BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Yeah, there was a deal of discussion started a couple of weeks ago about it in this thread(covering much the same things as this thread). http://forums.twobil...cap-situations/ And I bet we only use about 15 million of it. Ralph can not lose no matter how hard he could try due to TV revenue sharing so he will always make $, just a matter of 100 million or 80 million a year!!!!
OldTimer1960 Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 According to this, the Bills have about $29 million adjusted cap space for 2014, 6th most in the league. (And thid should already have taken into account Fitz's 7 million) http://www.cbssports...y-cap-situation Let's put it this way. The salary cap is a limit put on all teams to TRY to allow all teams to compete on even footing. Just because the league limits team spending on (whatever it is, say $128MM) doesn't mean that all teams can afford to spend that much. I don't know what your household income is, but whatever it is, there is NO imposed limit on what you can spend on housing, cars, etc, BUT there is a real limit on what you can responsibly spend given your actual household income. Let's say that your household income is $100,000/year. You COULD buy a $1MM house, but that isn't practical given your income. If your wife called you CHEAP because you wouldn't buy that $1,000,000 house and a Mercedes, that would be equivalent to the argument that the Bills are CHEAP because they aren't spending what the salary cap allows them to. And I bet we only use about 15 million of it. Ralph can not lose no matter how hard he could try due to TV revenue sharing so he will always make $, just a matter of 100 million or 80 million a year!!!! You are SO uninformed. What is your mortgage and car payment vs. your income? Whatever it is, YOU are cheap for not spending more! And I bet we only use about 15 million of it. Ralph can not lose no matter how hard he could try due to TV revenue sharing so he will always make $, just a matter of 100 million or 80 million a year!!!! BTW, glad you aren't running my business!
Ramius Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Yeah, there was a deal of discussion started a couple of weeks ago about it in this thread(covering much the same things as this thread). http://forums.twobil...cap-situations/ Cool. A brief search seems to indicate that you can re-roll cap space from year to year. I've come across multiple site that suggest this), Here's a pretty good write-up (from a year ago) if you haven't seen it. http://www.raidersblog.com/2012/12/26/implications-of-salary-cap-rollover/
BADOLBILZ Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Let's put it this way. The salary cap is a limit put on all teams to TRY to allow all teams to compete on even footing. Just because the league limits team spending on (whatever it is, say $128MM) doesn't mean that all teams can afford to spend that much. I don't know what your household income is, but whatever it is, there is NO imposed limit on what you can spend on housing, cars, etc, BUT there is a real limit on what you can responsibly spend given your actual household income. Let's say that your household income is $100,000/year. You COULD buy a $1MM house, but that isn't practical given your income. If your wife called you CHEAP because you wouldn't buy that $1,000,000 house and a Mercedes, that would be equivalent to the argument that the Bills are CHEAP because they aren't spending what the salary cap allows them to. You are SO uninformed. What is your mortgage and car payment vs. your income? Whatever it is, YOU are cheap for not spending more! BTW, glad you aren't running my business! The cap is based on SHARED revenue OldTimer. The cap is actually a league-wide floor to prevent those with more unshared revenue from being able to use that to their advantage with regard to their payroll.
