Special K Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Plus it really isn't a free market at all. Profit sharing and a even split of TV revenue means teams aren't competing for dollars at all. Yep. The money teams make from ticket sales is a drop in the bucket compared to this money.
DanInUticaTampa Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Really, you'll have to explain yourself. I fail to understand how free market economics does not apply to the Buffalo Bills. Because you are implying that if the fans decided not to go to the games, the front office would magically spend money and sign players and coaches to become a winning team. If you think that fans protesting and not spending money would lead to a better team, then you are very much mistaking. If the fans decided not to spend money, that would just be the final nail in the coffin to move the team OUT of buffalo. THAT is how free market economics works. "you guys don't like this team? There are other cities that would love it and we make millions! later buffalo!" You saying we have a vote is laughable. By your logic, people who bought season tickets voted for gailey, edwards, and spillar and all the people that didn't buy tickets voted for something else. That is NOT how the front office makes football decisions. They don't look at how the fans spend their checkbook on them to decide what to do. And if they did, they would be even worse than we thought. If you seriously think that if the fans spent less money that they would magically make the team better, then you are very very wrong.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Because you are implying that if the fans decided not to go to the games, the front office would magically spend money and sign players and coaches to become a winning team. If you think that fans protesting and not spending money would lead to a better team, then you are very much mistaking. If the fans decided not to spend money, that would just be the final nail in the coffin to move the team OUT of buffalo. THAT is how free market economics works. "you guys don't like this team? There are other cities that would love it and we make millions! later buffalo!" You saying we have a vote is laughable. By your logic, people who bought season tickets voted for gailey, edwards, and spillar and all the people that didn't buy tickets voted for something else. That is NOT how the front office makes football decisions. They don't look at how the fans spend their checkbook on them to decide what to do. And if they did, they would be even worse than we thought. If you seriously think that if the fans spent less money that they would magically make the team better, then you are very very wrong. Stop going to games, stop buying merchandise, stop watching the games on television and ordering NFL Sunday Ticket, and YES, ABSOLUTELY, THE LEAGUE WILL NOTICE. The NFL is a very, very sophisticated enterprise. They spend millions each year just analyzing the strength and stability of their own product, including in its various franchise locations. You absolutely have a vote.
nero47 Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Do you really think it's as black and white as you make it out to be? Any financial adviser would point out a myriad of issues contributing to RW's decision making process. There's a lockout coming, estate taxes, setting up the family, et al. In the interim, maximize revenue (Toronto, raised ticket prices, etc) hype the team, and make preparations for the inevitable. Buffalo's salary will most likely decrease, like many other teams, from 2009 to 2010. Ticket prices went up, as I'm sure advertising and other revenue sources did. The Bills made 39M according to Forbes last season. Why would they spend more if the team's going to be sold? Who puts money into a car that'll be sold in short order? Fans need to face facts: the Bills aren't as interested in winning as we'd like them to be. Minnesota is one of the smaller NFL markets and has the highest dollar amount for contracts in the NFL. Don't give me that tired song and dance that Buffalo is small market and can't spend. GB spends as do other small markets. Minnesota may be a smaller market. what are their overall revenues and how much did they profit last year? If in fact they spent exhorbitantly to make that final push, good for them. As for Ralph prepaing for his estate and heirs, according to how many on this board view it, he already has his multi millions set up and should have simply sold the team in his middle to late eighties and given the funds as gifts while he could. unfortunately the longer you wait the more you become susceptible to the IRS two year rule, ( any money given as gift within two years of your death is considered transfer of wealth in anticipation of dying, even if the death is accidental. At this point if RW does not have his financial house in order with respect to his death, being cheap isn't going to help. If you don't like the product don't buy it until it improves!!!
