Too all the Ralph haters

[JohnC]

John, the "hate" remark was in agreement with your statement " It is very unfair to categorize people who state the obvious about the caliber of ownership that they should be labled as "haters". Sorry if you read that as a personal shot (poor wording on my part). I do not think you hate RW. My brother, R.Rich always tells me it is not good to hate.

 

Also, I do not endorse or support anything about the quality or competency of RW as an owner. I just was saying he does not have to tell US squat about his plans. As the owner he can do whatever he wants.

 

A while ago, I started a thread that asked the question: what has RW done for Buffalo besides keep the Bills here? It was a football question in the football forum, and I was pummeled by the list of philanthropic things he has done for Buffalo.

 

No one wanted to address my question from a FOOTBALL and CHAMPIONSHIP angle. I think it was about three or four games into the 2010 season.

 

peace,

rockpile

 

Rockpile, I did misinterpret the basis and tenor of your response. So I apologize for the mischaracterization. From your latest response it appears that you and I are in accord on our evaluations on Ralph as an owner.

 

I just was saying he does not have to tell US squat about his plans. As the owner he can do whatever he wants.

 

Here is where I have a slightly different take on his plans when he passes with regards to the franchise. Is he obligated to tell anyone about his plans? Of course not. There is no legal basis for it. But that doesn't mean that it is appropriate that a 92-93 yr old man shouldn't inform the community that for over half a century contributed to his enrichment beyond even his own imagination what his plans are for the franchise. I just think that it is the right thing to do.

 

Ralph Wilson is a businessman who acts in his own interest. It is as simple as that. I don't have much antipathy towards him. I simply know who he is and what he is about. After a half-century of ownership it is surprising that so many people have failed to understand what he is mostly about.

 

Art Modell moved his franchise to Baltimore because he got a better deal. He had the right to do it. Robert Irsay, in the dead of night, had the moving vans traveling from Baltimore to Indianapolis because he was able to extract a better deal. He also had the right to do it. That doesn't mean that those jilted communities are required to have much respect for those very unsavory characters.

[BillsfaninFl]

Not sure what you're asking, but again, there have been several (not lesser, greater) cities than Buffalo that have received expansion/relocation teams that Ralph could have moved the team to, but hasn't. And again, he's voted "no" to every relocation. So he has shown loyalty to WNY. As for financial moves, I don't know what moves he's made, or what relevance it has to the discussion.

 

Now I see the misunderstanding between us. "Lesser cities" refered to cities that may not be as lucrative for an NFL team as the majority of earlier choices, based on a combination of factors, including population, local support for the NFL from fans and corporations, etc. It did not compare these locations to Buffalo. The point being that the best football towns have been taken. Making it riskier for a new (or moved) team to be sure that it will succeed financially in what was available more recently.

 

The relevance of Wilson's financial conservatism in his later years is that he has probably not seriously considered moving the team because it would be financially risky. This is not to say that his financial strategy has been right or wrong. Merely that his track record has shown that he has played it close to the vest for several years.

 

The combination of these two points of factual evidence implies that it was not loyalty to a community that kept the Bills in Buffalo. You can believe the opposite if you wish, but since Wilson has directly or indirectly implied multiple times over the years that unless he gets the financial support of the fans and local government that he may have to consider moving the team, that's questionable. (Of course, he and his staff may have just been pressuring people to build a stadium and fill it, which has happened in many NFL towns, but that certainly doesn't sound like loyalty to Buffalo fans either.) In fact, I am unaware of any real evidence that he has this perceived loyalty. Perhaps you can provide some.

 

Finally, if you need some evidence about the risk I mentioned, check out Jacksonville, an expansion city. Yes it's far greater than Buffalo if you are speaking of population, but it has failed as an NFL franchise. The fact that the stadium could not be filled for a majority of games over several years has been such an embarrassment that the owner had whole sections of seats permanently covered a few years ago so that the small crowds wouldn't be so obvious when games were televised. This financial inadequacy is why Jacksonville is a candidate to move to Los Angeles.

