Pyrite Gal Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 It really is fascinating to watch RWS and the Bills financially wheel and deal with NYS and within the context of the CBA. As best as I can tell, Ralph is selling the impression that he and the poor little Bills are getting raped by the stupid new CBA deal which is so bad for smaller market franchises like the Bills it is simply a question as to whether we can be a viable economic concern here in WNY. This message seems pretty clearly reflected in quotes such as this one from the Bills own website: " The high cost of the new collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and its players represents a substantial burden to small market teams." This is cool as this is how negotiating is done in our US system under the pseudo-free market within which the team owners with their growing partnership with the players restrain trade (in a fairly un-American way) and have created the next best thing to a printing press for making money at a very low risk. I'd really feel almost sorry for Ralphie if I was not laughing so hard at the false economic impression he and the Bills seem to be selling and how much the media looks at this picture with zero real inquistiveness and how much elected officials seem to lap up this economic tripe. Make no mistake about it, there is a real and present RELATIVE economic risk that the Bills might fly the coop from Buffalo and instead head off to other economic markets where an even richer vein of nickels can be tapped. However, the false impression they are giving and allowing folks to buy into which is based in what I think is pretty much a flat out false impression or lie they are using to describe the Bills economic situation is that there is some ABSOLUTE or REAL economic viability threat to the Bills franchise. The actual situation regarding moving or not moving the franchise is that: On One Hand- The team would operate as a franchise with a contractually guranteed revenue stream which far exceeds a contractually almost completely guaranteed set of liabilities where the income pool far exceeds the liabiity pool. Or On the Other Hand- The team could move and the guaranteed income stream would be supplemented by additional contractual guarantees and easily accessible opportunities to rake in even more cash. The bottomline is that while day-to-day business is certainly tougher for a Ralph Wilson than it is for Dan Snyder, in the real world this means that it is an incredibly low-risk method of making tons and goo-gahs of money for Snyder while it is merely an incredibly low-risk method of making tons and a mere one goo (rather than multiple goo-gahs) of money on Ralph's part. Quite frankly I wouldn't mind at all that Ralph is sounding the alarm bells and extorting more corporate welfar from the state government instead of just my county government. WNY gets the benefit while the costs are spread across the entire state. However, it does get a bit tiring and silly to see him and the Bills doing this by leaving the impression of poverty because they "struggle" along in a small market and it is simply incorrect. wrong, and false for him to blame his poverty on being taken advantage of by an unfair CBA. Look you poor old fool. I think that you (Ralph) fully recognize that the new CBA merely replaces a small group of NFL team owners taking every nickel they could bet out of the NFL that they could for 40 years or so while paying the lowest wages you could to the players. When the NFL team owners over played their hand and so badly kicked the butts of the players in the mid-80s that the NFLPA was so weakened they actually threatened the owners with the nuclear option of closing down the NFLPA and thus force the owners to negotiate with individual players in a true free market. Rather than actually compete with each other, the team owners instead agreed to a CBA with the NFLPA where the two parties formed a partnership to restrain trade through activities like the NFL draft and activities such as the lawsuit against Maurice Clarett which restrained Americans below the age of 18 from entering the free market and instead forced them to go to college to be trained to play in the BNFL (a beat economic play actually because almost all other major sports must pay for a minor league system. Bt restraining trade amongst college age players, the NFL has shiftd this cost to the colleges and taxpayers. At any rate, what Ralph appears to be doing here is several things: 1. He is setting up NYS to pay the lionshare of the costs to build a new stadium for the Bills. These costs will be borne in a manner similar that which was propsoed for the failed effort to build a new stadium in Manhattan for the Jets. 2. He is setting this up for a bidding war to be waged during the nest governors race. Both Spitzer and whomever wins the GOP nominatuion will be required to make commitments to pay for a new Bills stadium if they want WNY votes for governor. As a Bills fan I am quite supportive of Ralph sticking NYS up for the cost of a stadium he will make outrageous profits from. However, I do find it a bit annoying with his poverty act when he is raking in money hand over fist (and his new bid is to also be supported in raking it in with his feet also) as a justiciation for this. Really the amounts of money which will paid out for the Bills as corporate welfare are really small cost to NYS taxpayers compared to real costs like the inefficient manner with which we do health care spending compared to the almgamation of costs and fairly broad health consumer satisfaction of single payer systems like the Canadian program. Even better, this region gets the benefit of this corporate welfare to the Bills with our team, and also intelligent folks like Byron Brown do seem to recognize the game being played here and likely will push to see this corporate welfare payment be used to benefit the City of Buffalo. However, the poor act being pulled off by Ralph seems pretty disingenious to anyone thinking this through economically. He is pretending to be a Alzheimer's fuddy duddy (if he is, then this pliable fool is being directed by some smart folks), but overall he seems to be setting things up nicely to stick up NYS taxpayers.