Gugny Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Because you are implying that if the fans decided not to go to the games, the front office would magically spend money and sign players and coaches to become a winning team. If you think that fans protesting and not spending money would lead to a better team, then you are very much mistaking. If the fans decided not to spend money, that would just be the final nail in the coffin to move the team OUT of buffalo. THAT is how free market economics works. "you guys don't like this team? There are other cities that would love it and we make millions! later buffalo!" You saying we have a vote is laughable. By your logic, people who bought season tickets voted for gailey, edwards, and spillar and all the people that didn't buy tickets voted for something else. That is NOT how the front office makes football decisions. They don't look at how the fans spend their checkbook on them to decide what to do. And if they did, they would be even worse than we thought. If you seriously think that if the fans spent less money that they would magically make the team better, then you are very very wrong. I agree with this assessment. To put yet another spin on it ... if the Bills have gone 10 years since last seeing post-season, and they STILL sell out games ... the notion of the collective fanbase "getting it" and ceasing attending games/buying merchandise is far-fetched. I live 6 hours from the Ralph. If I lived 3 or less hours away, I'd have season tickets in a heartbeat.
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 In Comes Chan. He seems to have had a decent first run as head coach and build a competitive program in the ACC. So is Nix an NFL cast off for a reason? Have to disagree with this misrepresentation that Gailey "built" Georgia Tech football. Gailey had a lower winner percentage than the guy before him (.612 to .579) and lower than the guy after him (.692 to .579). Sorry. It's no mystery why no one else made Nix their GM over the years. He is a football head, sure. But, as his comment about the Raiders showed, he lacks a certain public image polish that most organizations want from the public face of their organization. His overt peevishness at the media about the head coaching search is another example.
DanInUticaTampa Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) Stop going to games, stop buying merchandise, stop watching the games on television and ordering NFL Sunday Ticket, and YES, ABSOLUTELY, THE LEAGUE WILL NOTICE. The NFL is a very, very sophisticated enterprise. They spend millions each year just analyzing the strength and stability of their own product, including in its various franchise locations. You absolutely have a vote. A vote for what? It wouldn't be a vote to make the team better. And almost all that stuff you mention is revenue sharing, so it wouldn't even matter if every bills fan stopped. The bills would still get money. Edited August 23, 2010 by DanInUticaTampa
Coach Tuesday Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 I agree with this assessment. To put yet another spin on it ... if the Bills have gone 10 years since last seeing post-season, and they STILL sell out games ... the notion of the collective fanbase "getting it" and ceasing attending games/buying merchandise is far-fetched. I live 6 hours from the Ralph. If I lived 3 or less hours away, I'd have season tickets in a heartbeat. You have basically disproved your own point there. A vote for what? It wouldn't be a vote to make the team better. Yes, it absolutely would. I feel sorry for you that you feel so small and disenfranchised. If the NFL is doing its job (and it's been extremely successful, moreso than any other sports league), it would assess and analyze what should be waning fan interest in upstate New York. And yes, one consequence of that could be a relocation. That is definitely the risk. But again, IMO we're better off with no team than with a horrible team.
CodeMonkey Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 To put yet another spin on it ... if the Bills have gone 10 years since last seeing post-season, and they STILL sell out games ... the notion of the collective fanbase "getting it" and ceasing attending games/buying merchandise is far-fetched. I live 6 hours from the Ralph. If I lived 3 or less hours away, I'd have season tickets in a heartbeat. It would seem, based on the lack of published information by the Bills and how hard they are pushing ticket sales in the media and cold calling this year, that ticket sales are down this year. How far down is anyone's guess, but it is pretty clear that they are down. Some fans may be "getting it". But overall I agree with you. There will always be a hardcore fan base in Buffalo that will buy seasons and merchandise even if the Bills didn't smell the playoffs for the next 50 years ... just as long as they stayed in Buffalo.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 It would seem, based on the lack of published information by the Bills and how hard they are pushing ticket sales in the media and cold calling this year, that ticket sales are down this year. How far down is anyone's guess, but it is pretty clear that they are down. Some fans may be "getting it". But overall I agree with you. There will always be a hardcore fan base in Buffalo that will buy seasons and merchandise even if the Bills didn't smell the playoffs for the next 50 years ... just as long as they stayed in Buffalo. And that, right there, says it all. Perhaps Bills fans get what they deserve. If you're willing to shell out hard-earned dollars year after year for a pathetic product, you can't really complain with the results. There is no incentive for any improvement. The best you can hope for is that some madman buys the team and makes it his personal - not financial - success measurement. Barring a Mark Cuban-type maniac like that, the Bills likely will continue to suck until fan behavior changes.