Edited June 23, 2011 by BillsfaninFl

[rockpile]

He is the owner so he must follow laws. With that caveat, he has the ability and right to do whatever he wants. He does not have a right to succeed but he HAS succeeded (financially) for over 50 years in this endeavor.

 

He is most certainly entitled to either success or failure! I do not understand what you mean by the "entitlement culture" remark, as applied to anything I said.

 

His age has already determined HE will be out of business soon.

 

In our free market society, we do NOT value the individual, except in theory. Customer service is sadly doled out like a placebo from Nurse Ratchet.

 

Losing Polian was one or RW's biggest blunders.

 

 

 

The fact he is the owner gives him the ability to do whatever he wants but not the RIGHT.

 

The entire free market system is based on the idea that good salesmen are not inordinately hindered by the government in making the sale. However, 50% of all companies go out of business within their first 5 years of incorporation specifically because they do not have a RIGHT to do whatever they want. The market gives abilities if you earn them but gives no one a RIGHT to succeed. It amazes me how in the entitlement culture people believe they have a RIGHT to do whatever they want.

 

 

 

If he decides to not care what the customer wants odds are that he will be out of business soon. The owners do not drive the economy, consumers drive the economy. This is where the old saying the customer is always right comes from. Those who forget this sooner or later end up without customers.

 

 

 

I agree he does not owe you anything beyond him surviving or not based on him continuing to give the customer what they want.

 

However, in our free market based society, we value the individual. Merely because of the accumulation of old capital (often unearned and merely passed from one generation to he next who did nothing beside being lucky to get it) the rights on individuals are not allowed to be trampled in our society.

 

The NFL was forced by the decert in the 1980s by the courts protecting individuals to realize they needed the union to represent the players in order to ignore the rights of individuals through exercises like the draft.

 

The draft is basically a decision by employers to divide up and allocate individuals and force them to negotiate with one and only one team if they want to play NFL football. The plaintiffs in the Brady et al lawsuit have proposed as a remedy for these individuals that the NFL be forced to play by free market rules and negotiate with individual players for the best deal the market allows.

 

What the NFLPA is arguing that since the owners basically begged the NFLPA not to decertify after the mid 80s lockout so that it could restrain individual rights through mechanisms like the draft that this essentially made the players a partner with the NFL in colluding against the rights of college players.

 

You as fan do have zero rights to the details. However, the NFLPA maintains that as a court approved partner in the collusion denying the ability of individuals to pursue the free market should as partners see the books.

 

The NFL actually took a lower level of income than was offered to instead get lock-out insurance. The NFLPA is arguing that if the NFL is not willing to treat the players as a partner, that is fine and is their ability. However, they should not expect the NFLPA to collude in denying individuals their ability to participate in a free market unless they treat the NFLPA honestly an as a partner.

 

This whole fight is about whether one supports the free market (in which case one must support the Brady et al. ca;; for free market negotiation,

 

or one can support the currently negotiated CBA (at least until the owners exercised their contractual right to opt out) which offered up a not unreasonable middle ground (at least according to Paul Tagliaboo-boo and 30 of 32 o owners at the time) where yes the NFLPA agreed to join the NFL in restricting the rights of individuals to pursue the free market but in exchange the players certified rep got 60.5% of the total receipts,

 

or one can support the NFL owners position which essentially orders the NFLPA to represent the players and to collude with the owners to restrain individuals from operating in a free market by allocating them in a draft to one and only one team

 

(even worse, the NFL and NFLPA collude to bar adults 18-21 to sign contracts to play in the NFL.

 

It amazes me that an allegedly conservative appeals court has overturned a court of fact ruling which recognized that the NFL is actively ignoring the rights of individuals to negotiate in a free market.

 

 

However, his opinion is actually supported by the fact that the Bills have failed to even qualify for the playoffs for over a decade. Blame Polian, Butler, TD, Marv, Wade Phillips,Mularkey or whomever you want, but the simple fact is only one man has had his hands of the throttle this whole time.

 

Even if you want to blame these others, they are only responsible for part of this record of failures and who hired all these idiots in the first place.

 

You are both entitled to an opinion but his is based on measureable facts and yours is demonstrably wrong.