PromoTheRobot Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 And $1.2 Billion in tax money for a stadium in New York City is NOT sticking it to the taxpayers? PTR
Like A Mofo Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 And $1.2 Billion in tax money for a stadium in New York City is NOT sticking it to the taxpayers? PTR 653462[/snapback] Be that as it may...but we are not talking about New York City here
Arkady Renko Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Be that as it may...but we are not talking about New York City here 653469[/snapback] Wasn't the state going to pitch in half of that or something?
PromoTheRobot Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Wasn't the state going to pitch half of that or something? 653472[/snapback] You know it...and by the way, Ralph Wilson is not pretending to be senile or anything. WE accuse him of being senile! PTR
Pyrite Gal Posted April 5, 2006 Author Posted April 5, 2006 And $1.2 Billion in tax money for a stadium in New York City is NOT sticking it to the taxpayers? PTR 653462[/snapback] Yes it definetely is sticking it to NTS taxpayers. Thise fools failed , and nuw Ralpg is going to try to do his version of the same thing and stick it to NYS taxpayers. Do you think that just because the NY Jets and their buddies were trying to stick up the taxpayers that it means Ralph is not trying to stick up the taxpayers? As one whose team will benefit if he pulls off this bid for corporate welfare, I hope he sicceeds.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 As a Bills fan I am quite supportive of Ralph sticking NYS up for the cost of a stadium he will make outrageous profits from. However, I do find it a bit annoying with his poverty act when he is raking in money hand over fist (and his new bid is to also be supported in raking it in with his feet also) as a justiciation for this. This is not a post advocating the taxpayers pay for a new stadium. However the thinking that just because IN THE PAST Ralph made good money from the Bills, it doesn't follow that IN THE FUTURE he will still continue to do so. I mean take a look at this year. Prior to the new CBA, the cap was at $94.5M. After the new CBA, it's $104M. That's an increase of $9.5M. What changed? Nothing in reality. Ralph isn't making more money and he has the added burden of having to pay $9.5M more to players while taking in the same as before. So this is a pre-emptive strike.
BILLS02138 Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Yes it definetely is sticking it to NTS taxpayers. Thise fools failed , and nuw Ralpg is going to try to do his version of the same thing and stick it to NYS taxpayers. Do you think that just because the NY Jets and their buddies were trying to stick up the taxpayers that it means Ralph is not trying to stick up the taxpayers? As one whose team will benefit if he pulls off this bid for corporate welfare, I hope he sicceeds. 653494[/snapback] Ya'll should do more research about NYC and the NY Jets before posting. The Jets lost their chance for multiple reasons. The main reason? Politics. Cablevision. An olympic bid that never was. It became a huge war down there. http://www.westsidestadium.com/ I personally think it's a blessing in disguise the JETS will stay in NJ (taxpayers won't be paying for the Manhattan stadium after all) and the BILLS will continue to be NY States ONE AND ONLY TEAM. But you're kidding yourself if you think the MONEY was the MAIN reason why that thing died in Manhattan. Link Shuffle Off to Buffalo You make a very value added argument for this facility. But something similar happened many years ago in upstate NY, Erie County. The county was going to build a new "domed" stadium for the Buffalo (Bumbling) Bills football team. The owner demanded an open stadium on a different site, and an exclusive use contract. If not, the team would leave. Since then, the taxpayers of Erie County have been paying the bill, while only the football team owners make any money. All the stadium costs, repairs, and maintenance fall upon the taxpayers, while all the receipts go to the team. In effect, welfare for the rich. Unless the construction contracts clearly stipulate that the CITY AND STATE COMPLETELY OWN, OPERATE, and CONTROL the use of the stadium, this will just be another welfare subsidy for the uber-rich. So unless the receipts go to the city and state, not the team, let the billionaires of the NFL pay for their own stadium. J. Matthew Good Hi J., Thanks for the letter, will try to post it on web site this week. The example you sight proves the point. An open air stadium in Buffalo is good for 10 Bills games a year and that is about it. And it is located in Buffalo. While I love our great city by the lake, it is not a destination of most tourists. A domed stadium/convention center in Manhattan would bring the Jets to New York, would open the greatest city in the world up for major events year round, would augment the Javits convention center, and would give NYC the ability to host mega events like the Olympics and the Super Bowl. And, remember, this is not a handout, the Jets are putting up most of the money for the stadium, while guaranteeing against cost-overruns. Welfare for the rich is wrong, but here you have Johnson laying out huge amounts of money for this project. There are rare cases where public funds make sense when invested into a private enterprise, and this is one of them. Best, Tom McMorrow, Jr.
