Kelly the Dog Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 I was just at lunch reading an article in the LA Times about the new TV contract. It basically said that the league doesn't need LA as a market whatsoever and is doing quite well without them, thank you. The one rather startling fact was: The new contracts will pay the league an annual average of $3.7 billion, which is 54% more than the current average of $2.4 billion, and is more than the combined total revenue of the TV deals for the NBA, NHL, Major League Baseball, NASCAR, NCAA basketball, the PGA Tour and the Summer Olympics. But it also stated that it probably bumped the worth of each franchise by 150 million overnight. That may not help a local Buffalo guy trying to buy them from Ralph. I am one who thinks the Bills aren't going anywhere and the league will try to keep a team here when Ralph unfortunately passes, but it still is going to help the teams with new stadiums and with deep pockets, because salaries are going to rise quickly and players are going to jump at the huge bonus money offered and the teams with the best cash flow will have a distinct advantage. They did mention four franchises that would be hurt by this, and Buffalo was not one of them however. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfltv2...ack=1&cset=true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 If Golisano is interested it won't matter much - I'm pretty sure he's got more money than Ralph (at least on paper). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 For those who are not registered, from bugmenot ineedstuff@gmail.com whacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 They did mention four franchises that would be hurt by this, and Buffalo was not one of them however. That's all I need to hear. And I agree with AD that the new contracts and worth of the Bills won't deter someone like Golisano. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 20, 2005 Author Share Posted April 20, 2005 If Golisano is interested it won't matter much - I'm pretty sure he's got more money than Ralph (at least on paper). 310675[/snapback] Definitely. And he is the first guy I think is going to go after it. It probably wouldn't matter to the Jacobs Family either, although I am not sure about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 I was just at lunch reading an article in the LA Times about the new TV contract. It basically said that the league doesn't need LA as a market whatsoever and is doing quite well without them, thank you. The one rather startling fact was: But it also stated that it probably bumped the worth of each franchise by 150 million overnight. That may not help a local Buffalo guy trying to buy them from Ralph. I am one who thinks the Bills aren't going anywhere and the league will try to keep a team here when Ralph unfortunately passes, but it still is going to help the teams with new stadiums and with deep pockets, because salaries are going to rise quickly and players are going to jump at the huge bonus money offered and the teams with the best cash flow will have a distinct advantage. They did mention four franchises that would be hurt by this, and Buffalo was not one of them however. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfltv2...ack=1&cset=true 310668[/snapback] fascinating. the article makes it abundantly clear that a) the bills could afford to give clements a huge contract now, and b) that clements would be wise to wait until next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 I was just at lunch reading an article in the LA Times about the new TV contract. It basically said that the league doesn't need LA as a market whatsoever and is doing quite well without them, thank you. The one rather startling fact was: But it also stated that it probably bumped the worth of each franchise by 150 million overnight. That may not help a local Buffalo guy trying to buy them from Ralph. I am one who thinks the Bills aren't going anywhere and the league will try to keep a team here when Ralph unfortunately passes, but it still is going to help the teams with new stadiums and with deep pockets, because salaries are going to rise quickly and players are going to jump at the huge bonus money offered and the teams with the best cash flow will have a distinct advantage. They did mention four franchises that would be hurt by this, and Buffalo was not one of them however. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfltv2...ack=1&cset=true 310668[/snapback] Good post Kelly, and its funny because just before I started my Blog and was mentioning things about how the Cap is going to escalate real fast, and you will begin to see the $eparation of teams financially, maybe this is why the Redskins shelove out the huge cash now and backload the contracts, because they anticipate the salary cap going up at a much higher rate then before. When that happens, lets see how much people love this so called "Bible Of Sports", the NFL Salary Cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Good post Kelly, and its funny because just before I started my Blog and was mentioning things about how the Cap is going to escalate real fast, and you will begin to see the $eparation of teams financially, maybe this is why the Redskins shelove out the huge cash now and backload the contracts, because they anticipate the salary cap going up at a much higher rate then before. When that happens, lets see how much people love this so called "Bible Of Sports", the NFL Salary Cap. 310700[/snapback] Thats the fight right now. What gets included in revenue sharing. If everything gets included, like the players and small teams like the Bills want, cap will work great. If there continue to be excluded items, like Jerry Jones and snyder want, the goose could be cooked. Until that issue is resolved, no CBA extension Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Although I think the dropping of the estate tax is just another "give the rich some more money" deals, it may keep the Bills in Ralph's family. The problem all along was that the family would need to sell the team to pay estate taxes. This may no longer be a problem and possibly Ralph's family will decide to keep this team when he moves on to that big end zone in the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Although I think the dropping of the estate tax is just another "give the rich some more money" deals. 310842[/snapback] Which is INFINITELY better than giving the government more money, when you get right down to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Which is INFINITELY better than giving the government more money, when you get right down to it. 310845[/snapback] Well if the government has an extra couple hundred billion laying around, possibly a better use of it may have been to fix the AMT or some other tax cut that just doesn't go to the richest .001% of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammered a Lot Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 The problem all along was that the family would need to sell the team to pay estate taxes. Who sez? Ralph, his family, his money man Jeff Littman, Ed Kilgore? The fact is nobody knows (and if they do they are not talking) how Ralph has his $$ set up for after he moves on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Well if the government has an extra couple hundred billion laying around, possibly a better use of it may have been to fix the AMT or some other tax cut that just doesn't go to the richest .001% of the population. 