[Doc]

Without the first sentence, the rest all melts away. Which leads to the question: would you rather Buffalo had no team, or the Bills as they stand today?

 

That is a really tough question. Of course we want the Bills in Buffalo, but think of it this way. Would you rather have a nice sports car in your driveway, that you dump tons of money into it, but it hardly if ever runs or would you just rather not have a car at all?

Actually the better questions are would you rather:

 

a) your father gave you a car that at times is an embarrassment because it sputters and smokes and you don't get a lot of hot dates, but it's cheap to maintain and does the job

b) have an expensive car that will cost you a lot of money to buy (dad wants you to pay for half of it) and maintain, money that you don't really have/can't afford to spend

c) not have a car at all?

 

Now I see the misunderstanding between us. "Lesser cities" refered to cities that may not be as lucrative for an NFL team as the majority of earlier choices, based on a combination of factors, including population, local support for the NFL from fans and corporations, etc. It did not compare these locations to Buffalo. The point being that the best football towns have been taken. Making it riskier for a new (or moved) team to be sure that it will succeed financially in what was available more recently.

 

The relevance of Wilson's financial conservatism in his later years is that he has probably not seriously considered moving the team because it would be financially risky. This is not to say that his financial strategy has been right or wrong. Merely that his track record has shown that he has played it close to the vest for several years.

 

The combination of these two points of factual evidence implies that it was not loyalty to a community that kept the Bills in Buffalo. You can believe the opposite if you wish, but since Wilson has directly or indirectly implied multiple times over the years that unless he gets the financial support of the fans and local government that he may have to consider moving the team, that's questionable. (Of course, he and his staff may have just been pressuring people to build a stadium and fill it, which has happened in many NFL towns, but that certainly doesn't sound like loyalty to Buffalo fans either.) In fact, I am unaware of any real evidence that he has this perceived loyalty. Perhaps you can provide some.

 

Finally, if you need some evidence about the risk I mentioned, check out Jacksonville, an expansion city. Yes it's far greater than Buffalo if you are speaking of population, but it has failed as an NFL franchise. The fact that the stadium could not be filled for a majority of games over several years has been such an embarrassment that the owner had whole sections of seats permanently covered a few years ago so that the small crowds wouldn't be so obvious when games were televised. This financial inadequacy is why Jacksonville is a candidate to move to Los Angeles.

I've gone over this numerous times. Again, teams have moved to new cities and old cities have been given expansion teams. Ralph could have moved his team to any of those locations during the previous decades with virtually no financial risk (Jax is a lone exception) on his part. And again, voting "no" to relocations, when it would be far easier to vote "yes," is an example of actions speaking louder than words.

 

As for demanding support, Ralph, like any owner, isn't running a charity. If people don't support the team, he's not going to lose money to keep it there. This seems obvious.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Doc

[billsfreak]

He is the owner so he must follow laws. With that caveat, he has the ability and right to do whatever he wants. He does not have a right to succeed but he HAS succeeded (financially) for over 50 years in this endeavor.

 

He is most certainly entitled to either success or failure! I do not understand what you mean by the "entitlement culture" remark, as applied to anything I said.

 

His age has already determined HE will be out of business soon.

 

In our free market society, we do NOT value the individual, except in theory. Customer service is sadly doled out like a placebo from Nurse Ratchet.

 

Losing Polian was one or RW's biggest blunders.

Ralph didn't lose Polian, he chased him out of town. Real smart move on his part.

[C.Biscuit97]

It's gonna be a sad day when Ralph passes. IMO, he always wanted to win but he just didnt always know how to do it. He embraced Buffalo & kept an entity in a billion dollar business here for 50 years in a dying economy.

 

I'm not ashamed to admit I'd shed a tear when he passes. A lot of people should as well. It's pretty pathetic the crap people threw at Ralph. How many owners would have keep a team in poor Buffalo when LA was open. Not many.

 

Hopefully, the Bills give RW one last great ride.

 

Ralph didn't lose Polian, he chased him out of town. Real smart move on his part.

If you would let another man insult your child, you're a flicking another word for a kitty cat. If Polian would have called my daughter what he alleged did, losing a job would have been the least of his concerns.

