La Canfora on FAN 590: Bills Situation "Toxic"

[Sisyphean Bills]

You are arguing about signing bonus. I'll use the dareus deal as an example but feel free to sub the concepts for mario (a Ralph signing).

 

Dareus got a 25m signing bonus. Hefty, sure. I'm saying pegs had to put the full $60m aside up front for the guarantees. That's more than double your discussion in previous posts.

 

Unfortunately what you haven't discussed is why Ralph couldn't afford to sign that as you point towards as an old issue. Mario did have less guaranteed up front (but did get some more guaranteed along the way) so maybe that's an issue, but as you would say- prove it to me.

 

I think it was a Forbes article, but it may have been published elsewhere. What it claimed was that Wilson was consistently one of the top 5 owners in the NFL in terms of his personal take from his franchise.

 

For Wilson, unlike the Pegulas, his business "empire" consisted primarily of the Buffalo Bills franchise. He clearly viewed it as a business and his family's nest egg. The Pegulas aren't in the same economic position.

 

None of that however changes the fact that the NFL has a salary cap, and that rule covers player bonuses.

[Reed83HOF]

So, yes, I am equating the Mularkey & Marrone departures, because there's a good chance the place is still rife with the old power struggles.

 

A good chance? I would say that it is a certainty...

[NoSaint]

 

I think it was a Forbes article, but it may have been published elsewhere. What it claimed was that Wilson was consistently one of the top 5 owners in the NFL in terms of his personal take from his franchise.

 

For Wilson, unlike the Pegulas, his business "empire" consisted primarily of the Buffalo Bills franchise. He clearly viewed it as a business and his family's nest egg. The Pegulas aren't in the same economic position.

 

None of that however changes the fact that the NFL has a salary cap, and that rule covers player bonuses.

Right, which is just a cash flow question. He can obviously cover the cap. The shared revenue covers not just the cap but a fair margin over that I believe.

 

In addition as you note, Ralph liked to take home money which points to cash on hand.... which means if the caps $150m and one year he floated out $200m and the next was constrained to $100m for cap purposes (overly simplified) while shared revenues are $226m each year (the packers last income statement) and he's already stocking away money...

 

With 26cb saying Ralph couldn't afford to fund signing bonuses (not even pointing at the full guarantees).... well, I guess we've walked up to the reason I'm asking him for proof Ralph couldn't fund bonuses. None of it should be an issue.

Edited December 17, 2016 by NoSaint

[Sisyphean Bills]

I'll stick to what I know to be true as well. And those facts made Malarkey's decision that much easier. He was neutered by Marv Levy.

 

OK. Link?

 

Because you can keep claiming it was Levy, and Levy may have had his own thoughts about re-taking the HC job or whatever, but the only guy who had a vote was Wilson, and he emphatically said Marv wasn't going to coach. So that "threat" or "neutering" was, quite simply, a mirage at best.

 

On the other hand, at that point in time, immediately after Donahoe was fired, there were two people that stepped into the vacuum. Ralph Wilson made himself President to replace Donahoe. He hired Marv in what was initially an unspecified role and later gave him the title of GM of Football.

 

Frankly, it makes more sense to me that Mularkey quit when he realized that Wilson, as President, wasn't helping him build a winning organization. Wilson often told his HCs to fire staff members. Mularkey was stuck in that scenario. If Wilson ordered him to fire staff, he had to. But Wilson had few connections to people in the coaching ranks of the NFL. Levy was coming out of retirement. Who were the better options Mularkey was supposed to turn to after he gutted his staff per the owner? With Donahoe, he had a partner who had connections and could help guide the newly minted HC. Like MM said straight out, it is hard to see that scenario as constructive and enabling him to build the team or take it in the direction he had wanted to. So yeah, he was thrown under the bus, neutered if you want, but not by a nefarious Levy, but by a rudderless organization treading water.

[DC Tom]

 

I don't think it's limited to the guys in charge. It's about the entire organization and who's vying for power. The sense I get is that Wilson's football operation wasn't a well run machine, and that allowed fiefdoms to grow within OBD. Just because the head guys changed doesn't mean that the way the team was run has changed. Have the Pegulas turned the entire operation over, like they eventually did with the Sabres? The answer is a resounding no.

 

So, yes, I am equating the Mularkey & Marrone departures, because there's a good chance the place is still rife with the old power struggles.

 

But...did we - or Marrone - know those fiefdoms weren't going to be dissolved after Pegula took over?

 

That's the key difference. Meathead quit on well-known dysfunction. Marrone quit on a far more uncertain future.

[K-9]

I don't think it's limited to the guys in charge. It's about the entire organization and who's vying for power. The sense I get is that Wilson's football operation wasn't a well run machine, and that allowed fiefdoms to grow within OBD. Just because the head guys changed doesn't mean that the way the team was run has changed. Have the Pegulas turned the entire operation over, like they eventually did with the Sabres? The answer is a resounding no.

 

So, yes, I am equating the Mularkey & Marrone departures, because there's a good chance the place is still rife with the old power struggles.

 

Old power struggles? That narrows it down to Brandon, Jimmy O, and Berchtold. Who were those three vying with 10 years ago? A newly hired Marv Levy? Their bosses in Detroit? Each other; a marketing guy, a financial manager, and the chief PR guy?

 

Malarkey and Marrone are former head coaches of the Buffalo Bills who resigned. That's where the similarities begin and end.

[BADOLBILZ]

I guess the retort would be that your point doesn't show understanding of funding a deal unless the NFL changed the process recently and I missed it

 

Cash to fund signing bonuses was never an issue then and as tom would say you are an idiot. That's only a fraction of funding a new contract when it's signed.

 

Cash to fund guarantees on a 100m deal are a different beast though. Pegula might have more money but just like you are demanding proof from others on their claims I'd likewise like to see that Ralph was too cash poor to be an effective owner.

 

 

 

Basically, Ralph spent better than a decade pocketing around $30M+ per year.

 

When I used to say that was what was going on a lot of apologists here absolutely refuted it was anywhere close to that number but then the info came out during the sales process.

 

Ralph had the cash to fund huge bonuses.

[NoSaint]

 

 

 

Basically, Ralph spent better than a decade pocketing around $30M+ per year.

 

When I used to say that was what was going on a lot of apologists here absolutely refuted it was anywhere close to that number but then the info came out during the sales process.

 

Ralph had the cash to fund huge bonuses.

And once the cap floor was set in the new cba, it made no substantial difference if he did it via bonus or salary. It was just what year it hit his books as an outlay, but as a rolling average was the same and required to land in a pretty narrow window.

 

He had plenty in shared revenue and plenty in cash on hand by anything I can piece together. But 26cb should be back to show me he couldn't even fund signing bonuses so we will see what he's got!

Edited December 18, 2016 by NoSaint

[26CornerBlitz]

And once the cap floor was set in the new cba, it made no substantial difference if he did it via bonus or salary. It was just what year it hit his books as an outlay, but as a rolling average was the same and required to land in a pretty narrow window.

 

He had plenty in shared revenue and plenty in cash on hand by anything I can piece together. But 26cb should be back to show me he couldn't even fund signing bonuses so we will see what he's got!

 

Do you understand that the Bills were a cash to the cap team based on the size of the market that did not yield as much non-shared revenue as some other NFL teams. Additionally, Ralph to a great degree derived his net worth from being an NFL owner which isn't the case with some others who were wealthier beyond football. Not sure what's so hard to understand. Exactly how profitable to you think the team was under Ralph in comparison to other teams? There's a reason why they went to a regional marketing plan and also started the dreaded Toronto series.

[NoSaint]

 

Do you understand that the Bills were a cash to the cap team based on the size of the market that did not yield as much non-shared revenue as some other NFL teams. Additionally, Ralph to a great degree derived his net worth from being an NFL owner which isn't the case with some others who were wealthier beyond football. Not sure what's so hard to understand. Exactly how profitable to you think the team was under Ralph in comparison to other teams? There's a reason why they went to a regional marketing plan and also started the dreaded Toronto series.

The 2014 salary cap was 133m and the shared revenues were 226m.

 

What kind of signing bonus was he unable to pay by that point? Since you've been extra demanding of others in this thread I'll go back to "prove it"

 

You gave ways they tried to maximize revenue not proof that Ralph couldn't afford signing bonuses. Two very different things there.

[26CornerBlitz]

The 2014 salary cap was 133m and the shared revenues were 226m.

 

What kind of signing bonus was he unable to pay by that point? Since you've been extra demanding of others in this thread I'll go back to "prove it"

 

You gave ways they tried to maximize revenue not proof that Ralph couldn't afford signing bonuses. Two very different things there.

 

Ralph wasn't running the team in 2014 for one. How profitable were the Bills after revenues and expenses? You know their P/L bottom line?

[Mr. WEO]

I think what he actually means (and maybe doesn't understand) is that contract guarantees have to be funded up front. The implication would be pegs can afford to do that while Ralph wouldn't.

 

I don't believe Ralph was cash poor though.

 

 

 

I'm talking exactly about cash on hand to pay bonuses. If that's my point, why wouldn't I understand it? Of course, they are spread out over the life of the contract. Not sure why he was trying to explain what I already knew. Ralph most certainly did not have the cash resources of the Pegulas.

 

 

Of course he did. You still seem to think the Pegulas are paying signing bonuses out of their pockets.

 

The shared revenue this year is 223 million. The salary cap is 155 million. You can do the math.

 

How many massive (and both, idiotic) contract extensions like Mario or Dareus do you fantasize are happening each year?? There's plenty of money "up front"to cover a few big signing bonuses every year. Throw in the non shared revenue and SHOULD see why it really doesn't require a billionaire to run an NFL team---only to buy one.

 

Ralph had all he needed to pay such bonuses. He chose not to, for the most part.

[26CornerBlitz]

 

 

 

 

Of course he did. You still seem to think the Pegulas are paying signing bonuses out of their pockets.

 

The shared revenue this year is 223 million. The salary cap is 155 million. You can do the math.