Mark VI Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 NYC Mayor Bloomberg couldn't get a new Stadium for Manhattan, even though the Olympics and The Jets/Giants would be attracted. Ralph is whistling in the wind and he knows it. The Stadium in Orchard Park is fine and not the issue at hand. The bleak upstate economy is something he cannot control and wishes some yearly aid at best. I still believe he's looking for buyers and having Pataki spread the word. It's all staged dramatics, worthy of a Tony nomination at this point. I published his current operating income of 36.1 Mil, which is 14th among 32 teams. His present situation is MORE than good. Beyond 2012, he has a point but probably won't have a pulse by then. So selling is the thought in the near future. Take care of Mary and his 2 daughters.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 I published his current operating income of 36.1 Mil, which is 14th among 32 teams. His present situation is MORE than good. Not really, as I pointed-out above. By merely voting on a new CBA, the cap went up $9.5M without a SINGLE penny going into Ralph's pockets to off-set that. Maybe he'll get a handout at the end of the football season if his player expenses are 70% of his income, but I think he'd rather get a piece of those stadiums that he and his cohorts gave free money to (G-3) fund instead. But failing that, it's "if you can't beat 'em..."
Guest BackInDaDay Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 Ralph's not crying poverty. He just wants to make sure his heirs can sell the team. If the taxpayers of NY State and the large market owners of the NFL can create a financial environment which allows his Buffalo franchise to thrive and compete, potential buyers will pay a higher price. Even if their intentions were to relocate, a cash cow in Erie County, NY is as good as one in Orange County, CA. He's just getting the ball rolling. Of course at some point there has to be bigger support from the paying public, specifically interest from those that could afford high-end luxury suites and such. Pressuring the politicians to send commerce towards Erie County might introduce more moola. For instance, are there companies in WNY that operate from goverment contracts? Are there businesses threatening to move? Politicians could make EC a priority, strengthening it's economic base. Making it a nice place to do business. All this for a football team? Well, politics makes strange bedfellows. A couple years from now in early November, when Pataki's on the Presidential ticket and NFL commissioner Condeleeza Rice is attending the ground breaking ceremony for the Bills new stadium, President-elect McCain could be watching NY turn red on the afternoon news.
Pyrite Gal Posted April 6, 2006 Author Posted April 6, 2006 This is not a post advocating the taxpayers pay for a new stadium. However the thinking that just because IN THE PAST Ralph made good money from the Bills, it doesn't follow that IN THE FUTURE he will still continue to do so. I mean take a look at this year. Prior to the new CBA, the cap was at $94.5M. After the new CBA, it's $104M. That's an increase of $9.5M. What changed? Nothing in reality. Ralph isn't making more money and he has the added burden of having to pay $9.5M more to players while taking in the same as before. So this is a pre-emptive strike. 653510[/snapback] What changed was that under both the first cap, its first major revision by the NFL/NFLPA which occured around 2001, and the current revision agreed by these two partners last month, the NFL/NFLPA take from the TV networks went way way up. By agreement beween the team owners and players as the take from the nets went up so to did the salary cap. Under the new CBA the designated gross from which the numbers you site are calculated was shifted from a designated set to total revenues. Ralph and the NFL merely have taken on the added burden of sharing the accumulated wealth more completely and fairly with their partners the players. Why did Tags argue for agreement to a deal which provided players with 59.5% of the total gross receipts and why did the vast vast vast majority of NFL owners agree to accept this deal? They agreed because Ralph and the other team owners would get to split 40.5% of more money than Ralph ever probably even dreamed he would get from his original 10K investment. My sense is that RWS was very strategic in voting against this deal which will continue to deliver him a