310851[/snapback] Rest assured, if the government has an extra couple of hundred billion laying around it won't end up back in the people's hands anyway. The only way to stop them from spending it is to stop giving it to them. Down with the 16th Amendment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 The fact is nobody knows (and if they do they are not talking) how Ralph has his $$ set up for after he moves on. 310857[/snapback] I heard he plans on taking it with him. Hi E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 fascinating. the article makes it abundantly clear that a) the bills could afford to give clements a huge contract now, and b) that clements would be wise to wait until next year. Both are great for the Bills, as far as trading him next year goes (which I'm starting to favor, given he'll be pretty cheap for a Pro Bowl CB this year and will probably play lights-out since it's a contract year). If the cap goes up, the Bills have more than enough money to franchise Nate and still have money left-over for FA's, so no team has leverage over them in trade negotiations. But likewise since the cap will go up, other teams will also have enough money to afford Nate's franchise-money demands, making that less of a barrier to trading him. Given the weak UFA CB market next year, and probably weak draft for CB's (as it usually is), he should fetch a high-1st rounder or a later 1st rounder and an extra later pick or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernMan Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 Although I think the dropping of the estate tax is just another "give the rich some more money" deals, it may keep the Bills in Ralph's family. The problem all along was that the family would need to sell the team to pay estate taxes. This may no longer be a problem and possibly Ralph's family will decide to keep this team when he moves on to that big end zone in the sky. 310842[/snapback] WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!?!?!? ARE YOU A COMMUNIST? "GIVE THE RICH SOME MORE MONEY"????? You think it's a good idea to take money from someone who has worked their arse off to earn a lot of dough and has already paid income tax on the same funds and for no sound reason, give it to Uncle Sam? You must be one of those people who feels slighted by or is envious of the "evil rich". These are the people who provide jobs, give to philanthropical causes, and keep the economy going you numbskull. Of course the tax breaks are going to the top earners. They're the ones paying something like 65% of all federal taxes - not the welfare mom with 7 kids. DUH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!?!?!? ARE YOU A COMMUNIST?"GIVE THE RICH SOME MORE MONEY"????? You think it's a good idea to take money from someone who has worked their arse off to earn a lot of dough and has already paid income tax on the same funds and for no sound reason, give it to Uncle Sam? You must be one of those people who feels slighted by or is envious of the "evil rich". These are the people who provide jobs, give to philanthropical causes, and keep the economy going you numbskull. Of course the tax breaks are going to the top earners. They're the ones paying something like 65% of all federal taxes - not the welfare mom with 7 kids. DUH 311012[/snapback] news flash - ralph really has never worked. he inherited it all from his father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!?!?!? ARE YOU A COMMUNIST?"GIVE THE RICH SOME MORE MONEY"????? You think it's a good idea to take money from someone who has worked their arse off to earn a lot of dough and has already paid income tax on the same funds and for no sound reason, give it to Uncle Sam? You must be one of those people who feels slighted by or is envious of the "evil rich". These are the people who provide jobs, give to philanthropical causes, and keep the economy going you numbskull. Of course the tax breaks are going to the top earners. They're the ones paying something like 65% of all federal taxes - not the welfare mom with 7 kids. DUH 311012[/snapback] My point is that estate taxes have been around a long time. Right now with the huge federal deficits, a costly war in Iraq, a supposed Social Security crisis, a looming Medicare crisis, and all the other things going on, why is the elimination of estate taxes such a priority? By your reasoning, we should eliminate all taxes for anyone who makes over a million a year since they will use every dollar of it to create jobs, give to charity and keep the economy going. This is probably a little over your head. Have someone explain it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernMan Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 My point is that estate taxes have been around a long time. Right now with the huge federal deficits, a costly war in Iraq, a supposed Social Security crisis, a looming Medicare crisis, and all the other things going on, why is the elimination of estate taxes such a priority? By your reasoning, we should eliminate all taxes for anyone who makes over a million a year since they will use every dollar of it to create jobs, give to charity and keep the economy going. This is probably a little over your head. Have someone explain it to you. 311098[/snapback] I guess since estate taxes have been around a long time, why change the policy of taxing twice for the same net income. You're a genius. I concede. And McBride...I always think of you as one of the better forum posters. You're not serious about Ralph doing nothing but being the beneficiary of his father's wealth - are you? My understanding is that Ralph paved his own path in the insurance biz and other endeavors. The whole football thing didn't happen because he had a horseshoe up his ass. (That would be the late Carroll Rosenbloom and Bob Irsay) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 I guess since estate taxes have been around a long time, why change the policy of taxing twice for the same net income. You're a genius. I concede. And McBride...I always think of you as one of the better forum posters. You're not serious about Ralph doing nothing but being the beneficiary of his father's wealth - are you? My understanding is that Ralph paved his own path in the insurance biz and other endeavors. The whole football thing didn't happen because he had a horseshoe up his ass. (That would be the late Carroll Rosenbloom and Bob Irsay) 311107[/snapback] my understanding is that he walked into a business set up by his father and never really started anything on his own (except for the bills, of course, which is no small potatoes, given their current net worth). now he apparently didn't run dad's business into the ground, but all the same he is where he is because of his very wealthy forbears. it's not as if he got where he is via entrepreneurial genius or by pulling himself up by his bootstraps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts