dwight in philly Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 On the great side, the Schefter story implies that an agreement in principle is mostly in place and that the owners will see it next week. It takes 9 owners voting "no" to reject the proposed agreement. Doubt there is enough objection to reach this level so this "handful" of objectors is likely immaterial. Ralph or Russ Brandon will likely outline how the CBA could compromise the Bills future in Buffalo -- it will be interesting to see their take and analyze it. The Bills under Ralph are in a great balance sheet position -- no debt, lots of revenue streams and likely a small profit every year -- but they have little prospect for revenue growth from sources outside the TV money from the league and game day generated revenue (tickets, concessions, etc.). Other teams have 5X or 10X marketing and stadium naming rights revenue potential. The Bills are like a local dollar store and the Cowboys, Jets, Giants--are like Wal Mart... but they are profitable, not everybody can be rich. again, if he isnt rich enough, let someone else buy it. there are plenty of local prospects who are not as greedy as ralph.
JoeF Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 but they are profitable, not everybody can be rich. again, if he isnt rich enough, let someone else buy it. there are plenty of local prospects who are not as greedy as ralph. Agree to an extent Dwight. The Bills are the largest holding of RW Enterprises and the main driver of its value. This wasn't the case when Ralph invested $25K in 1960 on the franchise fee--but it is today. Littman makes sure they are in the black every year. It will be hard to do that if there is a minimum spend in the new CBA. I would argue that Ralph is not cheap but he has to be fiscally responsible on an operating basis with by far his largest asset. Its hurts the Bills on the field--but its his team and his asset. I think our wish is that the new ownership group takes the attitude that Jeffrey Grundlach expressed when it broke he was interested in putting together an ownership group..this is a side and fun business more than a hard and fast investment...if we can get an ownership group focused on the fun using their spare assets on something they don't expect a great return from -- that is awesome. Its worked for the Mavericks....
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Perhaps, as I have said in other threads, the real issue with the viability of teams liek the Bills is revenue sharing among owners, not necessarily, or only, players salaries. The more there is unshared revenue the more it kills the Bills. Ralph knows this and I think he is out for less player sharing and more team sharing. Its a position he needs to take. Ralph voted against the most generous team revenue sharing agreement in the history of the league when he voted agaisnt the last CBA. Unshared revenue is not killing the Bills.....just as it isn't bringing any more success to 3 of the top 4 revenue earners.
Billsguy Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Wasn't Ralph Wilson right about the first CBA? If he is objecting to this deal, I trust it's for a valid reason. Ralph was right in the sense that the last CBA gave more money to the players than Ralph wanted to give them. How many NFL owners lost money under the terms of the last CBA? Ralph wants a bigger slice of the multi-billion dollar pie and he wants the players to get less. Is that a valid reason? For Wilson the answer is, "Yes!" Wilson is also envious of the revenue generating capacity of teams like Dallas and he wants a bigger share of that money too. So I guess the main two objections Wilson has are still in place. Both involve how does Wilson get more money for Wilson!
BuffaloWest Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Agree to an extent Dwight. The Bills are the largest holding of RW Enterprises and the main driver of its value. This wasn't the case when Ralph invested $25K in 1960 on the franchise fee--but it is today. Littman makes sure they are in the black every year. It will be hard to do that if there is a minimum spend in the new CBA. I would argue that Ralph is not cheap but he has to be fiscally responsible on an operating basis with by far his largest asset. Its hurts the Bills on the field--but its his team and his asset. I think our wish is that the new ownership group takes the attitude that Jeffrey Grundlach expressed when it broke he was interested in putting together an ownership group..this is a side and fun business more than a hard and fast investment...if we can get an ownership group focused on the fun using their spare assets on something they don't expect a great return from -- that is awesome. Its worked for the Mavericks.... Uhh yeah -No One is going to spend a billion dollars on team in Buffalo NY just to have fun. Come on~ It would be a business decision. The guy in LA Grundlach or whatever looks like a greaseball, and when /where did he even say he would even keep the team in Buffalo? He lives in L.A.. Last time I checked they were looking to relocate a team. Buffalo has been mentioned. Cuban bought the Mavs for a fraction of what they are worth now-so quit kidding yourself there-He has made hundreds of millions on the invetsment. I trust Ralph will make the right decision that will be in the best interest of keeping the Bills Viable in Buffalo NY. If that means no football this year-so be it, as long as the team has a long term shot at competing and remaining in WNY I say let him hold off the others-He was right last time-Remember?
Doc Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Anyone who isn't for keeping player costs down is a fool and/or doesn't really care about the long-term viability of the Bills in Buffalo. There's no other way to say it.
billsfreak Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Ralph is cheap. But, but, but he kept the Bills in Buffalo?
