NavyBillsFan Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Yeah, when Wilson explained himself in the Buffalo News he sounded pretty good. I'm just surprised that the Rooney's and a couple of other small market teams went in the direction of Jones and gang also. Surprising! 626806[/snapback] Dont kid yourself on the Rooney's He is a cheap bastard with players and contracts. Pittsburgh getting and winning the bowl was pure luck for that team. They have made almost 150 million in merch sales since the playoffs. Pittsburgh is now a small market city due to jobs and piss poor politics... But Rooney has a ton more pocket than Ralph has
PromoTheRobot Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Len Pasquerelli said this morning on WGR that Ralph Wilson is his new hero because:1. he was 100% right, the new CBA is a bad deal for low revenue teams 2. It was too complex and explained for too fast, he heard others owners did not understand it but did say so. 3. The low revenue teams, like Jax. just folded and gave in. Only Wilson and Brown held true. Shame in six years the NFL will be in bad shape. 626779[/snapback] So Lenny Pass-The-Doughnuts says Ralph was right...on local radio. How about a story on ESPN so the whole world can see it? PTR
stuckincincy Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 No wonder you live in Cincinnati. Well, first off, there are minimums the teams must spend on the cap, just not maximums. And why would anyone ever do this? The savings of the millions for the one person would never be worth the public and private humiliation and abuse that person would receive. 627064[/snapback] Leading off with a geographic happenstance? In a society where the liberals have insured that there is no such thing as obscene language, that the slightest irritation demands voluminous calumny and mobbish condemnation, public/private humiliation holds no water.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Maybe everyone should reserve their judgement on the restructured revenue sharing plan until they are informed of it's contents. In the days since the plan was aproved and the CBA agreed upon I've seen varying reports of who gets what. Unless Lenny P. has had it all explained to him by the NFL, pro or con, he's just selling papers. I thought the Bills and Bengals management would be anxious to publish a factual explanation of why the plan is unfair. Maybe in a few more days we'll see something that lays it all bare.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Leading off with a geographic happenstance? In a society where the liberals have insured that there is no such thing as obscene language, that the slightest irritation demands voluminous calumny and mobbish condemnation, public/private humiliation holds no water. 627089[/snapback] OK, I admit it. I had to look up 'calumny'. You must be a pisser with a few brews in you.
stuckincincy Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 I thought the Bills and Bengals management would be anxious to publish a factual explanation of why the plan is unfair. Maybe in a few more days we'll see something that lays it all bare. 627093[/snapback] Why would they do that? Their only constituiency that matters is the other 30 owners - any public support would last a tiny amount of time and quickly fade - not that it would matter anyway - and all they would accomplish is earning more of an evil eye from their fellow fat cats.
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 What upsets me about the owners and the new CBA is high revenue clubs are acting like 32 seperate business's. The fact is that it is one business with 32 owners. When you buy a NFL team you are buying into a business, not buying a team. The older owners understood that, thats why Wellington Mara decided to share TV contracts way back when the NY city market would have paid him alot more then an NFL agreement. Also why Ralph decided to buy part of the Raiders before the went Bankrupt. In the 60's and 70's they new that they would have to stick together for the good of the NFL buisness. Now owners feel like they are competing against other owners. Could you imagine if IBM had on office in Buffalo that made a ton of money and hired away all the workers from an office in Seatle, and the office in seattle had to hire highschool dropouts, with no knowledge of the industry. I do not feel it would be in the best interest of IBM and while for the short term it would help the Buffalo office, in the long term it would be bad for them because it would be bad for the company. Now with that said I do understand some of what Jerry Jones is saying that he puts a name other then his own on the stadium, and I feel like maybe Ralph should look into other avenues of revenue, but the Buffalo area will never generate as much money as the Dallas area.(unless we dump both political parties and start our own third independent political party but that is a different post for a different time). The NFL has to look at the fact that owners like Ralph have often looked at what is best for the league and not himself and that selfless stance is needed for the good of the league. If not in ten years are beloved Buffalo Bills will be the LA (i Have to pay the Bills and make some money so I am moving to a bigger markett) whatevers.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Why would they do that? Their only constituiency that matters is the other 30 owners - any public support would last a tiny amount of time and quickly fade - not that it would matter anyway - and all they would accomplish is earning more of an evil eye from their fellow fat cats. 627120[/snapback] I was thinking more along the lines of supporting their contention that the restructuring is unfair. Like many of the posters here who offer unsupported opinions about the plan (including myself), Wilson made his feelings public. Unlike the posters here, Wilson and his staff are in a position to examine the facts. He doesn't have to rely on reporters baring the plan, piece by piece. So either the facts support Wilson's disapproval of the plan on the merits that a better compromise could have been reached if time permitted, or his assertions have no basis in fact.
Buftex Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Yeah, when Wilson explained himself in the Buffalo News he sounded pretty good. I'm just surprised that the Rooney's and a couple of other small market teams went in the direction of Jones and gang also. Surprising! 626806[/snapback] Pittsburgh may be a "small market" team, but they are nowhere near Buffalo, in terms of being a low-revenue team. The Steelers, Cowboys and Raiders are consistantly amongst the top 5 "national teams" in terms of merchendise sales. Same holds true for other small market teams like the Packers. Hate to say it, but if the Bills had won just one of those 4 super bowls, they would be in better financial shape...