huge return based on his original investment and annual return on his defined and controlled costs of doing businesss (the salary cap limitation defines how much will be paid as salaries which is the largest cost of doing business and county government owns the stadium which is the largest cost of presenting his product). By voting against the deal and complaining and whining that the CBA (which guarantees a continuation for him of huge profits for the length of the agreement) threatens the viability of the franchise, it allows him to make a strong case he will likely win to belly up to the taxpayer bar and shift any additional costs to the public and get them to fund a new venue for him to rake in profits.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 What changed was that under both the first cap, its first major revision by the NFL/NFLPA which occured around 2001, and the current revision agreed by these two partners last month, the NFL/NFLPA take from the TV networks went way way up. By agreement beween the team owners and players as the take from the nets went up so to did the salary cap. Under the new CBA the designated gross from which the numbers you site are calculated was shifted from a designated set to total revenues. Ralph and the NFL merely have taken on the added burden of sharing the accumulated wealth more completely and fairly with their partners the players. Why did Tags argue for agreement to a deal which provided players with 59.5% of the total gross receipts and why did the vast vast vast majority of NFL owners agree to accept this deal? They agreed because Ralph and the other team owners would get to split 40.5% of more money than Ralph ever probably even dreamed he would get from his original 10K investment. My sense is that RWS was very strategic in voting against this deal which will continue to deliver him a huge return based on his original investment and annual return on his defined and controlled costs of doing businesss (the salary cap limitation defines how much will be paid as salaries which is the largest cost of doing business and county government owns the stadium which is the largest cost of presenting his product). By voting against the deal and complaining and whining that the CBA (which guarantees a continuation for him of huge profits for the length of the agreement) threatens the viability of the franchise, it allows him to make a strong case he will likely win to belly up to the taxpayer bar and shift any additional costs to the public and get them to fund a new venue for him to rake in profits. 653573[/snapback] Seriously, what don't you get? The current market price for a NFL franchise is anywhere between $650m and $750M. Who is going to pay the grieving Wilson family that kind of money for a club which plays in an outdated stadium, with little corporate juice, with a primarily blue-collar fanbase that can't afford higher prices, in an economically depressed area? You pay that kind of bread for a cream-puff, not a fix-me-upper. This isn't about how Ralph's 25K investment has netted him a fortune and how he's always had his hands in somebody's pockets - I agree! He's a shrewd son-of-a-B word from the old school of spending other people's money. I just wished he spent it wisely, but that's not the point of this. The reality is, if he doesn't moan, and groan, and hold his friggin breath until he turns blue, the governor and the NFL aren't going to fork over the kind of subsidies he has to get before leaving this world for the next. His heirs will get low-balled, and they'll have no recourse but to accept. What he does for the financial well-being of his family will benefit the entire area. If he succeeds, they'll erect statues of the guy upstate.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 They agreed because Ralph and the other team owners would get to split 40.5% of more money than Ralph ever probably even dreamed he would get from his original 10K investment. Ralph initial investement means nothing right now. And he only gets to split what he did before: TV revenue, part of ticket sales, and merchandising. So while the AVERAGE percentage teams are paying to players is 59.5%, some teams like the Bills will be paying closer to 70% while others like the Skins will be paying closer to 45%. Again to make it simple, the cap went up after the new CBA by almost $10M WITHOUT Ralph getting a single penny more. That is almost 28% of the $36M in profit he made in 2004.