JoeF Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Uhh yeah -No One is going to spend a billion dollars on team in Buffalo NY just to have fun. Come on~ It would be a business decision. The guy in LA Grundlach or whatever looks like a greaseball, and when /where did he even say he would even keep the team in Buffalo? He lives in L.A.. Last time I checked they were looking to relocate a team. Buffalo has been mentioned. Cuban bought the Mavs for a fraction of what they are worth now-so quit kidding yourself there-He has made hundreds of millions on the invetsment. I trust Ralph will make the right decision that will be in the best interest of keeping the Bills Viable in Buffalo NY. If that means no football this year-so be it, as long as the team has a long term shot at competing and remaining in WNY I say let him hold off the others-He was right last time-Remember? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/05/gundlach-bills-buffalo-nfl-doubleline-tcw-bond-funds.html Quotes: “I’m trying to put a group together to buy it,” he said Thursday, adding that he has floated the idea to several wealthy clients for whom he manages money. The discussions are in the early stages, he said. “Now, I’m thinking about thinking about it.” “One of these days, maybe five years from now -- I hope it’s 20 years from now -- the Bills will have to have an ownership change. And I think it would be a tragedy to have the Bills go to some random city and be called, you know, the L.A. Multitude or whatever the hell they’d call it. I want them to be the Buffalo Bills.” Not a slime ball--but the king of bond traders who made money for folks in all economies in all situations. His income and livelihood would never be tied to the Bills. Edited June 17, 2011 by JoeF
rpcolosi Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 it would not surprise me that it may be ralph. despite all the kudos he gets for keeping the team in buffalo, his tightness is legendary, he is greedy, plain and simple. cue the all the ralph defenders and how we are a small market, etc, etc, etc,..and he is watching out for us.. yada yada .. please.. naw - i'll just cue the "you're an idiot" and leave it at that. ralph has millions because he is business smart. you and I do not have millions because we are not business smart on the same level.
dwight in philly Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Agree to an extent Dwight. The Bills are the largest holding of RW Enterprises and the main driver of its value. This wasn't the case when Ralph invested $25K in 1960 on the franchise fee--but it is today. Littman makes sure they are in the black every year. It will be hard to do that if there is a minimum spend in the new CBA. I would argue that Ralph is not cheap but he has to be fiscally responsible on an operating basis with by far his largest asset. Its hurts the Bills on the field--but its his team and his asset. I think our wish is that the new ownership group takes the attitude that Jeffrey Grundlach expressed when it broke he was interested in putting together an ownership group..this is a side and fun business more than a hard and fast investment...if we can get an ownership group focused on the fun using their spare assets on something they don't expect a great return from -- that is awesome. Its worked for the Mavericks.... well said my friend..
Beerball Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Reaching a deal not a done deal One item of contention likely is the minimum teams can spend on salaries each year and how it is determined, a key for small-market franchises such as Buffalo, Jacksonville and Cincinnati. Under rules of the previous CBA negotiated in 2006 - owners opted out in 2008 - teams were allowed to spread guaranteed signing bonuses over the duration of a contract. That reduced the salary cap hit each year. The Bills, however, preferred to count bonuses as dollars spent for each specific season no matter the contract's length, so their payroll essentially was limited to all the salaries on their books for that one season - including potential bonuses and salaries owed to players that had been cut or bought out. Thank you Mr. Wawrow for your contribution.
dwight in philly Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 naw - i'll just cue the "you're an idiot" and leave it at that. ralph has millions because he is business smart. you and I do not have millions because we are not business smart on the same level. cool, name-calling.. best you got pal? dont let a point missed get in your way of calling someone an "idiot"
GG Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6671873 "A handful of NFL owners -- at least two of which are from AFC teams -- believe the parameters of the deal being discussed don't adequately address the original issues the league wanted corrected from the 2006 collective bargaining agreement, according to sources." Well, there were only two owners to vote against the 2006 CBA, and they were both from AFC teams - Ralph and Brown. But it sounds like he has more support this time. Note that it doesn't say anything about having the ability to block it. I don't think this has to be a unanimous vote. It wouldn't be a surprise if Wilson is among the opponents. My hunch is that the new CBA will not be as generous in revenue sharing and that's been Wilson's big sticking point.
