prissythecat Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Did you know that in seasons 2008 and 2009, Buffalo’s total payroll was higher than Dan Snyder’s Washington Redskins. More to the point, they ranked 16th and 13th league wide. You might be surprised as I was to see Indianapolis and New England way down the list. Way down! 29th and 30th respectively in 2008 to be exact. Folks, The Bill’s failings are not because Ralph is cheap. http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2008 http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team But facts don't matter on this board. Ralph is cheap!
birdog1960 Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Well, as you said, Ralph is from Detroit, and as has been pointed out, he originally wanted a franchise in Miami. So he had/has NO real ties to Buffalo, outside of owning a team there. And he certainly had opportunities to move (look at all the expansion/replacement/relocation teams the past 20 years). He could have moved to a new city that was willing to build him a new stadium and thus be able to charge more for boxes, tickets, parking, concessions, etc., and the NFL would have paid for all his moving expenses to get the team out of the smallest non-community owned TV market in the NFL. Just take a look at the original Cleveland Browns for an example of what could have happened (although likely without the replacement team). well, you apparently forget that afl owners agreed not to move franchises as part of their agreement upon the nfl-afl merger. it's not virtuous to honor your agreements, even if others don't.
Doc Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 well, you apparently forget that afl owners agreed not to move franchises as part of their agreement upon the nfl-afl merger. it's not virtuous to honor your agreements, even if others don't. I did a search for that agreement and came up empty. Was it a signed contract? Pinky swear? And yes, I'd say honoring an agreement that 2 of the other owners didn't honor, while hundreds of millions of dollars were at stake, is virtuous.
birdog1960 Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I did a search for that agreement and came up empty. Was it a signed contract? Pinky swear? And yes, I'd say honoring an agreement that 2 of the other owners didn't honor, while hundreds of millions of dollars were at stake, is virtuous. search harder. rozelle testified to this in front of congress in regards to the antitrust exemption. a little more than pinky swear, whatever that may be. i think you confuse decency with virtue.
Doc Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 search harder. rozelle testified to this in front of congress in regards to the antitrust exemption. a little more than pinky swear, whatever that may be. i think you confuse decency with virtue. Okay, I found it. What actually happened is that in order to get an anti-trust exemption, Pete Rozelle promised Congress that none of the 23 teams in the AFL and NFL would move from their present location, not just the AFL teams. Yet many moved and Congress did nothing. It was an empty/toothless promise and decency and virtue had nothing to do with it. OTOH, Ralph forgoing hundreds of millions deserves some sort of praise.
birdog1960 Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Okay, I found it. What actually happened is that in order to get an anti-trust exemption, Pete Rozelle promised Congress that none of the 23 teams in the AFL and NFL would move from their present location, not just the AFL teams. Yet many moved and Congress did nothing. It was an empty/toothless promise and decency and virtue had nothing to do with it. OTOH, Ralph forgoing hundreds of millions deserves some sort of praise. sad but true...greed often trumps honesty, decency and virtue. what, about testifying in front of congress while representing the owners of all afl and nfl teams, makes rozelle's promise nonbinding and empty? some owners actually abided by the agreement as should be the expected outcome. but you're right...people lie regularly for a lot less. i guess that makes it ok....?
Doc Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) sad but true...greed often trumps honesty, decency and virtue. what, about testifying in front of congress while representing the owners of all afl and nfl teams, makes rozelle's promise nonbinding and empty? some owners actually abided by the agreement as should be the expected outcome. but you're right...people lie regularly for a lot less. i guess that makes it ok....? Rozelle told Congress what they wanted to hear, or what he thought they wanted to hear. If the promise had any weight, when the first team moved, Congress would have removed the NFL's anti-trust exemption because they violated the promise. And sure people lie. Does it make it worse when it's an owner of an NFL stadium, or say, a soon-to-be president of the US during a campaign? Edited February 4, 2011 by Doc
mikey98277 Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Blockheads like this guy and the rest that call Ralph cheap never do any research. This guy tosses out a meaningless number while the others just make empty declarations. What could be their motivation? Answer – not having to think. Their simple minds haven’t developed past adolescence. So thought is work like homework which equals not good. All decisions from one Bills drive they don’t like are because Ralph is cheap. It’s easier that way for the simple minded person to understand. First make it monolithic. Then make it steadfast. There thinking successfully eliminated. Did you know that in seasons 2008 and 2009, Buffalo’s total payroll was higher than Dan Snyder’s Washington Redskins. More to the point, they ranked 16th and 13th league wide. You might be surprised as I was to see Indianapolis and New England way down the list. Way down! 29th and 30th respectively in 2008 to be exact. Folks, The Bill’s failings are not because Ralph is cheap. http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2008 http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team but...but...but... that the easy thing to say, dont go around her proving the easy thing to say is wrong !!
whodat Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 but...but...but... that the easy thing to say, dont go around her proving the easy thing to say is wrong !! I know but it's nice to clear the air every so often so we can start fresh again.
benderbender Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Did you know that in seasons 2008 and 2009, Buffalo's total payroll was higher than Dan Snyder's Washington Redskins. More to the point, they ranked 16th and 13th league wide. Yep, that's it. We've all been bickering over which team has the higher team payroll. Thanks for clearing that up. I totally forgot that when he signs the payroll checks. It has nothing to do with the fact that when the Redskins needed a head coach, Dan Snyder went out and got the best coach available. Or that when they needed a franchise QB, he spent the green and got the most desirable veteran QB available at the time.
whodat Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Yep, that's it. We've all been bickering over which team has the higher team payroll. Thanks for clearing that up. I totally forgot that when he signs the payroll checks. It has nothing to do with the fact that when the Redskins needed a head coach, Dan Snyder went out and got the best coach available. Or that when they needed a franchise QB, he spent the green and got the most desirable veteran QB available at the time. Nothing like lobbing up a gopher ball. That’s what has you upset at Ralph, that he was turned down by Shanahan, an over-rated but well known name in the coaching world and didn’t sign an over-rated well known qb that had stated he wasn’t interested in coming to Buffalo? Well as for me, I am very thankful I don’t have to hear those names very much in my football world. Especially grateful that their not remotely connected to the team I follow. Sometimes, you just luck out I guess!
Malazan Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 So Danny boy is suing over an article http://mirror.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40063/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder.html He didn't like people saying things he didn't approve: http://mirror.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2011/02/02/snyder-sues.html So he objects to the squigly lines drawing devil horns and a goatee on his image because they're anti-Semetic. Dan Snyder, you see, is very sensitive towards depictions that may be racist and culturally insensitive nature.
Lurker Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Already being discussed... http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/126692-whenever-you-think-ralph-is-bad/
clearwater cadet Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Kraft, Jones, and Synder will continue to destroy the NFL.
Recommended Posts