CodeMonkey Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 so it wouldn't even matter if every bills fan stopped. The bills would still get money. I agree. And that may be one of the biggest problems in the NFL. There should be no profit sharing, and the TV money should either be negotiated on a individual team basis (maybe too big of a logistical headache for the networks) or divided based upon number of nationally televised games or some other measure instead of divided by 32. Merchandise deals also done on a per team basis as well. This country is capitalistic and (mainly) free market driven after all. Why not the NFL?
Lv-Bills Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Disturbing article from ESPN on the Pirates. Basically, the ownership is quite content to field miserable teams as long as they can generate the cash flow to make $20 million distributions to team owners. This really makes you think when re-reading Mark Gaughan's article about the Bills ranking dead last in 2009 cap spending and 8th from last in terms of cash outlays. From 1960 to 2010, Ralph Wilson's ownership interest in the Bills has grown by nearly 25% per year -- from $25,000 to a fair value of $900 million. This investment income far surpasses whatever current revenue is generated by big market cities from PSLs, luxury boxes, and other factors. Yet, rather than spend some of this money, the Bills -- like the Pirates -- seem content to generate profits rather than field a competitive team. Unfortunately, being from Pittsburgh, these are both of my favorite teams. The Pirates are absolutely miserable and they are the joke of the league and the city of Pittsburgh. They have the nicest stadium in Major League Baseball and supposedly that would generate revenue to raise their payroll. Since PNC was built the payroll has shrunk yearly, and is now the lowest in Major League Baseball. Much like the Bills, the Pirates let go of every good player they have instead of adding to a "Core" group of guys when it's time to pay them. AKA, Jason Bay, Freddie Sanchez, Aramis Ramirez, Jose Bautista, Jack Wilson just to name a few. The Bills with Pat Williams, Antoine WInfield, Nate Clements, Jason Peters, etc.... It goes on year after year after year. Neither franchise ever hires a coaching staff worth damn. The Pirates have sunk into absolute apathy. To go to a Pirate game, one must endure countless circus type promotions to get anyone there. The fact that Bob Nutting has a a failing newspaper and resort (Seven Springs) to support, he does by taking money from the Pirates. The Pirates are a miserable franchise. Period. And unfortunately, and I've said this many times, the Bills are headed the same way. It's funny that the very very very very, few apoogists the Pirates have, they sound the same way that the less number of apologists the Bills are having defend them. Most of which are on this board. Lastly, now the Pirates, after sucking for 18 years and counting, are blaming attendance revenue as to why they can't raise payroll. Soon, the Bills will say the same thing, because you can bet your ass that the Ralph won't be filled at the end of the year if the Bills start slow, which the most certainly will. The Pirates are a joke. The Bills are pretty much almost a complete joke as well.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 I agree. And that may be one of the biggest problems in the NFL. There should be no profit sharing, and the TV money should either be negotiated on a individual team basis (maybe too big of a logistical headache for the networks) or divided based upon number of nationally televised games or some other measure instead of divided by 32. Merchandise deals also done on a per team basis as well. This country is capitalistic and (mainly) free market driven after all. Why not the NFL? That is certainly Jerry Jones' argument. The counter-argument - which I ascribe to - is that revenue sharing expands the overall size of the pie, so Jerry's slice, albeit a smaller slice of a larger pie - is bigger than what the free market would have provided. But you need to make sure you maintain incentives for the small market teams to attempt to grow the pie. Salary floors are one way. So is putting a limit on the amount of shared revenue, and the sources.
