profit, despite their Ralph-cries of poverty (Mr. Wilson's Legacy!). It was dishearteningly easy to prove Mr. Bisciotti was not being very honest with you, doc.

 

Rather than thinking, I guess it is easier just to repeat the same misconceptions enslessly. Maybe you'll truly convince yourself of these things at some point.

Sigh. A lesson that has never been, and obviously never will be, learned.

 

You would think that opting-out of this supposed "great deal" after 2 years would tell you all you need to know. You would think that the owners saying it's a bad deal would tell you all you need to know. You would think that risking "labor peace" with a potential lockout when the old deal was so "great" would tell you all you need to know. But why think when you can believe what you want?

[Doc]

It is odd that true believers like you continue to buy into the impoverished claims of a low revenue club owner who has made over a quarter of Billion $$ over the last decade (according to Forbes), the same decade that his product has been almost unbearable to watch.

 

As WEO stated he can control his costs (and he does) by manipulating his payroll downwards when he wants to squeeze more profit out of his franchise. How in the world can the CBA be so unfair and onerous to Ralph Wilson when his bottom line is envied by the larger revenue market owners?

 

The curmudgeon owner doesn't need you or anyone else to fight for his financial interests. He is a tiger when it comes to protecting his financial interests.

 

Make no mistake about my view on the CBA. There should be revenue sharing from the large revenue markets to the smaller markets for the sake of the viability of the league in general. The impetus for the opt out of the CBA comes from the higher revenue owners such as Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder. I understand why they are fighting for a greater retention of their own revenues; they are under tremendous financial pressures to pay off stadium bonds. But the old guard such as Rooney, Brown and even Wilson are on the right side when they poiint out that the success of the league is predicated on the success and viability of all the markets. If the CBA is working exceptionally well for the owners and players then why go back and reopen the issue? Sometimes it is very difficult to control one's greed, even when in the long run it can be self-destructive.

This has little to do with Ralph JC, and more to do with the post-Ralph ownership. A bad CBA hurts the future of the Bills in Buffalo.

[JohnC]

This has little to do with Ralph JC, and more to do with the post-Ralph ownership. A bad CBA hurts the future of the Bills in Buffalo.

 

As I stated in my posting the impetus for the reopening of the CBA is coming from the more lucrative market owners such as Jones and Snyder. You may have misread my comments but I do acknowledge that Ralph Wilson is on the right side of the issue. Any league issue which comes up is going to have implications for the next owner for the simple fact that the owner is 91 yrs old and the next owner will have debt issue to contend with.

 

The existential issue that the commissioner has to address is whether he is going to allow the big market owners to devolve the league into separate franchise entities resulting in them keeping more of their revenues or is the commissioner going to be strong enough to fend off the muscle owners like (Jones, Snyder) and continue with a system where the big money owners share some of their revenues with the lower tier markets. The issue comes down to the short term greed of the big markets in the long run damaging the league in general. Money vs wisdom comes down to short term vs long term viability.

[K-9]

As I stated in my posting the impetus for the reopening of the CBA is coming from the more lucrative market owners such as Jones and Snyder. You may have misread my comments but I do acknowledge that Ralph Wilson is on the right side of the issue. Any league issue which comes up is going to have implications for the next owner for the simple fact that the owner is 91 yrs old and the next owner will have debt issue to contend with.

 

The existential issue that the commissioner has to address is whether he is going to allow the big market owners to devolve the league into separate franchise entities resulting in them keeping more of their revenues or is the commissioner going to be strong enough to fend off the muscle owners like (Jones, Snyder) and continue with a system where the big money owners share some of their revenues with the lower tier markets. The issue comes down to the short term greed of the big markets in the long run damaging the league in general. Money vs wisdom comes down to short term vs long term viability.

 

Very well stated.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Mr. WEO]

As I stated in my posting the impetus for the reopening of the CBA is coming from the more lucrative market owners such as Jones and Snyder. You may have misread my comments but I do acknowledge that Ralph Wilson is on the right side of the issue. Any league issue which comes up is going to have implications for the next owner for the simple fact that the owner is 91 yrs old and the next owner will have debt issue to contend with.

 

The existential issue that the commissioner has to address is whether he is going to allow the big market owners to devolve the league into separate franchise entities resulting in them keeping more of their revenues or is the commissioner going to be strong enough to fend off the muscle owners like (Jones, Snyder) and continue with a system where the big money owners share some of their revenues with the lower tier markets. The issue comes down to the short term greed of the big markets in the long run damaging the league in general. Money vs wisdom comes down to short term vs long term viability.

You are correct--the League's success is dependent on revenue sharing. All owners realize this, not just those addicted to it. But clearly guys making the big revenue (and the big investments) look at guys like Ralph, who they see as doing nothing to improve his revenue, with NO financial risk, living fat off the national popularity of the League that these guys have ben responsible for over the past decade. This is the disparity that they see.

 

The CBA of 2006, in fact (and clearly this was misunderstood by poor old Ralph) provided the greatest revenue sharing deal ever. It significantly increased the pool of extra money---by 5-fold. And "muscle owners" WERE muscled into the deal by Tags and other owners like Kraft, Johnson and the Rooneys.

[JohnC]

You are correct--the League's success is dependent on revenue sharing. All owners realize this, not just those addicted to it. But clearly guys making the big revenue (and the big investments) look at guys like Ralph, who they see as doing nothing to improve his revenue, with NO financial risk, living fat off the national popularity of the League that these guys have ben responsible for over the past decade. This is the disparity that they see.

 

The CBA of 2006, in fact (and clearly this was misunderstood by poor old Ralph) provided the greatest revenue sharing deal ever. It significantly increased the pool of extra money---by 5-fold. And "muscle owners" WERE muscled into the deal by Tags and other owners like Kraft, Johnson and the Rooneys.

 

You certainly know my harsh views on Ralph Wilson. I understand why they (the muscle owners) feel hustled by Ralph. They worked to generate new revenue streams and then (were coerced ) shared a portion of their proceeds for the sake of the general good. So what does the aged owner of the Bills do? He pockets a large chunk of it instead of investing in his own franchise. At an owners' meeting Daniel Snyder pointedly asked why he didn't sell the naming rights and get additional revenue for those rights? The Bills' owner stated that he didn't want to do it. And that is that.

 

Over the past decade the Bills have been a very bad team. Over the same period of time (according to Forbes) the owner made a quarter of a Billion $$. Don't you think that the owners who are sharing their proceeds with the lower revenue markets feel that they are being taken advantage of? It would be interesting to find out what Ralph did with the Toronto heist of $78 millilon. He certainly didn't it use it to upgrade the roster. I guess he is outfitted with pants with very large pockets.

 

As I and others have stated the reopening of the CBA has more to do with the internal dispute and dynamics among the owners. Ralph Wilson didn't help the cause of his lower market teams with the way he has squeezed the franchise (piggy bank) at the expense of being competitive. As I have previously stated Ralph is on the right side of the revenue sharing issue. But on the other hand by his avaricious behavior he has undercut the very basis for the sharing of revenue.