thebandit27 Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) From JW's article: Under rules of the previous CBA negotiated in 2006 - owners opted out in 2008 - teams were allowed to spread guaranteed signing bonuses over the duration of a contract. That reduced the salary cap hit each year. The Bills, however, preferred to count bonuses as dollars spent for each specific season no matter the contract's length, so their payroll essentially was limited to all the salaries on their books for that one season - including potential bonuses and salaries owed to players that had been cut or bought out. Now, for a league that is $9B+ in debt, which sounds like the more fiscally-responsible way to operate moving forward? I love how--according to some on this board--a rich person protecting their interests is "greedy", but a lower/middle class person who is envious of the rich person is "needy". Seriously. Having money doesn't make someone greedy. A person wanting to protect their assets does not make them greedy. A person not agreeing with a set of rules that affects their earning potential doesn't make them greedy. You guys can repeat it as often as you want, but it doesn't make it true. I honestly can't imagine how people can look at the situation and think that Ralph is doing anything other than trying to put the Bills in the best position to stay economically viable despite a declining market. To think that some fans have the audacity to criticize him for it is beyond my understanding. I'm sure I'll be in told response how cheap and irresponsible Ralph is...because if we repeat something often enough, it'll be true...won't it? Edited June 17, 2011 by thebandit27
PromoTheRobot Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I love how--according to some on this board--a rich person protecting their interests is "greedy", but a lower/middle class person who is envious of the rich person is "needy". It's a typical attitude among people that teams/owners "owe" them something for their fandom. It's easy to spend someone else's money. PTR
dwight in philly Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 From JW's article: Under rules of the previous CBA negotiated in 2006 - owners opted out in 2008 - teams were allowed to spread guaranteed signing bonuses over the duration of a contract. That reduced the salary cap hit each year. The Bills, however, preferred to count bonuses as dollars spent for each specific season no matter the contract's length, so their payroll essentially was limited to all the salaries on their books for that one season - including potential bonuses and salaries owed to players that had been cut or bought out. Now, for a league that is $9B+ in debt, which sounds like the more fiscally-responsible way to operate moving forward? I love how--according to some on this board--a rich person protecting their interests is "greedy", but a lower/middle class person who is envious of the rich person is "needy". Seriously. Having money doesn't make someone greedy. A person wanting to protect their assets does not make them greedy. A person not agreeing with a set of rules that affects their earning potential doesn't make them greedy. You guys can repeat it as often as you want, but it doesn't make it true. I honestly can't imagine how people can look at the situation and think that Ralph is doing anything other than trying to put the Bills in the best position to stay economically viable despite a declining market. To think that some fans have the audacity to criticize him for it is beyond my understanding. I'm sure I'll be in told response how cheap and irresponsible Ralph is...because if we repeat something often enough, it'll be true...won't it? i am not envious of ralph's. or anyone's "money", it is the owners , including ralph, of trying to squeeze every last cent they can, in the name of "fiscal responsibily". i totally understand the nuances of maintaining a small market team like the bills and keeping it viable, but where does it end. last time i checked, most private enterprises do not get subsidies to maintain their business as ralph does from erie county. the points could be argued endlessly concerning the economics of the NFL, but i steadfastly maintain that ralph is cheap.
Mr. WEO Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Ralph was right in the sense that the last CBA gave more money to the players than Ralph wanted to give them. How many NFL owners lost money under the terms of the last CBA? Ralph wants a bigger slice of the multi-billion dollar pie and he wants the players to get less. Is that a valid reason? For Wilson the answer is, "Yes!" Wilson is also envious of the revenue generating capacity of teams like Dallas and he wants a bigger share of that money too. So I guess the main two objections Wilson has are still in place. Both involve how does Wilson get more money for Wilson! Then why did he vote against the huge revenue sharing increase that was the 2006 CBA. There are only 3 or 4 teams generating signficantly more than the rest. None of them have demonstrated a competitive advantage over the Bills because of this extra revenue. If Ralph wants more money, he should sell the team. It's a win win for him and his long abused fans. It wouldn't be a surprise if Wilson is among the opponents. My hunch is that the new CBA will not be as generous in revenue sharing and that's been Wilson's big sticking point. You are porbably right. Those top earning teams who were on the hook for the massive revenue sharing increase of the 2006 CBA are no doubt tired of looking at Ralph's beefy bottom line, while reading his incessant wailing about how hard it is to compete.
dwight in philly Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Then why did he vote against the huge revenue sharing increase that was the 2006 CBA. There are only 3 or 4 teams generating signficantly more than the rest. None of them have demonstrated a competitive advantage over the Bills because of this extra revenue. If Ralph wants more money, he should sell the team. It's a win win for him and his long abused fans. You are porbably right. Those top earning teams who were on the hook for the massive revenue sharing increase of the 2006 CBA are no doubt tired of looking at Ralph's beefy bottom line, while reading his incessant wailing about how hard it is to compete. completely correct!, if he is not satisfied, sell the friggin team! but he obviously wont because he, like the rest of the NFL, are printing money!. sick of his complaining "small market " B S continuously.
GG Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 It's a typical attitude among people that teams/owners "owe" them something for their fandom. It's easy to spend someone else's money. PTR Make sure you remember this line next time you post on PPP.
Recommended Posts