DanInUticaTampa Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) Yes, it absolutely would. I feel sorry for you that you feel so small and disenfranchised. If the NFL is doing its job (and it's been extremely successful, moreso than any other sports league), it would assess and analyze what should be waning fan interest in upstate New York. And yes, one consequence of that could be a relocation. That is definitely the risk. But again, IMO we're better off with no team than with a horrible team. This is just insane. You really think how fans spend money affects the front office? The bucs are looking at mostly a blackout season. That must mean the front office is going to go out and fire the entire coaching staff, get all new players, right? The Jags are having the same problems selling tickets. That must mean they are going to be SO much better! The chargers.... fans aren't buying tickets, so that must mean AJ Smith is going to buckle down and sign mcniel to anything he wants! If only we stopped buy tickets like the chargers fans did when we were trying to sign peters.... maybe our front office would have showed peters the money that mcneil is gettign from aj smith right now! I don't know what world you live in where football decisions are made based on fan spending. Even when we had sell out crowds (so the fans are voting yes for jauron!) The front office fired jauron....mid season! WTF! Did the front office not get our votes? We were selling out the stadium! our votes were saying we LOVED jauron! why would they fire him if we were "voting" yes for jauron by spending money!??!?!? Do you not see how flawed your logic is? It doesn't matter whether we spent a ton of money or no money; Levy would have still picked whitner over nagata, signed Dockery and walker, and have us stuck with a crappy team being coached by jauron. Edited August 23, 2010 by DanInUticaTampa
LABills08 Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Disturbing article from ESPN on the Pirates. Basically, the ownership is quite content to field miserable teams as long as they can generate the cash flow to make $20 million distributions to team owners. This really makes you think when re-reading Mark Gaughan's article about the Bills ranking dead last in 2009 cap spending and 8th from last in terms of cash outlays. From 1960 to 2010, Ralph Wilson's ownership interest in the Bills has grown by nearly 25% per year -- from $25,000 to a fair value of $900 million. This investment income far surpasses whatever current revenue is generated by big market cities from PSLs, luxury boxes, and other factors. Yet, rather than spend some of this money, the Bills -- like the Pirates -- seem content to generate profits rather than field a competitive team. I'm of the minority who doesn't think Wilson deserves any of the accolades the city of Buffalo gives to him. He hides behind the economic hardship of the city in order to pocket a LOT of money. I'm not saying that owning a franchise isn't a business, it certainly is, but part of running a business is putting out a solid product, not scamming your consumers. Wilson tiptoes a fine line between running a small market team and screwing over the fan base.
Coach Tuesday Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 This is just insane. You really think how fans spend money affects the front office? The bucs are looking at mostly a blackout season. That must mean the front office is going to go out and fire the entire coaching staff, get all new players, right? The Jags are having the same problems selling tickets. That must mean they are going to be SO much better! The chargers.... fans aren't buying tickets, so that must mean AJ Smith is going to buckle down and sign mcniel to anything he wants! If only we stopped buy tickets like the chargers fans did when we were trying to sign peters.... maybe our front office would have showed peters the money that mcneil is gettign from aj smith right now! I don't know what world you live in where football decisions are made based on fan spending. Even when we had sell out crowds (so the fans are voting yes for jauron!) The front office fired jauron....mid season! WTF! Did the front office not get our votes? We were selling out the stadium! our votes were saying we LOVED jauron! why would they fire him if we were "voting" yes for jauron by spending money!??!?!? Do you not see how flawed your logic is? It doesn't matter whether we spent a ton of money or no money; Levy would have still picked whitner over nagata, signed Dockery and walker, and have us stuck with a crappy team. Look, I'm obviously not going to be able to convince you. And you seem to be one of those Bills fans who deserves exactly what you get. The Jags and Chargers are both in danger of moving, and both sets of ownership have attempted to address the problem, in part, by a focus on the product (in very different ways). Both examples show that fan pressure does produce results, in different ways. NFL franchises are not, as you suggest, completely immune to the market. It's just a nonsensical notion.