 

How many massive (and both, idiotic) contract extensions like Mario or Dareus do you fantasize are happening each year?? There's plenty of money "up front"to cover a few big signing bonuses every year. Throw in the non shared revenue and SHOULD see why it really doesn't require a billionaire to run an NFL team---only to buy one.

 

Ralph had all he needed to pay such bonuses. He chose not to, for the most part.

 

What was their bottom line profit from year to year?

Example: I can guarantee you that the Cowboys generate more revenue that the Bills and have more cash to spend.

[BADOLBILZ]

And once the cap floor was set in the new cba, it made no substantial difference if he did it via bonus or salary. It was just what year it hit his books as an outlay, but as a rolling average was the same and required to land in a pretty narrow window.

 

He had plenty in shared revenue and plenty in cash on hand by anything I can piece together. But 26cb should be back to show me he couldn't even fund signing bonuses so we will see what he's got!

 

Yep. And the cash to cap policy was a flat out excuse to pocket shared revenue.

 

Ralph was guilty as charged wrt not allocating the money other owners were forced to share with him into the product.

 

The new 90% spending(over 3 years) rule was put in place in part to force the hand of owners like Ralph.

 

As much to force them to find new revenue streams as to spend on players.

 

Ralph was quite the sandbagger wt his wealth as well.

 

One of my favorites was him telling the press that he was going to have to sell a Picasso to pay Andre Reed his signing bonus.

[Mr. WEO]

 

What was their bottom line profit from year to year?

Example: I can guarantee you that the Cowboys generate more revenue that the Bills and have more cash to spend.

 

 

Everyone knows this and it has nothing to do with this discussion. Every team has a small number of large signing bonuses to hand out each year--at most. So the need for mountains of extra cash is unnecessary....and is covered by the shared revenue anyway.

 

Ralph had far more cash flow than the Pegulas because (unless you think Terry paid full price in cash), Ralph had no debt to service.

 

Forbes has the only consistently published data on team finances. Im sure you've seen it every year.

[NoSaint]

 

What was their bottom line profit from year to year?

 

Example: I can guarantee you that the Cowboys generate more revenue that the Bills and have more cash to spend.

As a fellow small market team the packers averaged like 45m a year profit over the last few years released - im not sure they are ROLLING in nonshared revenue from suites like the cowboys. I think the lowest year I've seen rumored around buff was in the mid 20s and highest mid 40s with fluctuations in between year to year

 

I'll leave the ball in your court to back up your claim with numbers instead of feelings whenever you want though. It might even be true (though nothing I've seen supports it)but given your snark Im going to at least get you to back it up.

[26CornerBlitz]

As a fellow small market team the packers averaged like 45m a year profit over the last few years released - im not sure they are ROLLING in nonshared revenue from suites like the cowboys. I think the lowest year I've seen rumored around buff was in the mid 20s and highest mid 40s with fluctuations in between year to year

 

I'll leave the ball in your court to back up your claim with numbers instead of feelings whenever you want though. It might even be true (though nothing I've seen supports it)but given your snark Im going to at least get you to back it up.

 

Green Bay has been more profitable than the Bills and has no owner to satisfy. "Feelings" aside, I'm already aware of the estimated numbers on the Bills with respect to profitability which is what I'm basing my statements on in the Ralph era. That's my back up.

 

 

Everyone knows this and it has nothing to do with this discussion. Every team has a small number of large signing bonuses to hand out each year--at most. So the need for mountains of extra cash is unnecessary....and is covered by the shared revenue anyway.

 

Ralph had far more cash flow than the Pegulas because (unless you think Terry paid full price in cash), Ralph had no debt to service.

 

Forbes has the only consistently published data on team finances. Im sure you've seen it every year.

 

Pegula sold land to the tune of $1.75B to get ready for the Bills bid and IIRC paid mostly (if not all) cash. It's one reason why some couldn't bid with the NFL requirement for a certain amount of the purchase price being in cash.

[CSBill]

La Confora was doing that Fake News stuff long before it was in vogue. He is just ahead of his time.

[Mr. WEO]

 

Green Bay has been more profitable than the Bills and has no owner to satisfy. "Feelings" aside, I'm already aware of the estimated numbers on the Bills with respect to profitability which is what I'm basing my statements on in the Ralph era. That's my back up.

 

Pegula sold land to the tune of $1.75B to get ready for the Bills bid and IIRC paid mostly (if not all) cash. It's one reason why some couldn't bid with the NFL requirement for a certain amount of the purchase price being in cash.

 

Then why do you keep asking what Ralph's "P and L statement" was? Your response to NoSaint makes no sense at all.

 

 

As for the all cash payment by Pegula, do you have a link? There aren't many savvy business men who would pay all cash on such a huge purchase when borrowed cash is cheap and NFL teams have a large margin every year.

 

But even if he has no debt--it changes nothing. The money to pay signing bonuses is already there. Pegula doesn't have to shell out. There's over 100 million a year in revenue beyond the cap every year (minus some pretty modest operating expenses and salaries) for him to wonder how to spend.

[jahnyc]

`