Hplarrm Posted June 11, 2011 Posted June 11, 2011 Whether Kraft would have moved to team to Hartford (had they had their **** together) is a matter of conjecture. The point was that Ralph never even so much as publicly dallied with another city, much less pulled-out of a deal with another city at the 11th hour. How do you figure it did not make financial sense to move the team out of Buffalo? That makes absolutely no sense. We outsiders do not know enough about the specifics of Bills finances to make a clear case one way or the other as to whether it would have made fiscal sense to move the Bills. However, what this means is that those who make a drop-dead assumption that it would make fiscal sense to move are wrong as far as the certainty. On the face of it I think WEO is probably correct that it would not make fiscal sense for the Bills to move in that the fact is that this has never happened and Mr. Ralph's history is that he knows and follows the bottomline. The fact that he has been public about committing to the team being here as long as he was alive provides a pretty good sense that it makes good fiscal sense for the Bills to be here. The question comes as to when Ralph dies will it make good fiscal sense for the Bills to move? I think the answer to this question is going to be determined by the decision-maker at that point and the the decision-makers in the NFL and Ralph historically have tended to go where the money tells them to go. I think the mistake that many make is the assumption that the money will be found by moving the Bills. I think that calculus is probably wrong. Yes the City of Buffalo and even the WNY/S.Ontario region is a small market. However, this view does not take into account that the real NFL market, the one which delivers boatloads of cash is the TV market. Yes, the cash from ticket sales, beer and hot dogs, parking, etc is substantial, but it pales in size to the dollars taken from the true client the TV networks. Particularly as by rule any new owner (even one sold by the estate) must be approved by a vote of 70% of the owners this means that any new owner is not necessarily the deepest pocket (osana bin laden was the example I used to use til Barack Obama got him so maybe a character of similar ill repute to NFL owners like Rush Limbaugh) will not become owners even if they have the deepest pockets or make the highest bid because you are not an eligible owner without massive approval from the other NFL owners. If you look at what is fiscally the best deal for the other NFL owners, though the transfer fee the new owner would pay to move to a larger market would be a large absolute amount, the individual owner splits it with 30 partners. This amount is chump change compared with the losses which come with a move from Buffalo. 1.You have to work hard to replace the 45,000 or so season ticket base. Perhaps you make that up even quickly with the excitement of moving to a new town. However, you have to make it up so you go from money in the bank to potential money in the bank. 2. In addition to having to replace the money in the bank of ticket sales you also have to build a new set of local advertisers and other cash streams you walk away from when you leave WNY. 3. The NFL strategy for expansion seems to be not to focus on the marginal gain for one individual owner of buying the Bills (or even a weaker franchise like Tampa Bay) but instead to get more eyeballs to collect money from the true cash cow the networks. The bad press of for weeks or years on end showing what he NFL did to Buffalo and Bills fans when they left Buffalo is not good advertising at all for expanding into new territory. 4. You might ask whether Toronto will even care about stiffing Buffalo when it has a new shiny franchise? A ppd question, but one answered by the fact it is silly to give away the Buffalo season ticket holders, advertisers, etc when you do not have to. The smart fiscal thing to do is set up a new franchise in Toronto all its own and sell tickets to its huge population base AND keep the Bills franchise. The area maintains separate Maple Leafs and Sabres franchises and though there are significant differences (stadium size and number of games for example between the two sports, it seems viable to keep both. In fact, the smart fiscal move for the Bills is to get taxpayers to build a new smaller stadium and simply out of scarcity of tickets the Bills fill the new stadium and make the fans even more ravenous. For these and several other reasons it probably makes little fiscal sense to move the Bills.