Thurman#1 Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) Just to be clear: reading about the Pirates makes one think about the similarities to the Bills. Often, critics say things like "the owners don't care about fielding a competitive team as long as the franchise meets its profitability targets." Most true fans scoff at the notion, refusing to believe that the ownership could behave in such a cold, calculated way. Well, here's some tangible, straightforward evidence that the Pirates place dividends ahead of competitiveness. Thinking about the Bills' cash management practices (emphasis over cash-to-cap, refusal to pay signing bonuses, avoidance of cash-rich long-term deals, does anyone really doubt that the Bills' finance department manages team expenses with the aim of ensuring members of the Wilson family get their dividends? It's not that they wouldn't love to see the Bills succeed. This isn't sabotage. It's just that success has to come in the context of meeting the operating profit (which, with no debt is basically pre-tax profit) targets. Actually, if you had read the article carefully, it's anything but proof. And the article says so. It proves that they made a profit for two years. It doesn't prove why. It doesn't prove that they won't spend more in the future. It doesn't prove that they don't have some kind of plan for being better, and it specifically says that several of the better teams in MLB are spending relatively little money and relying on good scouting and young players. But if you're saying that teams want to make a profit, let me just say one thing. DUH! Any business does. The reason they want to make a profit is because they're not complete idiots. Only a complete idiot would invest huge amounts of their personal fortune in a business and not expect it to make a profit. Any owner could sell his team today and invest in something that would bring him 5 - 10% profit. Why wouldn't he do that, unless his investment (and that's what a team is to these guys) is making him money. The guys who spend a ton, Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones, they make profits each year from their teams that Mr. Wilson can only dream of, and that's AFTER all the extra money they spend on signing bonuses and so on. The reason they can do that is because they are systematically raising their prices, gouging people on luxury boxes and charging personal seat licenses and so on. They do that simply because in their markets, they can. They make huge profits. Edited August 23, 2010 by Thurman#1
dhg Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 This is just insane. You really think how fans spend money affects the front office? The bucs are looking at mostly a blackout season. That must mean the front office is going to go out and fire the entire coaching staff, get all new players, right? The Jags are having the same problems selling tickets. That must mean they are going to be SO much better! The chargers.... fans aren't buying tickets, so that must mean AJ Smith is going to buckle down and sign mcniel to anything he wants! If only we stopped buy tickets like the chargers fans did when we were trying to sign peters.... maybe our front office would have showed peters the money that mcneil is gettign from aj smith right now! I don't know what world you live in where football decisions are made based on fan spending. Even when we had sell out crowds (so the fans are voting yes for jauron!) The front office fired jauron....mid season! WTF! Did the front office not get our votes? We were selling out the stadium! our votes were saying we LOVED jauron! why would they fire him if we were "voting" yes for jauron by spending money!??!?!? Do you not see how flawed your logic is? It doesn't matter whether we spent a ton of money or no money; Levy would have still picked whitner over nagata, signed Dockery and walker, and have us stuck with a crappy team being coached by jauron. Dan, I am totally on board with what you are saying and agree with everything you have said. Coach Tuesday, while I admire your passion, I ask you once again to name me one instance where fans not spending money has forced the team to put a better product on the field. The Bills sucked hard in the mid 80's and fans stayed away from the games in droves. It wasn't the fact that the fans were staying away that made them better, but it was the fact they stunk for so long and were able to draft the likes of Bruce Smith, and Kelly, and they also got very lucky that Bill Polian essentially fell in their lap. THAT is what made the team better.
FreakPop Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 (edited) Yep. The money teams make from ticket sales is a drop in the bucket compared to this money. From what I have seen the NFL as a whole has received roughly in the neighborhood of $31 BILLION since 1998 through next year 2011. That money alone is enough to pay every player/coach/gm and put money in the owners pocket. The Bills could move to Elmira and they would still get the same amount as if they were in LA from the league. Ticket sales, merchandise, consessions, etc goes into the owners pockets, that's all. Ralph whines and cries because the Jones and Snyders of the NFL are getting more than him, Wwhhaaa. Then for everyone to throw out there they need to be more visable, more marketing (Canada) and not viable enough or they are going to move is a crock. It's just all about making more and more and more money for the "NFL". It's not about competing like they say. Why do you think they still have the blackout rule? Because every ticket sold means more money for the owners. To still have that rule is just a greedy example of how corrupt the NFL has become. Edited August 23, 2010 by FreakPop
CodeMonkey Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 That is certainly Jerry Jones' argument. The counter-argument - which I ascribe to - is that revenue sharing expands the overall size of the pie, so Jerry's slice, albeit a smaller slice of a larger pie - is bigger than what the free market would have provided. But you need to make sure you maintain incentives for the small market teams to attempt to grow the pie. Salary floors are one way. So is putting a limit on the amount of shared revenue, and the sources. I guess I can see your argument to a point, but I am still a free market believer at heart I guess. But they seem to be doing a horrible job at the bolded part above.
Recommended Posts