 

But I guess to some, keeping Bills fans happy is more important than standing up for your family.

[K-9]

Ralph didn't lose Polian, he chased him out of town. Real smart move on his part.

 

If you're gonna ding RW for parting ways with Polian then you have to give him a ton of credit for promoting him to GM in the first place.

 

Ironically, after promoting Polian after back to back 2-14 seasons, many fans just thought RW was again taking the cheap way out. NOBODY was singing Polian's praises at the time OTHER than RW.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Mr. WEO]

I guess you could say any owner could have moved to any of those places also. But why would they? And why would Ralph? Big bucks in Indy? Cleveland? Baltimore?

 

Like almost all owners, you stay where you are because you're making money (lots of it). In Ralph's case, not with "vitually" no risk, but actually no risk. All the moves involved problems with stadiums or stadium revenue--none left for "better markets". Ralph threatened to move in 69-70 and the county built him a new stadium. Why would he move when he got what all those other owners wanted and couldn't.

 

Just because it made financial sense for each of those teams to relocate (or re-relocate), it never made financial sense for him to move, and he has always known this. His bottom line over the decades is all the proof of this you need.

 

I would also venture that Buffalo is the only of those cities where he could have sold so many tickets over so many years despite his mostly inept stewardship of his team.

[C.Biscuit97]

I guess you could say any owner could have moved to any of those places also. But why would they? And why would Ralph? Big bucks in Indy? Cleveland? Baltimore?

 

Like almost all owners, you stay where you are because you're making money (lots of it). In Ralph's case, not with "vitually" no risk, but actually no risk. All the moves involved problems with stadiums or stadium revenue--none left for "better markets". Ralph threatened to move in 69-70 and the county built him a new stadium. Why would he move when he got what all those other owners wanted and couldn't.

 

Just because it made financial sense for each of those teams to relocate (or re-relocate), it never made financial sense for him to move, and he has always known this. His bottom line over the decades is all the proof of this you need.

 

I would also venture that Buffalo is the only of those cities where he could have sold so many tickets over so many years despite his mostly inept stewardship of his team.

 

The Browns moving kills your whole point. The Bills have a way better modern history of success than the Browns, yet Cleveland always filled their stands.

 

Buffalo has been on a negative population growth for the last 50 years! If anything, Ralph is crazy for keeping the team here for as long as he has.

 

Fact: no city with a population the size of Buffalo will ever be given a pro sports team again. It would make no sense.

[K-9]

... If you would let another man insult your child, you're a flicking another word for a kitty cat. If Polian would have called my daughter what he alleged did, losing a job would have been the least of his concerns.

 

But I guess to some, keeping Bills fans happy is more important than standing up for your family.

 

The incident with Linda Bogdan is overblown. Polian was/is irascible to say the least. He had heated arguments with all his scouts at one time or another. If Linda was RW's son and Polian called him a di*k I don't think it would have been as legendary. Besides Linda Bogden could hold her own and she was a pretty good scout in her own right.

 

I suspect the bigger issue had to do with Polian's disagreements with Littman.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited June 23, 2011 by K-9

[Doc]

The Browns moving kills your whole point. The Bills have a way better modern history of success than the Browns, yet Cleveland always filled their stands.

 

Buffalo has been on a negative population growth for the last 50 years! If anything, Ralph is crazy for keeping the team here for as long as he has.

 

Fact: no city with a population the size of Buffalo will ever be given a pro sports team again. It would make no sense.

Bingo. And the teams who relocated and their replacement teams are doing just fine financially, thanks to new stadiums largely funded by the taxpayers.

 

BTW, how long did people think Polian would stick around? The team had just lost their 3rd SB when he was fired, was on their way to losing their 4th, and then missed the playoffs the following year. That along with his abrasive personality spelled goner sooner rather than later. The shame is that he couldn't craft a SB winner in Buffalo.

[C.Biscuit97]

The incident with Linda Bogdan is overblown. Polian was/is irascible to say the least. He had heated arguments with all his scouts at one time or another. If Linda was RW's son and Polian called him a di*k I don't think it would have been as legendary. Besides Linda Bogden could hold her own and she was a pretty good scout in her own right.

 

I suspect the bigger issue had to do with Polian's disagreements with Littman.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

I'll defer to you since I was pretty young during those years. But as much whining as people do about how Polian left, if we simply made AJ Smith the GM, would we have missed Polian as much?

[Mr. WEO]

The Browns moving kills your whole point. The Bills have a way better modern history of success than the Browns, yet Cleveland always filled their stands.

 

Buffalo has been on a negative population growth for the last 50 years! If anything, Ralph is crazy for keeping the team here for as long as he has.

 

Fact: no city with a population the size of Buffalo will ever be given a pro sports team again. It would make no sense.

I said that previous owners moved because they wanted new stadiums. Art Modell was one of those owners.

 

The Browns have great fans, too. But the Bills haven't been much better, let alone "way better". 13 playoff seasons for the Bills vs. 9 for the Browns since the merger--30 years. The Browns were a very good team in the mid to late 80s and they were followed by the Bills. Neither has had much success since then.

 

And yes, despite hemorrhaging population even over the past decade, the Bills have seen record profits. Why would Ralph be "crazy" not to give up this gig? How would he do better in Cleveland? It makes no sense to keep saying he could have moved at any time and made out better.

 

Bingo. And the teams who relocated and their replacement teams are doing just fine financially, thanks to new stadiums largely funded by the taxpayers.

BTW, how long did people think Polian would stick around? The team had just lost their 3rd SB when he was fired, was on their way to losing their 4th, and then missed the playoffs the following year. That along with his abrasive personality spelled goner sooner rather than later. The shame is that he couldn't craft a SB winner in Buffalo.

 

The Buffalo Bills are one of those teams, doc. Hence, Ralph is like Modell, Irsay, Davis, Frontiere--except his local government gave him what he wanted. Pretty simple.

 

Also, I assume you're joking when you say Polian "couldn't craft a SB winner in Buffalo". Those were some of the most stacked teams ever on both side of the ball, with something like 18 Pro Bowlers and a handful of HOFers. What piece was missing?? Oh, that's right--a coach who could win at least one SB out of 4 with all that talent.

[K-9]

... Also, I assume you're joking when you say Polian "couldn't craft a SB winner in Buffalo". Those were some of the most stacked teams ever on both side of the ball, with something like 18 Pro Bowlers and a handful of HOFers. What piece was missing?? Oh, that's right--a coach who could win at least one SB out of 4 with all that talent.

 

I agree that a different HC may have made a difference but hiring the right HC is part of crafting a team and that was Polian's job, too.

 

GO BILL!!!

[Mr. WEO]

I agree that a different HC may have made a difference but hiring the right HC is part of crafting a team and that was Polian's job, too.

 

GO BILL!!!

That, I will agree with. But I would comment that the Colts have done pretty well essentially without a talented HC since Polian got there. Even won a SB.

[Doc]

The Buffalo Bills are one of those teams, doc. Hence, Ralph is like Modell, Irsay, Davis, Frontiere--except his local government gave him what he wanted. Pretty simple.

 

Also, I assume you're joking when you say Polian "couldn't craft a SB winner in Buffalo". Those were some of the most stacked teams ever on both side of the ball, with something like 18 Pro Bowlers and a handful of HOFers. What piece was missing?? Oh, that's right--a coach who could win at least one SB out of 4 with all that talent.

The Buffalo Bills are one of those teams...how? Because a game moved north of the border? Because Ralph, instead of asking for "welfare" from the owners after that bad 2006 CBA, went out on his own and generated more reveue? I'd take splitting home games with Toronto over seeing the team up and move, because if it does, it ain't coming back.

I agree that a different HC may have made a difference but hiring the right HC is part of crafting a team and that was Polian's job, too.

Bingo.

[Mr. WEO]

The Buffalo Bills are one of those teams...how? Because a game moved north of the border? Because Ralph, instead of asking for "welfare" from the owners after that bad 2006 CBA, went out on his own and generated more reveue? I'd take splitting home games with Toronto over seeing the team up and move, because if it does, it ain't coming back.