Doc Posted June 11, 2011 Posted June 11, 2011 We outsiders do not know enough about the specifics of Bills finances to make a clear case one way or the other as to whether it would have made fiscal sense to move the Bills. However, what this means is that those who make a drop-dead assumption that it would make fiscal sense to move are wrong as far as the certainty. On the face of it I think WEO is probably correct that it would not make fiscal sense for the Bills to move in that the fact is that this has never happened and Mr. Ralph's history is that he knows and follows the bottomline. The fact that he has been public about committing to the team being here as long as he was alive provides a pretty good sense that it makes good fiscal sense for the Bills to be here. The question comes as to when Ralph dies will it make good fiscal sense for the Bills to move? I think the answer to this question is going to be determined by the decision-maker at that point and the the decision-makers in the NFL and Ralph historically have tended to go where the money tells them to go. I think the mistake that many make is the assumption that the money will be found by moving the Bills. I think that calculus is probably wrong. Yes the City of Buffalo and even the WNY/S.Ontario region is a small market. However, this view does not take into account that the real NFL market, the one which delivers boatloads of cash is the TV market. Yes, the cash from ticket sales, beer and hot dogs, parking, etc is substantial, but it pales in size to the dollars taken from the true client the TV networks. Particularly as by rule any new owner (even one sold by the estate) must be approved by a vote of 70% of the owners this means that any new owner is not necessarily the deepest pocket (osana bin laden was the example I used to use til Barack Obama got him so maybe a character of similar ill repute to NFL owners like Rush Limbaugh) will not become owners even if they have the deepest pockets or make the highest bid because you are not an eligible owner without massive approval from the other NFL owners. If you look at what is fiscally the best deal for the other NFL owners, though the transfer fee the new owner would pay to move to a larger market would be a large absolute amount, the individual owner splits it with 30 partners. This amount is chump change compared with the losses which come with a move from Buffalo. 1.You have to work hard to replace the 45,000 or so season ticket base. Perhaps you make that up even quickly with the excitement of moving to a new town. However, you have to make it up so you go from money in the bank to potential money in the bank. 2. In addition to having to replace the money in the bank of ticket sales you also have to build a new set of local advertisers and other cash streams you walk away from when you leave WNY. 3. The NFL strategy for expansion seems to be not to focus on the marginal gain for one individual owner of buying the Bills (or even a weaker franchise like Tampa Bay) but instead to get more eyeballs to collect money from the true cash cow the networks. The bad press of for weeks or years on end showing what he NFL did to Buffalo and Bills fans when they left Buffalo is not good advertising at all for expanding into new territory. 4. You might ask whether Toronto will even care about stiffing Buffalo when it has a new shiny franchise? A ppd question, but one answered by the fact it is silly to give away the Buffalo season ticket holders, advertisers, etc when you do not have to. The smart fiscal thing to do is set up a new franchise in Toronto all its own and sell tickets to its huge population base AND keep the Bills franchise. The area maintains separate Maple Leafs and Sabres franchises and though there are significant differences (stadium size and number of games for example between the two sports, it seems viable to keep both. In fact, the smart fiscal move for the Bills is to get taxpayers to build a new smaller stadium and simply out of scarcity of tickets the Bills fill the new stadium and make the fans even more ravenous. For these and several other reasons it probably makes little fiscal sense to move the Bills. If Ralph truly only cared about the bottom line, he'd only spend to the minimum every year on players. He'd also have left long ago. That's because he has and would still have no team debt if he moved. He'd have had a new stadium built for him in his new city free-of-charge and the league would have paid him to move. That new stadium would have allowed him to charge more for tix, concessions, parking, luxury boxes, naming rights, advertising, and private deals which while they pale in comparison to TV money, are mostly "local revenue" that the owner gets to keep. As for the TV money, removing Buffalo's tiny market and replacing it with another larger market would have led the owners to ask more money from the networks.
Mr. WEO Posted June 11, 2011 Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) Whether Kraft would have moved to team to Hartford (had they had their **** together) is a matter of conjecture. The point was that Ralph never even so much as publicly dallied with another city, much less pulled-out of a deal with another city at the 11th hour. How do you figure it did not make financial sense to move the team out of Buffalo? That makes absolutely no sense. Because he has prospered financially right where he is--to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Few owners if any have a deal as sweet as his. His product, now matter how bad, has been recession proof. Erie county falls over itself to give him whatever he wants. The league would have paid him to move too? Why on earth would he have left--to Cleveland?? Baltimore?? Indy?? Where's the money there? Despite all of this, you think it makes "no sense" to stay in Buffalo financially? That is makes more sense move to some imaginary "better market"? Only a crappy team is preventing him from charging more money doc, not the recession. Kraft played Harford. Get over it. Edited June 11, 2011 by Mr. WEO
Doc Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 Because he has prospered financially right where he is--to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Few owners if any have a deal as sweet as his. His product, now matter how bad, has been recession proof. Erie county falls over itself to give him whatever he wants. The league would have paid him to move too? Why on earth would he have left--to Cleveland?? Baltimore?? Indy?? Where's the money there? Despite all of this, you think it makes "no sense" to stay in Buffalo financially? That is makes more sense move to some imaginary "better market"? Only a crappy team is preventing him from charging more money doc, not the recession. They don't make money in Indy? Baltimore? Cleveland? (Houston? Tennessee? Jax I'll give you). Buffalo has a better economy? Surely you jest. And I never said it makes "no sense to stay in Buffalo financially." I said he could have made more money elsewhere going to a city with a better economy and a stadium paid-for by the taxpayers, not $2.8M a year from the county to upkeep a 30-year old stadium in a lousy economy. Kraft played Harford. Get over it. Get over what? I was ecstatic Kraft pulled out of that lousy deal for the state. I laughed at all the sucker Pats fans who went to buy season tickets, only to see the deal fall through.
Hplarrm Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 They don't make money in Indy? Baltimore? Cleveland? (Houston? Tennessee? Jax I'll give you). Buffalo has a better economy? Surely you jest. And I never said it makes "no sense to stay in Buffalo financially." I said he could have made more money elsewhere going to a city with a better economy and a stadium paid-for by the taxpayers, not $2.8M a year from the county to upkeep a 30-year old stadium in a lousy economy. Get over what? I was ecstatic Kraft pulled out of that lousy deal for the state. I laughed at all the sucker Pats fans who went to buy season tickets, only to see the deal fall through. The rules Mr. Ralph and the other owners operate under are quite different than the rules the drunken Irsay operated under when he and Mayflower moved the Colts in the middle of the night or Modell operated under when he moved to satisfy his own personal interests and the NFL got beaten by a bunch of idiot elected officials in Cleveland. The rules are now that a team needs to get approval of 70+% if their fellow owners before a team can be sold or a major move takes place. This happened because the NFL tends to always go where the money is and there is better profit for the teams as a whole and individually UNLESS a team screws its partners to serve their own individual interests. Irsay took a sweetheart deal for himself and forced his partners to live with the embarassment of the midnight move and deal with the upset of the TV networks which saw their planning screwed up by an NFL owner pursuing his own interests rather than that of the rest of the social compact. The situation got really screwed up by Modell pursuing his own individual interests and the NFL was forced (mostly it appears by simply the threat of revocation of their limited anti-trust exemption. The NFL dealt with this by putting in place a rule which made large franchise changes subject to the approval of a greater than supermajority of the partners. The league changed again when the threat of decertification forced the owners to treat the players essentially as a partner. The players ran with this threat and essentially dictated to the NFL terms which awarded the players on paper 60% of the total assets and arguably made them the majority partner. Many folks make a flat-out mistake in assuming that the most important thing in the NFL team owners is their take at the gate. This mistake is understandable is that is how it used to be back in the 20th century. However. here in the 21st century the market is not one of small versus big markets but the lionshare of the money comes from realizing the market is the TV networks and the millions approaching billions they serve. The local gate is important but is small dollars compared to the TV revenue. The franchise being in Buffalo is simply worth more money to the other owners than a franchise in a larger market like LA because getting Mexico City and Toronto (and likely eventually eyeballs in Tokyo and Beijing to join a league with an original AFL team is worth more than splitting a franchise fee with 31 partners. Ask yourself where is the money and where is the market and you will see the relative importance (or unimportance of the big market versus small market thang. It is an issue but really a small one compared to the real money.
birdog1960 Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 The rules Mr. Ralph and the other owners operate under are quite different than the rules the drunken Irsay operated under when he and Mayflower moved the Colts in the middle of the night or Modell operated under when he moved to satisfy his own personal interests and the NFL got beaten by a bunch of idiot elected officials in Cleveland. i agree that wilson is a better owner than these 2 scumbags but that's a pretty low standard isn't it? he's not the worst, just one of the worst. yeay!!! since he agreed to not move the team (as did all nfl owners) after the merger, he has actually just kept his word (and consequently the leagues anti -trust exemption) all these years. by comparison to other owners, i suppose you could call that admirable. on its face however, it's just what should have be expected.
Jobu Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 Only 1 owner has voted no to every relocation, and that 1 owner is Ralph Wilson. We are not considered a "have not" because of Ralph Wilson. When Ralph put the team in Buffalo we were a top market and growing, you look today and we have pretty much fallen into irrelevancy as a city. I have said many times if Jerry Jones woke up tomorrow as the Bills owner he would sell the team. Excellent perspective.
Doc Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 The rules Mr. Ralph and the other owners operate under are quite different than the rules the drunken Irsay operated under when he and Mayflower moved the Colts in the middle of the night or Modell operated under when he moved to satisfy his own personal interests and the NFL got beaten by a bunch of idiot elected officials in Cleveland. The rules are now that a team needs to get approval of 70+% if their fellow owners before a team can be sold or a major move takes place. This happened because the NFL tends to always go where the money is and there is better profit for the teams as a whole and individually UNLESS a team screws its partners to serve their own individual interests. Irsay took a sweetheart deal for himself and forced his partners to live with the embarassment of the midnight move and deal with the upset of the TV networks which saw their planning screwed up by an NFL owner pursuing his own interests rather than that of the rest of the social compact. The situation got really screwed up by Modell pursuing his own individual interests and the NFL was forced (mostly it appears by simply the threat of revocation of their limited anti-trust exemption. The NFL dealt with this by putting in place a rule which made large franchise changes subject to the approval of a greater than supermajority of the partners. The league changed again when the threat of decertification forced the owners to treat the players essentially as a partner. The players ran with this threat and essentially dictated to the NFL terms which awarded the players on paper 60% of the total assets and arguably made them the majority partner. Many folks make a flat-out mistake in assuming that the most important thing in the NFL team owners is their take at the gate. This mistake is understandable is that is how it used to be back in the 20th century. However. here in the 21st century the market is not one of small versus big markets but the lionshare of the money comes from realizing the market is the TV networks and the millions approaching billions they serve. The local gate is important but is small dollars compared to the TV revenue. The franchise being in Buffalo is simply worth more money to the other owners than a franchise in a larger market like LA because getting Mexico City and Toronto (and likely eventually eyeballs in Tokyo and Beijing to join a league with an original AFL team is worth more than splitting a franchise fee with 31 partners. Ask yourself where is the money and where is the market and you will see the relative importance (or unimportance of the big market versus small market thang. It is an issue but really a small one compared to the real money. You apparently didn't read my reply. Again, the TV money is the same for all owners. This is a non-issue, with the caveat that leaving the Buffalo market (I'm talking in the past when there were better markets) and going to a larger market would have gotten more money from the networks. So there likely have been suggestions by the other owners that Ralph move. And teams with new stadiums make more money in "local revenue" from club, luxury box, concessions, parking, advertising/private deals, naming rights, etc., On the order of tens of millions of dollars more. More is more, and if there is no increased debt-load, why wouldn't a guy whose only concern it he bottom line not move? And if what "TheTruthHurts" says is true, i.e. that Ralph has voted "no" to every NFL move, then it proves that Ralph not having moved the team had nothing to do with financial considerations.