Bill from NYC Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 If what Ralph is doing will keep the Bills in WNY, it is all good. I have come to love WNY. While I don't wish to falsely create an ideal picture, suffice it to say that I consider WNY to be a comparatively mellow place with a larger number of nice, friendly people than is found most localities. I would move there in an instant if my wife would agree. People claiming to be actual economists on this board have said otherwise, but imo, losing the Bills would be devestating to the people of this fine reigon. I also think that the NFL would be foolish to discount the large number of out of town Bills fans wrt this football team. Btw, as an out of towner, sorry, I am not too worried about ticket prices to be frank. I am already paying close to twice face value on stubhub; this for decent (not great) seats. Just as not having a team in LA openly irritates Tags, imo it would be a true and utter disgrace for the state of NY to not field an NFL team. I place my full support behind any effort by RW to keep this team where it is, even if he gets even richer in the process. Who cares? We need to keep this thing going!!! GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dave mcbride Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 Ya'll should do more research about NYC and the NY Jets before posting. The Jets lost their chance for multiple reasons. The main reason? Politics. Cablevision. An olympic bid that never was. It became a huge war down there. http://www.westsidestadium.com/ I personally think it's a blessing in disguise the JETS will stay in NJ (taxpayers won't be paying for the Manhattan stadium after all) and the BILLS will continue to be NY States ONE AND ONLY TEAM. But you're kidding yourself if you think the MONEY was the MAIN reason why that thing died in Manhattan. Link Shuffle Off to Buffalo You make a very value added argument for this facility. But something similar happened many years ago in upstate NY, Erie County. The county was going to build a new "domed" stadium for the Buffalo (Bumbling) Bills football team. The owner demanded an open stadium on a different site, and an exclusive use contract. If not, the team would leave. Since then, the taxpayers of Erie County have been paying the bill, while only the football team owners make any money. All the stadium costs, repairs, and maintenance fall upon the taxpayers, while all the receipts go to the team. In effect, welfare for the rich. Unless the construction contracts clearly stipulate that the CITY AND STATE COMPLETELY OWN, OPERATE, and CONTROL the use of the stadium, this will just be another welfare subsidy for the uber-rich. So unless the receipts go to the city and state, not the team, let the billionaires of the NFL pay for their own stadium. J. Matthew Good Hi J., Thanks for the letter, will try to post it on web site this week. The example you sight proves the point. An open air stadium in Buffalo is good for 10 Bills games a year and that is about it. And it is located in Buffalo. While I love our great city by the lake, it is not a destination of most tourists. A domed stadium/convention center in Manhattan would bring the Jets to New York, would open the greatest city in the world up for major events year round, would augment the Javits convention center, and would give NYC the ability to host mega events like the Olympics and the Super Bowl. And, remember, this is not a handout, the Jets are putting up most of the money for the stadium, while guaranteeing against cost-overruns. Welfare for the rich is wrong, but here you have Johnson laying out huge amounts of money for this project. There are rare cases where public funds make sense when invested into a private enterprise, and this is one of them. Best, Tom McMorrow, Jr. 653512[/snapback] i live in nyc and followed the issue very closely (in fact, my wife works in economic development). i can tell you that there was no popular support for the stadium, which is what ultimately killed it. that's why politicians like shelly silver were able to kill it -- cablevision was merely a sideshow. in any case, the stadium was all about the olympic bid; dan doctoroff (the guy who was really behind it, not bloomberg) didn't care that much about the jets. the problem was that not that many new yorkers gave two hoots about hosting the olympics.
Bob in STL Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 It really is fascinating to watch RWS and the Bills financially wheel and deal with NYS and within the context of the CBA. As best as I can tell, Ralph is selling the impression that he and the poor little Bills are getting raped by the stupid new CBA deal which is so bad for smaller market franchises like the Bills it is simply a question as to whether we can be a viable economic concern here in WNY. This message seems pretty clearly reflected in quotes such as this one from the Bills own website: " The high cost of the new collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and its players represents a substantial burden to small market teams." This is cool as this is how negotiating is done in our US system under the pseudo-free market within which the team owners with their growing partnership with the players restrain trade (in a fairly un-American way) and have created the next best thing to a printing press for making money at a very low risk. I'd really feel almost sorry for Ralphie if I was not laughing so hard at the false economic impression he and the Bills seem to be selling and how much the media looks at this picture with zero real inquistiveness and how much elected officials seem to lap up this economic tripe. Make no mistake about it, there is a real and present RELATIVE economic risk that the Bills might fly the coop from Buffalo and instead head off to other economic markets where an even richer vein of nickels can be tapped. However, the false impression they are giving and allowing folks to buy into which is based in what I think is pretty much a flat out false impression or lie they are using to describe the Bills economic situation is that there is some ABSOLUTE or REAL economic viability threat to the Bills franchise. The actual situation regarding moving or not moving the franchise is that: On One Hand- The team would operate as a franchise with a contractually guranteed revenue