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Let's put it this way. The salary cap is a limit put on all teams to TRY to allow all teams to compete on even footing. Just because the league limits team spending on (whatever it is, say $128MM) doesn't mean that all teams can afford to spend that much. I don't know what your household income is, but whatever it is, there is NO imposed limit on what you can spend on housing, cars, etc, BUT there is a real limit on what you can responsibly spend given your actual household income. Let's say that your household income is $100,000/year. You COULD buy a $1MM house, but that isn't practical given your income. If your wife called you CHEAP because you wouldn't buy that $1,000,000 house and a Mercedes, that would be equivalent to the argument that the Bills are CHEAP because they aren't spending what the salary cap allows them to. You are SO uninformed. What is your mortgage and car payment vs. your income? Whatever it is, YOU are cheap for not spending more! BTW, glad you aren't running my business! Since NFL teams share 50 to 75% of TV revenue and the new contract is outlandish. No way any team can lose, especially since our stadium still has 90% or so seats filled and we have a very large attendenace overall.Since the 1960s, all regular season and playoff games broadcast in the United States have been aired by national television networks. Currently, the terrestrial television networks CBS ($3.73B), NBC ($3.6B) and Fox ($4.27B) — as well as cable television's ESPN ($8.8B) — are paying a combined total of US$20.4 billion[1] to broadcast NFL games as per the current contract that ends in 2013. From 2014 to 2022, the same networks will pay $39.6 billion for the same broadcast rights. Let's put it this way. The salary cap is a limit put on all teams to TRY to allow all teams to compete on even footing. Just because the league limits team spending on (whatever it is, say $128MM) doesn't mean that all teams can afford to spend that much. I don't know what your household income is, but whatever it is, there is NO imposed limit on what you can spend on housing, cars, etc, BUT there is a real limit on what you can responsibly spend given your actual household income. Let's say that your household income is $100,000/year. You COULD buy a $1MM house, but that isn't practical given your income. If your wife called you CHEAP because you wouldn't buy that $1,000,000 house and a Mercedes, that would be equivalent to the argument that the Bills are CHEAP because they aren't spending what the salary cap allows them to. You are SO uninformed. What is your mortgage and car payment vs. your income? Whatever it is, YOU are cheap for not spending more! BTW, glad you aren't running my business! You must be one of our front office guys that bottom line on how much we make is only concern....
OldTimer1960 Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 The cap is based on SHARED revenue OldTimer. The cap is actually a league-wide floor to prevent those with more unshared revenue from being able to use that to their advantage with regard to their payroll. Yes, it is. Of course there is UNSHARED revenue to consider too. Total Reveue = SHARED revenue + UNSHARED revenue. Teams like the Cowboys, Giants, Jets, etc have A LOT more UNSHARED revenue than other teams (like the Bills). So, what are the Bills to do if the salary cap exceeds their TOTAL revenue (as it does)????
vegas55 Posted January 5, 2014 Author Posted January 5, 2014 Tell that to every business operating today. FWIW, I work for a MAJOR health care company and my division consistently makes a profit, but not enough of a profit for corporate. So, within a few weeks we will be sold to a Private Equity firm who will cut costs as much as possible without putting us out of business and then sell us again. The personal situation for me and my co-workers will certainly be much worse than current, but that is the way of the world. The Cowboys wouldn't spend as much as they currently do if their revenue didn't substantiate it. Neither would the NY Yankees.... NO business considers past performance and profits when they make current financial decisions. Huge difference between a public company beholden to stockholders and a privately held company like the Bills. Even with that, many public companies operate at a loss; but count on appreciation in value. And very many owners of sports franchises sacrifice profit for success. Ralph has sacrificed success for profit ; disgraceful for a billionaire.
OldTimer1960 Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Since NFL teams share 50 to 75% of TV revenue and the new contract is outlandish. No way any team can lose, especially since our stadium still has 90% or so seats filled and we have a very large attendenace overall.Since the 1960s, all regular season and playoff games broadcast in the United States have been aired by national television networks. Currently, the terrestrial television networks CBS ($3.73B), NBC ($3.6B) and Fox ($4.27B) — as well as cable television's ESPN ($8.8B) — are paying a combined total of US$20.4 billion[1] to broadcast NFL games as per the current contract that ends in 2013. From 2014 to 2022, the same networks will pay $39.6 billion for the same broadcast rights. You must be one of our front office guys that bottom line on how much we make is only concern.... You are VERY wrong on this. Ever hear of luxury boxes??? Teams in big markets sell them for high prices and those don't count in SHARED revenue. How about Personal Seat Licences? Those are fees charged to season ticket holders for the right to buy season tix. Those don't count in SHARED revenue. The Bills have 0 revenue from these. How about merchandise sales??? This isn't shared revenue. Surely you know that the Cowboys, Giants, Jets, etc have significantly higher merchandise sales than the Bills. Let's consider ticket prices. Let's say the Cowboy's average ticket prices is $100 and the Bills' average price is $50 (probably over-estimated. While those revenues are shared, the Bills come out on the short-end of the revenue stick for ticket revenue. We can examine this further, but the reality is, the Bills' revenue is in the lower 25% of the league. They can't afford to spend to the cap and also break even. I don't know many businesses that will turn a loss on purpose.
Dibs Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 I simply incorrectly typed 2013 instead of 2014. ..... U-huh......except for the concept that without the typo your point becomes invalid. ....and there is also the concept that I pointed out the same error to you in the previous cap thread. And this isn't the first time that you have done this sort of thing. If I give you the benefit of doubt, I'd think that you don't actually read/comprehend the posts that you respond to. If I didn't, I'd think that you purposefully ignore, twist and fabricate information in order to argue your views.
OldTimer1960 Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Huge difference between a public company beholden to stockholders and a privately held company like the Bills. Even with that, many public companies operate at a loss; but count on appreciation in value. And very many owners of sports franchises sacrifice profit for success. Ralph has sacrificed success for profit ; disgraceful for a billionaire. Stop it now. Perhaps you'd like to buy the Bills and operate at a loss? Why would ANYONE do that unless they were SOOOO rich that it didn't matter? I, for one, am thankful that Mr. Wilson didn't move the team or sell the team to someone who would move it to a much more profitable market. Teams can and do compete very well without spending to the cap and teams that spend to the cap don't necessarily win. The trick (and I'll agree with some here) is to field a good team for a reasonable amount of $. The Bills haven't been good at that - yet, I acknowledge that it is more complicated than just spending a lot of money.
BADOLBILZ Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) Cool. A brief search seems to indicate that you can re-roll cap space from year to year. I've come across multiple site that suggest this), Here's a pretty good write-up (from a year ago) if you haven't seen it. http://www.raidersbl...y-cap-rollover/ And others have indicated that you can't re-roll that cap room. Dibs has seen these as well and even he has said he thinks that cap room can't be rolled over twice. Let me ask a pretty simple question: What is the motivation for rolling cap room forward when you have far more cap room than you could possibly use in the current year? Nobody has an answer for it. It would be nice to hear an answer from the Bills on it but I am not surprised the question hasn't been asked. If the answer is that they are protecting against being penalized for not spending to the cap minimum then there is tangible proof of a lack of commitment to winning.......which is simply damning. Why is it damning? Well, I am sure that there are plenty of people here who work for companies that make capital investments at the end of the year that meet minimum capital investment levels at which the IRS allows that company to completely depreciate those purchase in year 1.........in essence they spend to avoid just giving it away in taxes. All of a sudden new computers, new trucks, new manufacturing equipment.......things that that either improve the companies ability to make money going forward or at the very least make it a better place to work......which creates a different type of capital in itself. That's why the system is set up that way.......to encourage companies from not simply stack cheese.......but to be a going concern. If the Bills rolled that $7M into next season for the reason which I suggest........they are circumventing a system that is intended to make them be as competitive as possible. If the Bills are Edited January 5, 2014 by BADOLBEELZ
vegas55 Posted January 5, 2014 Author Posted January 5, 2014 Stop it now. Perhaps you'd like to buy the Bills and operate at a loss? Why would ANYONE do that unless they were SOOOO rich that it didn't matter? I, for one, am thankful that Mr. Wilson didn't move the team or sell the team to someone who would move it to a much more profitable market. Teams can and do compete very well without spending to the cap and teams that spend to the cap don't necessarily win. The trick (and I'll agree with some here) is to field a good team for a reasonable amount of $. The Bills haven't been good at that - yet, I acknowledge that it is more complicated than just spending a lot of money. You missed the point completely - Ralph Wilson is SOOO rich that it does not matter. Unless you figure he can spend a billion dollars in the time he has left. A simple question; if you were 90 years old and worth a billion dollars what would be your priority? Winning a Super Bowl for the first time or churning out a yearly profit for the 50th consecutive year ?