Hplarrm Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 You apparently didn't read my reply. Again, the TV money is the same for all owners. This is a non-issue, with the caveat that leaving the Buffalo market (I'm talking in the past when there were better markets) and going to a larger market would have gotten more money from the networks. So there likely have been suggestions by the other owners that Ralph move. And teams with new stadiums make more money in "local revenue" from club, luxury box, concessions, parking, advertising/private deals, naming rights, etc., On the order of tens of millions of dollars more. More is more, and if there is no increased debt-load, why wouldn't a guy whose only concern it he bottom line not move? And if what "TheTruthHurts" says is true, i.e. that Ralph has voted "no" to every NFL move, then it proves that Ralph not having moved the team had nothing to do with financial considerations. As you note the truth is more is more. I think that it is a mistake to view this situation as a competition between team owners so that they are making judgments based on the marginal value of gate revenue because the TV money is the same for all. Instead, they are making judgments of the extent to which individualized beneficial actions endanger the far more money that they get from the TV networks. This is why the teams bent over and said thank you sir may I have another when Gene Upshaw dictated to them that the new CBA needed to be based on total revenue and not a designated gross and that the % take for the players salary cap needed to start with a 6 (the on paper agreement dedicated 60.5% of the total take to the salary cap and even though this got diminished in real life the final take still gave well over 50% of the total revenue to the players making them not only a partner in this arrangement but arguably the majority partner. What is wending its way through the courts right now is not so much a fight over a dollar amount, but a fight over whether this actually a partnership and who is the majority partner. The team owners are arguing that this is a traditional labor dispute and that no worker is entitled to see the books of the owner. The players are arguing that they are actually a partner in this enterprise and that the NFL is not treating its partner fairly or like a partner in that they refuse to open the books with their partner and even negotiated a deal where the networks continue to pay money to the NFL even if it is not providing a product. My sense of this whole thing is that though all have an interest in seeing football plated again that in reality the fans, owners, and players all have different interests in that the fans benefit mostly from having football played while the owners and players are operating from their particular interest in wanting to make a buck first and the mutual interest of seeing football played is being lost in this battle between millionaires and billionaires. If the warring parties force me to take sides, players or owners I am reluctant to do this as both sides are fighting over the last marginal dollar when they all can make far more than they deserve as human beings or business people if they would just settle this. As far as it goes (which is not very far as both sides strike me as not serving the customers interests I make several conclusions. 1. If the players position prevails in court as it did in two lower courts then we get football immediately. If the owners position prevails in court then we fall back into a protracted mano a mano fight which will cost us fans football for a chunk of if not all of this season. Do you think this is correct? 2. The owners have a tactical advantage right now as they won on appeal the lower court pro player position ruling and things are headed to a Supreme Court where oddly the ideological perspective is actually on the player side (the remedy requested by the players in Brady et al is a free market approach whereas the team owners want a business approach based on a social compact which would allow them to alter the past agreement to their wishes to a significant though not total extent. However, it appears clear that the narrow majority of the Supremes in case like Citizen United are quite willing to ignore precedent and ideology when it suits the needs of large capital forces. I doubt this approach stands the test of time and that in this case from an ideological standpoint likely one or more of the 5 person conservative majority is going to endorse the principle that the individual cannot be constrained by the powerful and the house of cards which is the current NFL is going to not work without the NFLPA being a partner with the teams to not allow adult individual players sign contracts with the highest bidder. Further in the big picture the team owners did provide capital when only a few people such as Mr. Ralph had the cajones to risk what was a significant investment back in the day. Further, the owners back in the day of Halas were real football men and sportsmen who effectively managed their teams. Today, not only has the NFL proved to be such a financial success that not only have the original owners been paid back beyond anyone's wildest dreams but there are clear management models such as the Packers were have proved successful on and off the field that no one has named anything the team owners provide that cannot be conceptually replaced (the major real world difficulty that any "replacement owner" strategy would bring is that even though the owners do not add critical value to the product and really are an economically inefficient drag on the game, they have a lot of bucks and will resist being ushered out. Its too bad as yes it is true that players come and players go and also one TV network is the same as another, if the owners just went away the game would find ways to be the same without missing a beat. I simply do not see why some folks have such a woody for the owners. If their 39.5% take was split between lowering ticket prices and paying the players more the game would be far better off. 1.
Beerball Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 The rules Mr. Ralph and the other owners operate under are quite different than the rules the drunken Irsay operated under when he and Mayflower moved the Colts in the middle of the night or Modell operated under when he moved to satisfy his own personal interests and the NFL got beaten by a bunch of idiot elected officials in Cleveland. The rules are now that a team needs to get approval of 70+% if their fellow owners before a team can be sold or a major move takes place. This happened because the NFL tends to always go where the money is and there is better profit for the teams as a whole and individually UNLESS a team screws its partners to serve their own individual interests. Irsay took a sweetheart deal for himself and forced his partners to live with the embarassment of the midnight move and deal with the upset of the TV networks which saw their planning screwed up by an NFL owner pursuing his own interests rather than that of the rest of the social compact. The situation got really screwed up by Modell pursuing his own individual interests and the NFL was forced (mostly it appears by simply the threat of revocation of their limited anti-trust exemption. The NFL dealt with this by putting in place a rule which made large franchise changes subject to the approval of a greater than supermajority of the partners. The league changed again when the threat of decertification forced the owners to treat the players essentially as a partner. The players ran with this threat and essentially dictated to the NFL terms which awarded the players on paper 60% of the total assets and arguably made them the majority partner. Many folks make a flat-out mistake in assuming that the most important thing in the NFL team owners is their take at the gate. This mistake is understandable is that is how it used to be back in the 20th century. However. here in the 21st century the market is not one of small versus big markets but the lionshare of the money comes from realizing the market is the TV networks and the millions approaching billions they serve. The local gate is important but is small dollars compared to the TV revenue. The franchise being in Buffalo is simply worth more money to the other owners than a franchise in a larger market like LA because getting Mexico City and Toronto (and likely eventually eyeballs in Tokyo and Beijing to join a league with an original AFL team is worth more than splitting a franchise fee with 31 partners. Ask yourself where is the money and where is the market and you will see the relative importance (or unimportance of the big market versus small market thang. It is an issue but really a small one compared to the real money. The only difference between Buffalo, Dallas & NE (toss in any other big market team you care to name) is local revenue and it is anything but small. It is what separates the haves from the have nots.
thewildrabbit Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) While all of you that are gushing over how good ole Ralphie has been to Buffalo, and that he kept the team here....even tho he has put a Wal-mart-Costco K-mart product on the field, and more importantly on the sidelines during the majority of his ownership What will you say about him once he passes and the team is sold to the highest bidder, just like Wilson stated it would. Then that person or group that buys the team decides they no longer wish to keep the team in such a small market, and they move to a different city. What will you say then, will you still acclaim that "Ralph has been good" ? I'm thinking that if that day comes, Ralph Wilson will be hated in Buffalo as much as Art Modell is hated in Cleveland. For those that don't recall, Modell moved his Cleveland Browns to Baltimore where he won a super bowl with his Ravens. Edited June 12, 2011 by Harvey lives
Doc Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 While all of you that are gushing over how good ole Ralphie has been to Buffalo, and that he kept the team here....even tho he has put a Wal-mart-Costco K-mart product on the field, and more importantly on the sidelines during the majority of his ownership What will you say about him once he passes and the team is sold to the highest bidder, just like Wilson stated it would. Then that person or group that buys the team decides they no longer wish to keep the team in such a small market, and they move to a different city. What will you say then, will you still acclaim that "Ralph has been good" ? I'm thinking that if that day comes, Ralph Wilson will be hated in Buffalo as much as Art Modell is hated in Cleveland. For those that don't recall, Modell moved his Cleveland Browns to Baltimore where he won a super bowl with his Ravens. He never made such a claim. And there are reportedly several people interested in buying the Bills and keeping them in Buffalo. If the NFL owners decide to go with another group who ends up moving the team, that's hardly Ralph's fault. And even if a group that says it wants to keep the team in Buffalo buys the team and ends up moving it, that's also not Ralph's fault. The Buffalo market is what it is.