stream which far exceeds a contractually almost completely guaranteed set of liabilities where the income pool far exceeds the liabiity pool. Or On the Other Hand- The team could move and the guaranteed income stream would be supplemented by additional contractual guarantees and easily accessible opportunities to rake in even more cash. The bottomline is that while day-to-day business is certainly tougher for a Ralph Wilson than it is for Dan Snyder, in the real world this means that it is an incredibly low-risk method of making tons and goo-gahs of money for Snyder while it is merely an incredibly low-risk method of making tons and a mere one goo (rather than multiple goo-gahs) of money on Ralph's part. Quite frankly I wouldn't mind at all that Ralph is sounding the alarm bells and extorting more corporate welfar from the state government instead of just my county government. WNY gets the benefit while the costs are spread across the entire state. However, it does get a bit tiring and silly to see him and the Bills doing this by leaving the impression of poverty because they "struggle" along in a small market and it is simply incorrect. wrong, and false for him to blame his poverty on being taken advantage of by an unfair CBA. Look you poor old fool. I think that you (Ralph) fully recognize that the new CBA merely replaces a small group of NFL team owners taking every nickel they could bet out of the NFL that they could for 40 years or so while paying the lowest wages you could to the players. When the NFL team owners over played their hand and so badly kicked the butts of the players in the mid-80s that the NFLPA was so weakened they actually threatened the owners with the nuclear option of closing down the NFLPA and thus force the owners to negotiate with individual players in a true free market. Rather than actually compete with each other, the team owners instead agreed to a CBA with the NFLPA where the two parties formed a partnership to restrain trade through activities like the NFL draft and activities such as the lawsuit against Maurice Clarett which restrained Americans below the age of 18 from entering the free market and instead forced them to go to college to be trained to play in the BNFL (a beat economic play actually because almost all other major sports must pay for a minor league system. Bt restraining trade amongst college age players, the NFL has shiftd this cost to the colleges and taxpayers. At any rate, what Ralph appears to be doing here is several things: 1. He is setting up NYS to pay the lionshare of the costs to build a new stadium for the Bills. These costs will be borne in a manner similar that which was propsoed for the failed effort to build a new stadium in Manhattan for the Jets. 2. He is setting this up for a bidding war to be waged during the nest governors race. Both Spitzer and whomever wins the GOP nominatuion will be required to make commitments to pay for a new Bills stadium if they want WNY votes for governor. As a Bills fan I am quite supportive of Ralph sticking NYS up for the cost of a stadium he will make outrageous profits from. However, I do find it a bit annoying with his poverty act when he is raking in money hand over fist (and his new bid is to also be supported in raking it in with his feet also) as a justiciation for this. Really the amounts of money which will paid out for the Bills as corporate welfare are really small cost to NYS taxpayers compared to real costs like the inefficient manner with which we do health care spending compared to the almgamation of costs and fairly broad health consumer satisfaction of single payer systems like the Canadian program. Even better, this region gets the benefit of this corporate welfare to the Bills with our team, and also intelligent folks like Byron Brown do seem to recognize the game being played here and likely will push to see this corporate welfare payment be used to benefit the City of Buffalo. However, the poor act being pulled off by Ralph seems pretty disingenious to anyone thinking this through economically. He is pretending to be a Alzheimer's fuddy duddy (if he is, then this pliable fool is being directed by some smart folks), but overall he seems to be setting things up nicely to stick up NYS taxpayers. 653440[/snapback] Wow, lots of sentences. I'll be brief. 1. Ralph is going to end up right. He is not crying wolf. 2. How do you know what kind of deal Ralph was talking about with Pataki? 3. In the later years of this CBA we will struggle to be competitve. 4. The Bills need a plan to survive in Buffalo in the future. Financial aid is part of the plan, as is finding the appropriate buyer for the team. 5. No matter who buys the team after Ralph, they will insist on a new stadium, one that brings in more revenue to the team.
Adam Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 Wrongo! Mr. Wilson is not asking for anything more than what other teams have already gotten. Just be glad he's giving NY the chance, and not just up and moving. Also, be glad he hasn't dug a hole for himself, ala Art Modell through poor financial moves that forced a move. Still, I dont expect the Bills to stay in Buffalo. It wouldnt make sense
respk Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 All I can say is GO RALPH!!! A new stadium, in the right location (which downtown Buffalo is not), could be a very good thing for the region. There are X dollars every year that are targeted for this type of funding at both the state and federal level. If the Buffalo region doesn't make use of it, another region will. That is a fact. If you don't like it, you need to vote in new politicians. As I understand the agreement (and I am sure several people will correct me if I misunderstand) I believe Ralph is absolutely right! Each year of this agreement the small market teams get further and further behind in revenue. The big market teams were relatively smart in designing this agreement. They were able to reduce the amount they pay out of their revenues and increase the amount the small market teams have to pay out of theirs. If I have more money to spend than you, I can force you into financial problems by increasing the amount you have to spend. It was a win-win allright, for the big market teams only Forget about the salary cap. There are creative ways around the cap if you have extra money to utilize.
Recommended Posts