R. Rich Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Pittsburgh may be a "small market" team, but they are nowhere near Buffalo, in terms of being a low-revenue team. The Steelers, Cowboys and Raiders are consistantly amongst the top 5 "national teams" in terms of merchendise sales. Same holds true for other small market teams like the Packers. Hate to say it, but if the Bills had won just one of those 4 super bowls, they would be in better financial shape... 627486[/snapback] You shouldn't hate to say it.
Lurker Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Pittsburgh may be a "small market" team, but they are nowhere near Buffalo, in terms of being a low-revenue team. 627486[/snapback] They're not even that small a market compared to WNY: 2003 Metro Area Population: Pittsburgh--2.4 million Buffalo--1.1 million Rochester--1.0 million Jamestown--0.1 million TOTAL--2.2 million 2003 Metro Area Personal Income: Pittsburgh--$79.5 billion Buffalo--$33.8 billion Rochester--$32.3 billion Jamestown--3.1 billion TOTAL--$69.2 billion
KRT88 Posted March 14, 2006 Author Posted March 14, 2006 So Lenny Pass-The-Doughnuts says Ralph was right...on local radio. How about a story on ESPN so the whole world can see it? PTR 627086[/snapback] I can't argue with you there. great and nobel idea.
BADOLBILZ Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 I think the low revenue teams are just whining. It seems everyone of the three factions (players union, high rev teams, low rev teams) wanted it all. The players surely won, but all they won is a higher percentage of WAY higher revenue in total. Good for them. The high rev teams had a legitimate argument on a lot of points. Ralph is wrong to say he wants a share of the ancilliary revenues and then not sell his stadium naming rights. 627021[/snapback] Stop right there. The Super Bowl era NFL was built on revenue sharing. This "ancilliary" revenue you are talking about emerged as an issue after the most recent CBA. It was basically brought about by a violation of the gentlemans agreement among the longtime tight-knit owners when Jerry Jones pursued individual endorsement deals with national sponsors like Pepsi when the league ALREADY had such sponsors. The PSL/luxury box issues also emerged after the most recent CBA was signed. Basically, these streams were created specifically to circumvent revenue sharing and everyone had to try to realize that income because the commissioner couldn't legally regulate it. These things should have been, and were expected to be, cleaned up in the new agreement. Instead, a lot of idiot owners allowed themselves to get tailpiped by the larger revenue owners. It's going to be harder to reverse the trend next time, but if they are smart, they will revisit the deal in a couple years even if it means a long work stoppage.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 Stop right there. The Super Bowl era NFL was built on revenue sharing. This "ancilliary" revenue you are talking about emerged as an issue after the most recent CBA. It was basically brought about by a violation of the gentlemans agreement among the longtime tight-knit owners when Jerry Jones pursued individual endorsement deals with national sponsors like Pepsi when the league ALREADY had such sponsors. The PSL/luxury box issues also emerged after the most recent CBA was signed. Basically, these streams were created specifically to circumvent revenue sharing and everyone had to try to realize that income because the commissioner couldn't legally regulate it. These things should have been, and were expected to be, cleaned up in the new agreement. Instead, a lot of idiot owners allowed themselves to get tailpiped by the larger revenue owners. It's going to be harder to reverse the trend next time, but if they are smart, they will revisit the deal in a couple years even if it means a long work stoppage. Not to mention the NFL created the "G-3" fund because Bob Kraft was making a deal to move the Pats from Mass to Hartford, CT, a small market, that would have screwed owners out of TV money (when the next round of talks happened), but which still would have lined Kraft's pockets with "local revenue." If only they'd waited a few more months for the Hartford deal to blow up...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 Stop right there. The Super Bowl era NFL was built on revenue sharing. This "ancilliary" revenue you are talking about emerged as an issue after the most recent CBA. It was basically brought about by a violation of the gentlemans agreement among the longtime tight-knit owners when Jerry Jones pursued individual endorsement deals with national sponsors like Pepsi when the league ALREADY had such sponsors. The PSL/luxury box issues also emerged after the most recent CBA was signed. Basically, these streams were created specifically to circumvent revenue sharing and everyone had to try to realize that income because the commissioner couldn't legally regulate it. These things should have been, and were expected to be, cleaned up in the new agreement. Instead, a lot of idiot owners allowed themselves to get tailpiped by the larger revenue owners. It's going to be harder to reverse the trend next time, but if they are smart, they will revisit the deal in a couple years even if it means a long work stoppage. 627854[/snapback] There were luxury boxes and ancillary incomes far before the last CBA contract went into effect. So why was it not taken care of then? I am not for the new owners at all, but they have a little point, when some of the small market teams do things that intentionally don't generate money, and then want money split all around. I would never say what I did if the new TV contracts didnt make it virtually impossible to lose money in a season no matter what you did. The point I was making was that everyone was greedy here, the players made out great but that is okay with me because the owners made SUCH a windfall with the new TV contracts. And the low rev teams got a few million from the big guys and can compete with them on any level they want, if they want. Yes, all teams are not going to take in the same amount of money and yes, the big teams are going to have a lot more of it. But it is only going to be in how many more tens of millions they can make in profit, and not really effect much on the field, except in stuff like coaching salaries and frankly, I don't think that's going to help the Skins this year. If ever there was going to be a too many chefs in the kitchen scenario, it's now. I'm looking forward to the grease fire.
Snorom Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 Again, it wasn't the "no" vote that bothered me as much as his reaction afterward. he sounded confused and out of control. 626842[/snapback] He sounded flustered like he was forced tovote onsomething he wasn't ready to vote on. You just want a reason to be pissy towards the Bills like most other piss pot Bills fans these days
Recommended Posts