Hplarrm Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 It is what separates the haves from the have nots. Actually it is the haves and the have mores.
thewildrabbit Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 He never made such a claim. And there are reportedly several people interested in buying the Bills and keeping them in Buffalo. If the NFL owners decide to go with another group who ends up moving the team, that's hardly Ralph's fault. And even if a group that says it wants to keep the team in Buffalo buys the team and ends up moving it, that's also not Ralph's fault. The Buffalo market is what it is. Its been common knowledge for years that the Buffalo Bills will be sold to the highest bidder once he dies ""Wilson said the team will be sold on his death, not bequeathed to his wife or his daughters. And Wilson knows he can't guarantee that the buyer will keep the team in Buffalo:"" ""Wilson said it's possible that the next owner could be someone who would want to keep the Bills in Buffalo, but he's not willing to speculate beyond that."" ""For all the uncertainty currently surrounding the Bills' future in Buffalo, the specific circumstances haven't really changed much in the past five years or so. Ralph Wilson still owns the Bills and he still refuses to sell the team as long as he's alive or to guarantee that the team will be sold to a Western New York-based owner after he's gone, so the possibility still remains that the Bills could eventually move to Toronto or Los Angeles."" http://www.aolnews.c...ph-wilson-dies/ http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=2906872 http://www.thegoodpo...r-how-long.html
GaryPinC Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) While all of you that are gushing over how good ole Ralphie has been to Buffalo, and that he kept the team here....even tho he has put a Wal-mart-Costco K-mart product on the field, and more importantly on the sidelines during the majority of his ownership What will you say about him once he passes and the team is sold to the highest bidder, just like Wilson stated it would. Then that person or group that buys the team decides they no longer wish to keep the team in such a small market, and they move to a different city. What will you say then, will you still acclaim that "Ralph has been good" ? I'm thinking that if that day comes, Ralph Wilson will be hated in Buffalo as much as Art Modell is hated in Cleveland. For those that don't recall, Modell moved his Cleveland Browns to Baltimore where he won a super bowl with his Ravens. How about if City Hall gets off its arse and has a Ralph Wilson appreciation day, even a halftime ceremony? When T.O. got his city key Ralph joked he's never been given a key to the city and you know the truth is often said in jest. Looking at how much vitality Ralph has lost in the last 6-10 months (he looked very run down when Dareus showed up) I honestly believe this season will be his last. Mayyyybeee he makes it through 2012 but I doubt it. I do believe some sort of succession plan is in place and Ralph wants it secret just to torment all the disrespectful "cheap" jokers he's had to endure over the years. If the city were to show him some respect perhaps he'd soften up and talk about the future. Edited June 13, 2011 by GaryPinC
Doc Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Its been common knowledge for years that the Buffalo Bills will be sold to the highest bidder once he dies ""Wilson said the team will be sold on his death, not bequeathed to his wife or his daughters. And Wilson knows he can't guarantee that the buyer will keep the team in Buffalo:"" ""Wilson said it's possible that the next owner could be someone who would want to keep the Bills in Buffalo, but he's not willing to speculate beyond that."" ""For all the uncertainty currently surrounding the Bills' future in Buffalo, the specific circumstances haven't really changed much in the past five years or so. Ralph Wilson still owns the Bills and he still refuses to sell the team as long as he's alive or to guarantee that the team will be sold to a Western New York-based owner after he's gone, so the possibility still remains that the Bills could eventually move to Toronto or Los Angeles."" http://www.aolnews.c...ph-wilson-dies/ http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=2906872 http://www.thegoodpo...r-how-long.html He never claimed the team would be sold to the highest bidder. Since his wife and daughters don't want the team, it will be sold posthumously, and whatever the next owner does is beyond his control.
