Uffalo Ills Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 Nice. I like it. Clean sounding name brand that is also a local company. It'll always be the Ralph to me, but this is the company that I'd most want to get the naming rights.
Mr. WEO Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 Ralph did many great things for the NFL and WNY. Was he the smartest owner? Probably not. Did he make some poor decisions? Yes. Did he make decisions that were bottom line driven? Absolutely. But he always meant well and the Bills will be here for decades more thanks to him Heard both $3MM and $5MM per year. Deal lasts through current lease. The lease terms bound the team to WNY. That's why people dropped out left and right (there was a large LA group for one). Anyone that was interested in the team was going to have to keep them through the lease. To question someone's understanding when you don't understand is beyond strange. In addition to Ralph keeping the team in WNY he had some other big wins. The Bills signed the 1st naming rights deal in pro sports. He voted against the CBA and was wildly mocked for it. As it turns out he was 100% right on what would happen. No one disputes that anymore. He kept multiple teams afloat in the eary days to let the league build to what's it's become. He kept the Bills financially viable in a small, economically depressed area, with an old stadium, by surrounding himself with great sports business minds. At the end of it all he got $1.4B. He certainly wasn't stupid. I think that he's referring to keeping the Pats and Raiders afloat. If they folded would the AFL have survived? The AFL went from 8 to 9 to 10 teams before the merger. Losing 2 wouldn't have made a difference because the merger was absolutely inevitable as both leagues were in an arms race for draft picks. Also, in order to keep the AFL in check, the NFL started expanding to take away cities as potential AFL locations. They would have easily replaced the Boston and Oakland teams with expansions. The AFL essentially folded after 6 years, when the merger was announced. Poaching draft picks and lucrative TV contracts (for back then) are what really kept teams afloat until the NFL bailout. Wilson did loan Oakland money, but he took 25% equity in the team until they payed him back.
billsfanmiami(oh) Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 The AFL went from 8 to 9 to 10 teams before the merger. Losing 2 wouldn't have made a difference because the merger was absolutely inevitable as both leagues were in an arms race for draft picks. Also, in order to keep the AFL in check, the NFL started expanding to take away cities as potential AFL locations. They would have easily replaced the Boston and Oakland teams with expansions. The AFL essentially folded after 6 years, when the merger was announced. Poaching draft picks and lucrative TV contracts (for back then) are what really kept teams afloat until the NFL bailout. Wilson did loan Oakland money, but he took 25% equity in the team until they payed him back. Cool story bro!
Kirby Jackson Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 The AFL went from 8 to 9 to 10 teams before the merger. Losing 2 wouldn't have made a difference because the merger was absolutely inevitable as both leagues were in an arms race for draft picks. Also, in order to keep the AFL in check, the NFL started expanding to take away cities as potential AFL locations. They would have easily replaced the Boston and Oakland teams with expansions. The AFL essentially folded after 6 years, when the merger was announced. Poaching draft picks and lucrative TV contracts (for back then) are what really kept teams afloat until the NFL bailout. Wilson did loan Oakland money, but he took 25% equity in the team until they payed him back. Maybe so, I was just clarifying what I thought Nucci was saying. You sounded confused but maybe I misread that.
bbb Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 I'm honestly surprised we're not (yet?) seeing the "RCW" made a permanent part of the uniforms a la the Bears and George Halas. I thought for sure they would do this.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 The AFL went from 8 to 9 to 10 teams before the merger. Losing 2 wouldn't have made a difference because the merger was absolutely inevitable as both leagues were in an arms race for draft picks. Also, in order to keep the AFL in check, the NFL started expanding to take away cities as potential AFL locations. They would have easily replaced the Boston and Oakland teams with expansions. The AFL essentially folded after 6 years, when the merger was announced. Poaching draft picks and lucrative TV contracts (for back then) are what really kept teams afloat until the NFL bailout. Wilson did loan Oakland money, but he took 25% equity in the team until they payed him back. If the AFL lost two teams in all likelihood the NFL wouldn't have merged. They would have just waited for the league to collapse on its own. The merger was never a given. It was a way of eliminating competition. A strong AFL forced their hand. And Ralph Wilson played a huge role in making and keeping it strong, from loaning money to negotiating TV deals. Those are the facts in the real world. I don't know what they are in WEO-world.
Mr. WEO Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 (edited) Cool story bro! No problem dude. Maybe so, I was just clarifying what I thought Nucci was saying. You sounded confused but maybe I misread that. Got you Kirby. I was hoping he would be able to expound on his point, but... If the AFL lost two teams in all likelihood the NFL wouldn't have merged. They would have just waited for the league to collapse on its own. The merger was never a given. It was a way of eliminating competition. A strong AFL forced their hand. And Ralph Wilson played a huge role in making and keeping it strong, from loaning money to negotiating TV deals. Those are the facts in the real world. I don't know what they are in WEO-world. You give no argument as to why that would be true. Losing 2 teams would not have caved the league--they could have gotten 2 more. They got 8 pretty quickly. They actually expanded to 10 before the merger. Since the merger was the only way to eliminate competition, obviously it had to happen. The AFL was stealing draft picks right away, not when they were "strong". Ralph did help negotiate the TV contract. Edited August 14, 2016 by Mr. WEO
PromoTheRobot Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 No problem dude. Got you Kirby. I was hoping he would be able to expound on his point, but... You give no argument as to why that would be true. Losing 2 teams would not have caved the league--they could have gotten 2 more. They got 8 pretty quickly. They actually expanded to 10 before the merger. Since the merger was the only way to eliminate competition, obviously it had to happen. The AFL was stealing draft picks right away, not when they were "strong". Ralph did help negotiate the TV contract. The argument is self-evident. The NFL weren't just being swell guys by merging with the AFL. They were eliminating competition because the AFL looked strong enough to compete with the NFL. They had a TV deal and they gave players a legit alternative to shop their services. If the AFL lost two teams, that would have been a sign of instability. NBC might have cut their rights fees for losing two significant markets. Would new teams replace them? That's your conjecture. Don't forget the AFL was known as the "Foolish Club" because success was not guaranteed. How many millionaires would want to volunteer to lose money on a league that appears to be in trouble? That would have started a downward spiral for the AFL. And if that were the case, the NFL would just let them implode on their own. No need for a merger. No need to split the pie with new teams. That's why Ralph bailing out Oakland and Boston was a big deal. Did I explain it well enough for you?
Mr. WEO Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 The argument is self-evident. The NFL weren't just being swell guys by merging with the AFL. They were eliminating competition because the AFL looked strong enough to compete with the NFL. They had a TV deal and they gave players a legit alternative to shop their services. If the AFL lost two teams, that would have been a sign of instability. NBC might have cut their rights fees for losing two significant markets. Would new teams replace them? That's your conjecture. Don't forget the AFL was known as the "Foolish Club" because success was not guaranteed. How many millionaires would want to volunteer to lose money on a league that appears to be in trouble? That would have started a downward spiral for the AFL. And if that were the case, the NFL would just let them implode on their own. No need for a merger. No need to split the pie with new teams. That's why Ralph bailing out Oakland and Boston was a big deal. Did I explain it well enough for you? Not quite. Yes, the strength of the AFL right out of the box is what caught the NFL's attention and started their panic. The first contract was with ABC--300,000 per team her year for 5 years. In a few months and, apparently just using his buddy list, Hunt was able to line up a slew of millionaires looking to buy a new team . He was basically telling them "which of these do you want?". Every owner new it would be a risky venture. When teams struggled financially, ownerships changed as groups of even more rich guys took over teams (Raiders and Titans/Jets). So it seems there was no shortage of guys willing to join the "foolish club". This was proven true as they continued to expand. So it's likely they wouldn't have lost teams even without Ralph's largess (the AFL itself bailed out the NY team). Even if they went to 6 for a year, no reason to believe that number would have been a killer.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 14, 2016 Posted August 14, 2016 Not quite. Yes, the strength of the AFL right out of the box is what caught the NFL's attention and started their panic. The first contract was with ABC--300,000 per team her year for 5 years. In a few months and, apparently just using his buddy list, Hunt was able to line up a slew of millionaires looking to buy a new team . He was basically telling them "which of these do you want?". Every owner new it would be a risky venture. When teams struggled financially, ownerships changed as groups of even more rich guys took over teams (Raiders and Titans/Jets). So it seems there was no shortage of guys willing to join the "foolish club". This was proven true as they continued to expand. So it's likely they wouldn't have lost teams even without Ralph's largess (the AFL itself bailed out the NY team). Even if they went to 6 for a year, no reason to believe that number would have been a killer. I love how you invent stuff and call it proof.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 I know I will probably get flamed for this, but... I really like the name change. It's got a Buffalo connection, it's a good name, and it doesn't sound like a complete sell out like "Land Shark Stadium" or "Qualcomm Stadium". Other than "Rich Stadium", this would be my #2 choice. I frankly found it odd that RCW allowed the stadium to be named after him while he was alive. I feel like you should only name things like a stadium after people once they leave the organization, or they pass away. After having called the place "Rich Stadium" for my entire life, it felt awkward to call it "The Ralph". "New Era Field" doesn't feel as awkward for some reason.
