vegas55 Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 Hamilton was asked about Ralph on WGR today and one of his takes was priceless as a demonstration of just how clueless the local media is, including a guy (Hamilton) who covers the Bills. In the context of how Ralph was so loyal to Buffalo, Hamilton mentioned how Ralph "stood up" to the NFL and secured revenue sharing for small city franchises like the Bills. Hamilton did concede that the Bills were very profitable before Ralph got his revenue sharing. The actual fact of the matter is that Ralph did hold out and force the NFL into a revenue sharing agreement that financially benefited the franchise. Ralph stated at the time that a franchise like the Bills "could not survive" without revenue sharing. But in an absolute betrayal of the WNY area, Ralph negotiated this revenue share agreement with the provision that revenue sharing would only happen while Ralph owned the Bills. As soon as a new owner takes control, the revenue sharing ceases. So if Ralph really believed that the franchise could not survive without revenue sharing, he proceeded to negotiate a deal which would not allow the team to survive in Buffalo under new ownership. However you view this, it's just ridiculous for Hamilton to point this out as an example of Ralph's loyalty to WNY. It is in fact just the opposite. The revenue sharing agreement he secured benefited one person, and one person only - Ralph Wilson
Wayne Cubed Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 Hamilton was asked about Ralph on WGR today and one of his takes was priceless as a demonstration of just how clueless the local media is, including a guy (Hamilton) who covers the Bills. In the context of how Ralph was so loyal to Buffalo, Hamilton mentioned how Ralph "stood up" to the NFL and secured revenue sharing for small city franchises like the Bills. Hamilton did concede that the Bills were very profitable before Ralph got his revenue sharing. The actual fact of the matter is that Ralph did hold out and force the NFL into a revenue sharing agreement that financially benefited the franchise. Ralph stated at the time that a franchise like the Bills "could not survive" without revenue sharing. But in an absolute betrayal of the WNY area, Ralph negotiated this revenue share agreement with the provision that revenue sharing would only happen while Ralph owned the Bills. As soon as a new owner takes control, the revenue sharing ceases. So if Ralph really believed that the franchise could not survive without revenue sharing, he proceeded to negotiate a deal which would not allow the team to survive in Buffalo under new ownership. However you view this, it's just ridiculous for Hamilton to point this out as an example of Ralph's loyalty to WNY. It is in fact just the opposite. The revenue sharing agreement he secured benefited one person, and one person only - Ralph Wilson This is rather confusing. Revenue sharing is part of the CBA, I'd be interested where in the CBA it says if Ralph dies the Bills don't get to share revenue, when every other team does.
SF Bills Fan Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 (edited) No- it will not stop. The NFL is set up so that all franchises share national TV rights regardless of who owns the team. Where revenue is not shared is the local revenue. That is why teams in the big markets make more- a luxury box in NYC, for example, will go for a million a year and Buffalo 100k. Ad money and local radio rights are bigger. There is the disparity. But the revenue sharing is what allows Buffalo and Cleveland and Green Bay to share big dollars and compete. Without it, it woukd be like MLB. I don't know who originated revenue sharing (Rozelle, perhaps?) but I know that the big market owners were wise to accept it when it was proposed. They sacrificed their own revenue but knew it would make the league competitive and grow. I think Mara of the Giants was one of the guys that led the the charge to influence the other big market guys. Edited March 29, 2014 by SF Bills Fan
Doc Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 (edited) I believe the 2006 CBA had something about new owners not being allowed to participate in revenue sharing. But that was true for every franchise. And Ralph opposed that CBA. Edited March 29, 2014 by Doc
Wayne Cubed Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 Right so here's the CBA: http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf The owners agreed to 10 more years of revenue sharing, I don't see anything in there about the Buffalo Bills not being allowed to revenue share in the case Ralph Wilson dies. I don't see any mention of Ralph or the Bills. I don't see anything about new owners not being able to revenue share either. I'm not sure what Paul Hamilton was talking about.
sodbuster Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 Right so here's the CBA: http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf The owners agreed to 10 more years of revenue sharing, I don't see anything in there about the Buffalo Bills not being allowed to revenue share in the case Ralph Wilson dies. I don't see any mention of Ralph or the Bills. I don't see anything about new owners not being able to revenue share either. I'm not sure what Paul Hamilton was talking about. From the way the post reads, Hamilton wasn't talking about it, op was.
vegas55 Posted March 29, 2014 Author Posted March 29, 2014 No no and no. The OP is not referring to the revenue sharing agreement as it pertains to TV contract etc. The agreement Hamilton and the OP are talking about is an agreement where small city franchises receive an extra distribution (10 million + ) on top of regular revenue sharing. This is the sharing that ceases when a new owner takes over.
Lurker Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 (edited) Ralph negotiated this revenue share agreement with the provision that revenue sharing would only happen while Ralph owned the Bills. Thanks for a good laugh... http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15362630/wilson-pleased-with-cba-deal-this-time-around Edited March 29, 2014 by Lurker
Wayne Cubed Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 No no and no. The OP is not referring to the revenue sharing agreement as it pertains to TV contract etc. The agreement Hamilton and the OP are talking about is an agreement where small city franchises receive an extra distribution (10 million + ) on top of regular revenue sharing. This is the sharing that ceases when a new owner takes over. Riiiiiight, some hand-shake, back-door deal that's not actually written into the agreement the league uses to run itself. Makes sense now.
vegas55 Posted March 29, 2014 Author Posted March 29, 2014 Riiiiiight, some hand-shake, back-door deal that's not actually written into the agreement the league uses to run itself. Makes sense now. Read the previous post or better yet try using google before making a fool of yourself with your "hand shake, back door " comments. It was after all WGR reporter Hamilton who originally raised this, not the OP.
Beerball Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 Read the previous post or better yet try using google before making a fool of yourself with your "hand shake, back door " comments. It was after all WGR reporter Hamilton who originally raised this, not the OP. Why do you keep refereeing to yourself in the third person? You are the OP where this thread is concerned. You'll need to provide a link if you decide to start another thread.
Recommended Posts