 

Bingo.

The Bills are one of those "teams [who]are doing just fine financially, thanks to new stadiums largely funded by the taxpayers". By your own reasoning, there was therefore no reason for Ralph to move.

 

Not sure what Toronto has to do with this particular discussion. It certainly had nothing with Ralph deciding not to move to Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Louis, Indy, Carolina, jax or Los Angeles.

 

You well know that, had he qualified, Ralph wouldn't have had to "ask for welfare"--he would have simply received it.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[JohnC]

I'll defer to you since I was pretty young during those years. But as much whining as people do about how Polian left, if we simply made AJ Smith the GM, would we have missed Polian as much?

 

I'll reinforce what K-9 stated about the primary reason that Polian was fired. It had little to do with the profane way Polian conducted himself. Polian had a very rough and combative style. The raw way he dealt with Ralph's daughter was the same way in general he dealt with his staff. It is unfair to her and her abilities as an employee to suggest that she couldn't handle the indelicate way she was spoken to, the same way as the other scouts were treated.

 

Bill Polian and Jeff Littman had epic battles over players and their salaries. It was a never ending tug of war. There was no way that they could much longer co-exist. There should be no surprise that Ralph Wilson sided with Littman's more tight fisted fiscal view over Polian's more expansive fiscal view of assembling the roster. Thus Polian was fired.

 

John Butler and AJ Smith were tightly linked. As with Polian Butler got tired of the owner's constant interference and his constant harranguing about costs. As Butler's contract was expiring Ralph offered him a very low-balled contract (which he later increased). Butler wanted out and he got out. Ralph asked AJ Smith to take over. Smith said no. He was very close to Butler-thus he followed him to San Diego.

 

The basic point that I am making is that Ralph is the owner and it is his presence that has shadowed this organization throughout its history. He more than anyone else is the reason why the franchise has struggled so much.

 

The issue isn't whether Ralph is a good person or not. The issue is whether he is a competent owner. Look at the team's record over the past decade and then draw your own conclusion. In a system designed for parity the Bills can't get beyond being mediocre.

 

As it stands I believe if Buddy Nix is allowed to do his job without much interference the franchise will eventually be successful. It is going to take time and patience to get back to being a relevant franchise again.

[Doc]

The Bills are one of those "teams [who]are doing just fine financially, thanks to new stadiums largely funded by the taxpayers". By your own reasoning, there was therefore no reason for Ralph to move.

Almost every owner has received taxpayer contributions for his/her stadium, doc. I don't know why you (continue to) single Ralph out like he's the only one. The difference is The Ralph isn't new and didn't cost the taxpayers several hundreds of millions of dollars, followed by massive price hikes for tickets, parking, and concessions. And while he does fine in RWS, he could have done better elsewhere with a new stadium funded by significantly more money from the taxpayers with no risk on his part.

[K-9]

I find this concept of "welfare" for teams qualifying for revenue shares a bit ridiculous and Jerry Jones a bit hypocritical.

 

The cost to defend Jerry in his lawsuit against SB ticket holders is an example. That's being born by all 32 teams. Jerry has no qualms about sharing those costs.

 

If Jerry makes $100 million in revenues through the use of his stadium for other events like college games, concerts, rodeos, etc. $48m (under the reported terms of the new CBA) has to go to the players. But Jerrah has no qualms about spreading that $48m dollar expense across all 32 teams, does he? He still makes a nice chunk of change (and that's GREAT BTW) but every other team has to pony up $1.5m to cover that nut. When Jerral generates revenues EVERYBODY's expenses go up.

 

This was never a problem when player costs were tied to shared revenue only but since the players will never revert to that model here's an idea: how about each team pays their 48% of UNshared revenues separately? This way Jerral pays the whole $48m himself but is free of the burden of having to subsidize other teams. And every other team is only on the hook to pay their 48% of whatever unshared revenue they actually generate. The amounts remain the same so why would the players object?

 

Why wouldn't this help to mollify the low revenue teams that bemoan the fact that high revenue teams are forcing their player expenses to go up?

 

GO BILLS!!!