YoloinOhio Posted August 15, 2016 Author Posted August 15, 2016 Interesting tweet from Tim Graham in response to a tweet saying they might keep Ralph Wilson's name on the stadium in some form... @bytimgraham I've been told it will not.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 Interesting tweet from Tim Graham in response to a tweet saying they might keep Ralph Wilson's name on the stadium in some form... @bytimgraham I've been told it will not. Interesting. I was definitely envisioning Ralph Wilson Field at New Era Stadium.
Mr. WEO Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 Interesting. I was definitely envisioning Ralph Wilson Field at New Era Stadium. New Era isn't paying for "Ralph Wilson Field at...."
chris heff Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 I never thought Ralph Wilson was a great owner, but the worst, hardly. He was, however good for the leagues, both the AFL and NFL. Stating that the merger would have still happened if two franchises folded is speculation. Ralph would have been involved in a very small decision that began the poaching war and that was brining in the first soccer style kicker, Pete Gogolak. The Giants subsequent signing of Gogolak was the trigger. It changed the game. I met Ralph once. He was walking through a hotel lobby in Palm Beach. I introduced myself and told him I was a Bills fan. He stopped and talked to me not for a minute, more like fifteen. His face lit up when he talked abut the Bills. He was a gentleman.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 I never thought Ralph Wilson was a great owner, but the worst, hardly. He was, however good for the leagues, both the AFL and NFL. Stating that the merger would have still happened if two franchises folded is speculation. Ralph would have been involved in a very small decision that began the poaching war and that was brining in the first soccer style kicker, Pete Gogolak. The Giants subsequent signing of Gogolak was the trigger. It changed the game. I met Ralph once. He was walking through a hotel lobby in Palm Beach. I introduced myself and told him I was a Bills fan. He stopped and talked to me not for a minute, more like fifteen. His face lit up when he talked abut the Bills. He was a gentleman. He's in the HoF because of the great work he did as an AFL pioneer to help keep the league afloat through tough times for a couple of franchises. Not only that, but he's the reason why we still get to B word about all things Buffalo Bills.
CountDorkula Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 I'm good with it, People who cry about "But Pegula said he wasn't in it for the money" need to take a business 101 class. The Bills have missed on on upwards of $50MM dollars because of not selling naming rights. Thanks Ralph for not moving the Bills we appreciate it eternally. But it's the Pegulas team now and they can do whatever they damn well please.
BillnutinHouston Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 (edited) I would imagine that the Pegulas had an indication from Mary Wilson that she and the family would have no issue with the renaming, and thus went forward with negotiations on that basis. Edited August 15, 2016 by BillnutinHouston
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 As far as stupid named stadiums go, this about as great as you can hope. Very well done and once again, Ralph proves he is the man.
CardinalScotts Posted August 15, 2016 Posted August 15, 2016 How about New Era Stadium. Ralph was a terrible owner and the main reason behind no playoffs for 15 years
Recommended Posts