thebandit27 Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Big difference between Bad Owner and Bad Person but after saying it over and over I guess you can't comprehend that. Sorry if I am typing words or phrases that you cannot understand. There have been countless businessmen who were great people, but were terrible at running their businesses and that is the category that Ralph now fits into. It is real simple? Also, there is a big difference between negative and being a realist, which is what I am. Anyone that I know, or watch Bills games with will say I am not negative enough, but that is for the team itself, not the guy who ran the organization into the ground. Again, there's no reason to get defensive or insulting. I fully comprehend your statement, and in fact wrote you a very clear and lucid response. My point was this: saying "I've never said Ralph is a bad person" or "he runs his business into the ground" is a whole lot different than saying "I think Ralph is a good person that hasn't delivered a winner to Buffalo". The fact of the matter is that Ralph has made billions, so he's obviously not terrible at running his businesses. And what are we to think when you railroad him for holding the ability to move the franchise over the heads of the greatest fans in the game? Do me a favor and read that sentence, then tell me it doesn't sound like you're criticizing him as a person? There's no other way to interperet that; it's in no way an indictment of his strategy for running the team. As I said, if you want to set the record straight about how you view Ralph as a person, then perhaps your future posts would be viewed differently. This post is the first I've seen where you mention anything positive about Ralph as a person. As for negativity, it's all in how you present it. Try going back and reading some of your own posts as though you didn't know your own feelings when you typed it; it may surprise you.
thewildrabbit Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Big difference between Bad Owner and Bad Person but after saying it over and over I guess you can't comprehend that. Sorry if I am typing words or phrases that you cannot understand. There have been countless businessmen who were great people, but were terrible at running their businesses and that is the category that Ralph now fits into. It is real simple? Also, there is a big difference between negative and being a realist, which is what I am. Anyone that I know, or watch Bills games with will say I am not negative enough, but that is for the team itself, not the guy who ran the organization into the ground. I wholeheartedly disagree, RW has done a masterful job at keeping HIS team in a small market, in Buffalo, while also keeping the team profitable the lifespan of his ownership, brilliantly done IMO. So many owners make the mistake of over spending in certain areas and are forced to sell all or part of the team because of their errors. Profitability vs winning, he who dies with the most toys wins, right? My problem with this owner is in his "hands on" attitude in everything and meddling in actual football operations in which he is clueless! The man knows how to run a business no question about it, he also knows what he needs to do to keep selling those season tickets. OTOH, he is almost completely clueless on building and maintaining a winning football organization. History has shown that every time he finally manages to hire someone that knows how to build a winning team, he ultimately tears it down soon after by firing them for one reason or another. Its my observation that he must feel that after a few winning seasons, the stadium is sold out game after game, fans are buying season tickets, that he no longer needs the man who has proven himself to be a winner. Perhaps in part its because of his notoriously cantankerous demeanor, and his relationship with the people he hires. Perhaps its because he doesn't want anyone in the organization to have more control or power then himself. RW's history of ownership has shown he is more concerned with filling seats in his stadium, then winning games I think people call Wilson cheap because he refuses to hire top personnel to run his org, in particular a top head coach, a top GM, a top president. Although he did try and hire a president in Tom Donahoe, he had the right idea, just the wrong man. Clearly not a top man as Donahoe lost a power struggle in Pittsburgh with top man Bill Cowher which caused Donahoe to leave the Steelers. I just don't get the how and why of hiring someone who just got canned, and then promoting them to a job above the job they were just fired from. The really sad thing is RW will pass and leave a legacy of losing...
birdog1960 Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 he who dies with the most toys wins, right? The really sad thing is RW will pass and leave a legacy of losing... you're wrong initially and correct at the end. not really compatible sentiments..... those with the most meaningful and generally valued accomplishments win. i think an nfl owner will be more fondly and lastingly remembered for owning a team winning multiple superbowls than one whose primary accomplishment was self enrichment or, giving the benefit of the doubt, franchise viability.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) That is exactly correct. I commend these wealthy people who donate to charities, but alot of times (not all), they only do it to offset the millions or billions they make on their business and don't want to reinvest back into their business. People like Ralph are advise to donate money to a couple charities each year, otherwise it kills them at tax time. Charitable contributions result in tax deductions, not dollar-for-dollar tax credits. So as Albany pointed out above, your logic is seriously flawed. If you really think that Ralph's charitable contributions effectively cost him nothing (because you think every dollar he contributes to charity reduces his tax bill by the same amount), read: 1. http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/ask/archive/2007/q0319.htm "I could never figure out the difference between a tax credit and a tax deduction. I would appreciate some clarification on this subject. Thanks. Good question -- especially this time of year. A tax credit lowers your tax bill dollar for dollar. A deduction shaves money off your taxable income, so the value depends on your tax bracket. If you're in the 25% bracket, a $1,000 deduction lowers your tax bill by $250. But a $1,000 credit lowers the bill by the full $1,000, no matter in which bracket you are." 2. http://nonprofit.about.com/od/fordonors/tp/taxdeductionsforcharity.htm "If you itemize deductions on your tax return, you may be able to take an income tax deduction for a gift to a qualified charitable organization. The actual cost of your donation is therefore reduced through your savings on your taxes. For instance, if you are in the 33% tax bracket, you would save $33 on a donation of $100." =========================================================== P.S. Getting a large income tax refund is actually a BAD thing if you could have adjusted your withholding or estimated tax payments to avoid giving the government an interest free loan equal to the amount of your eventual tax refund, but that's a topic for another day. Edited June 9, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead
Orton's Arm Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 That is exactly correct. I commend these wealthy people who donate to charities, but alot of times (not all), they only do it to offset the millions or billions they make on their business and don't want to reinvest back into their business. People like Ralph are advise to donate money to a couple charities each year, otherwise it kills them at tax time. He might not even have ever heard of some of the places he donates to, and he might have, but often times those places are picked by their "people." Also, I don't remember anyone ever saying that Ralph is a bad person, I sure haven't. Myself and dozens of other Bills diehards have said, and will continue to say that he is a bad owner, which is a total different ballgame. This board is about the Buffalo Bills, not normally about judging a person's character or community involvement/tax write-offs. I disagree. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that between federal and state taxes, Ralph's effective tax rate is 50%. That would mean that if Ralph donated $100 to charity, he'd save $50 in taxes. Doing that doesn't make him $50 richer than he otherwise would have been--it makes him $50 poorer. If his only goal was to maximize his personal wealth, his optimal strategy would be to contribute nothing to charity. The fact that he's not pursuing that strategy makes it clear he cares about more than just his own personal wealth maximization.
DDD Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 He also is one of the largest donors to Hospice of Buffalo and was one of the primary donors of the hospice house which bears his name. I spent some time there with my dying father and I very glad that it was there. Regardless of what you think of him as an owner he is a very giving person and has done more a lot of good for erie county. The personal attacks on him for trying to run a businsss (yes the Bills are a bunsiness) are absurd. My grandmother died there too. What a wonderful, peaceful place. Let's not forget the funding he gave to the Miami Center for Paralysis that led to research used in treating Kevin Everett who can now walk.
Recommended Posts