thewildrabbit Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 He never claimed the team would be sold to the highest bidder. Since his wife and daughters don't want the team, it will be sold posthumously, and whatever the next owner does is beyond his control. I highly doubt it will be sold to the lowest bidder My point was, what will people think of the man after his passing and the team is moved by the new owner... when he could have easily set something up before his demise to ensure the team stays in Buffalo.
Hplarrm Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Its been common knowledge for years that the Buffalo Bills will be sold to the highest bidder once he dies ""Wilson said the team will be sold on his death, not bequeathed to his wife or his daughters. And Wilson knows he can't guarantee that the buyer will keep the team in Buffalo:"" ""Wilson said it's possible that the next owner could be someone who would want to keep the Bills in Buffalo, but he's not willing to speculate beyond that."" ""For all the uncertainty currently surrounding the Bills' future in Buffalo, the specific circumstances haven't really changed much in the past five years or so. Ralph Wilson still owns the Bills and he still refuses to sell the team as long as he's alive or to guarantee that the team will be sold to a Western New York-based owner after he's gone, so the possibility still remains that the Bills could eventually move to Toronto or Los Angeles."" The fact is that Mr. Ralph has already agreed that any ownership transfer must be approved by a vote of 70+% of his fellow owners rather than simply selling to the highest bidder. This makes perfect sense as the NFL is not simply 32 separate entities competing against each other. They are a social compact who market and play together under a basic framework reflected in the CBA. Lets say for example that the highest bidder was someone like Osana bin Laden when he was alive, It would make zero sense to force the other owners to deal with marketing their product with a known terrorist if he scrapped together the highest bid. Rush Limbaugh put together the money to be part of a St. Louis led bid, but he was vetoed by the players who effectively are a partner in running the NFL. Ralph's dictates that the team be sold to the highest bidder would be difficult to enforce against any concerted opposition to the will because he will be dead. By rule in the NFL team would be sold to the highest qualified bidder and selection of these qualifications would lie with a super majority + vote of his fellow owners.
thewildrabbit Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 The fact is that Mr. Ralph has already agreed that any ownership transfer must be approved by a vote of 70+% of his fellow owners rather than simply selling to the highest bidder. This makes perfect sense as the NFL is not simply 32 separate entities competing against each other. They are a social compact who market and play together under a basic framework reflected in the CBA. Lets say for example that the highest bidder was someone like Osana bin Laden when he was alive, It would make zero sense to force the other owners to deal with marketing their product with a known terrorist if he scrapped together the highest bid. Rush Limbaugh put together the money to be part of a St. Louis led bid, but he was vetoed by the players who effectively are a partner in running the NFL. Ralph's dictates that the team be sold to the highest bidder would be difficult to enforce against any concerted opposition to the will because he will be dead. By rule in the NFL team would be sold to the highest qualified bidder and selection of these qualifications would lie with a super majority + vote of his fellow owners. So nice of you guys to nit pick and miss the entire point It will still be sold to whoever offers the most and is approved by all the other owners. Again, My point was, what will people think of the man after his passing and the team is moved by the new owner... when he could have easily set something up before his demise to ensure the team stays in Buffalo.
Griswold Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 People who endlessly criticize Ralph: -- have an inability to apply critical thinking skills -- have a psychological complex with -- suffer from Confirmation Bias in almost all phases of their personal life Note I said people who endlessly criticize Ralph. Situational criticism is OK.. and there are certainly times when that is just.
Recommended Posts