OldTimer1960 Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 And others have indicated that you can't re-roll that cap room. Dibs has seen these as well and even he has said he thinks that cap room can't be rolled over twice. Let me ask a pretty simple question: What is the motivation for rolling cap room forward when you have far more cap room than you could possibly use in the current year? Nobody has an answer for it. It would be nice to hear an answer from the Bills on it but I am not surprised the question hasn't been asked. If the answer is that they are protecting against being penalized for not spending to the cap minimum then there is tangible proof of a lack of commitment to winning.......which is simply damning. Why is it damning? Well, I am sure that there are plenty of people here who work for companies that make capital investments at the end of the year that meet minimum capital investment levels at which the IRS allows that company to completely depreciate those purchase in year 1.........in essence they spend to avoid just giving it away in taxes. All of a sudden new computers, new trucks, new manufacturing equipment.......things that that either improve the companies ability to make money going forward or at the very least make it a better place to work......which creates a different type of capital in itself. That's why the system is set up that way.......to encourage companies from not simply stack cheese.......but to be a going concern. If the Bills rolled that $7M into next season for the reason which I suggest........they are circumventing a system that is intended to make them be as competitive as possible. If the Bills are But what (little) profit are the Bills' turning? Here is a link to a look at 2012 profitability (in terms of operating income) by Forbes - certainly an independent view: http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/ You may note that the Cowboy's operating income is more than 20x that of the Bills while the Cowboys spent considerably more against the cap than the Bills. The Bills are in the lowest quartile in operating income (I didn't take the time to do the math, but likely in the lowest 10%). If you want to argue from that list that there are teams, besides Detroit, that are operating at a loss in order to field a winner, then I will accept your point.
Dibs Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) Cool. A brief search seems to indicate that you can re-roll cap space from year to year. I've come across multiple site that suggest this), Here's a pretty good write-up (from a year ago) if you haven't seen it. http://www.raidersbl...y-cap-rollover/ Yes, it seems that most of the sites are running under a re-roll assumption(and it's quite possibly/likely correct). The main reason I am personally unsure of the veracity is the wording of the CBA....and this spotrac link... http://www.spotrac.c...-next-year-295/ I even emailed spotrac to try and get further confirmation/explanation but they didn't return my email. Oh well. I'm content being unsure for the time being as my personal speculations don't make any difference to what the reality will be.......and one can't really start speculating till the firm figures come in either way. Edited January 5, 2014 by Dibs
BADOLBILZ Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 U-huh......except for the concept that without the typo your point becomes invalid. ....and there is also the concept that I pointed out the same error to you in the previous cap thread. And this isn't the first time that you have done this sort of thing. If I give you the benefit of doubt, I'd think that you don't actually read/comprehend the posts that you respond to. If I didn't, I'd think that you purposefully ignore, twist and fabricate information in order to argue your views. I think what you are missing is what I am saying about the Bills intentions this season. I think they thought they MIGHT use enough cap room this year on new deals that they could very well have dipped into the last usable part of the cap.........the 2012 rollover money.......if they didn't push that $7M forward. What you still haven't had any answer for is the REASON WHY THEY MOVED THAT DEAD MONEY CAP HIT INTO NEXT YEAR. Crickets.
BADOLBILZ Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 But what (little) profit are the Bills' turning? Here is a link to a look at 2012 profitability (in terms of operating income) by Forbes - certainly an independent view: http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/ You may note that the Cowboy's operating income is more than 20x that of the Bills while the Cowboys spent considerably more against the cap than the Bills. The Bills are in the lowest quartile in operating income (I didn't take the time to do the math, but likely in the lowest 10%). If you want to argue from that list that there are teams, besides Detroit, that are operating at a loss in order to field a winner, then I will accept your point. What you don't seem to get is that it doesn't matter if the Cowboys make a billion.......the Bills have the revenue to spend to the cap. Not sure how many people understand how teams pay for signing bonuses etc.....but in most cases the money is borrowed......it doesn't come out of a pocket book. It's easy to get a loan.....even when you only made $12M.........when your business keeps appreciating far quicker than the cost of borrowing money. Those loans are subsequently paid off with cash flow.........IF the team isn't making more money with cash on hand than it costs to be paying interest on it. I respect your opinion but you are talking a household finance approach to a multi-billon dollar industry. Now if you want to say that Ralph Wilson has been pocketing the profits for the past 14 years and running the Bills more like a mom and pop operation where the heating bill is paid of of the cash register........perhaps to stack cheese to help cover tax implications for his family after he passes.......... and subsequently leaving the front office so woefully cash short that they are afraid to borrow more than a certain amount........then I will accept YOUR point.
Dibs Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 I think what you are missing is what I am saying about the Bills intentions this season. ..... That really has nothing to do with you knowledgeably using incorrect information to belabor you points......which is far more an important concept to me at this point than quibbling over an innocuous situation. .... What you still haven't had any answer for is the REASON WHY THEY MOVED THAT DEAD MONEY CAP HIT INTO NEXT YEAR. Crickets. You obviously don't want to know the reasons for conversation/information purposes.....you merely want to argue against me. This I have no interest in. Though I(and others) have actually given several reasons(which you never responded to)......there is no need for giving reasons. I have stated that it made no difference either way(and have shown many times why this is the case). You have stated it was a horrendous mismanagement. The onus is upon you to back your views....not me. And stating erroneous information to back your opinion is not a valid stance to take.
vegas55 Posted January 6, 2014 Author Posted January 6, 2014 But what (little) profit are the Bills' turning? Here is a link to a look at 2012 profitability (in terms of operating income) by Forbes - certainly an independent view: http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/ You may note that the Cowboy's operating income is more than 20x that of the Bills while the Cowboys spent considerably more against the cap than the Bills. The Bills are in the lowest quartile in operating income (I didn't take the time to do the math, but likely in the lowest 10%). If you want to argue from that list that there are teams, besides Detroit, that are operating at a loss in order to field a winner, then I will accept your point. But the Cowboys bought and paid for their stadium, they did not have the taxpayers build it for them! And Jerry paid hundreds of millions for the team, not $25,000. So for all the revenue advantages they have over the Bills, they also have enormous operating costs that the Bills do not have.
BADOLBILZ Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 That really has nothing to do with you knowledgeably using incorrect information to belabor you points......which is far more an important concept to me at this point than quibbling over an innocuous situation. You obviously don't want to know the reasons for conversation/information purposes.....you merely want to argue against me. This I have no interest in. Though I(and others) have actually given several reasons(which you never responded to)......there is no need for giving reasons. I have stated that it made no difference either way(and have shown many times why this is the case). You have stated it was a horrendous mismanagement. The onus is upon you to back your views....not me. And stating erroneous information to back your opinion is not a valid stance to take. I am perfectly wiling to admit that I could be wrong........but as yet there hasn't been a reason made for why it was done. If you don't think there was a reason then you are a very naiive fellow.
OldTimer1960 Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 But the Cowboys bought and paid for their stadium, they did not have the taxpayers build it for them! And Jerry paid hundreds of millions for the team, not $25,000. So for all the revenue advantages they have over the Bills, they also have enormous operating costs that the Bills do not have. Based on the Forbes data, the Cowboy"s extra revenue from just 4 years is about $1BILLION, so yes they can afford to pay for their stadium. BTW, I don't see Dallas winning much since Jimmy Johnson left.
Recommended Posts