Chalkie Gerzowski Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 I think Ralph is taking the best approach on this that he can.
Lori Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Thanks for explaining it. But, here is a wild thought (you know I have had my share... ). Maybe the rule was in place to DISCOURAGE selling a team? Say RW passes on to the great beyond... Who is gonna want to buy it if they can't get the $30 mil? Even a big market owner, I think, would be taking a hit. Would his daughter be more apt to keep the team (even know she says she doesn't want it) in this situation? 656992[/snapback] Still have the estate-tax situation to deal with. Much like the Robbies (Dolphins), Ralph's daughters might have to sell the team to pay them...
Buftex Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 I am reading post after post about Ralph being cheap, Ralph looking for a handout, Ralph wanting a new stadium, blah, blah, blah... Do you people understand English?? ................................................................................................................................................................................... PTR 656492[/snapback] PTR- I ony quoted the begining of your post, but the whole thing was excellent! I have always liked your posts, but this one really nails it on the head. Best post I have read here in some time. I haven't been in hard-core posting mode the last few weeks (too busy) but was just about to make a similar post, in content. When I read the articles where local politicians are saying things like "Wilson is going to have to show us the books,yadda yadda yadda", it got me really pissed. Wilson has not been saying that he hasn't been making any money, only that, with the new CBA, it would be near impossible for the team to be owned by anyone else, and stay in Buffalo. I can't believe so many can't understand that...
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 I can understand Erie County politicians not understanding what Ralph is saying.
DeLuca1967 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 It's designed to move the Bills out of Buffalo. Ralph is the one owner most likely to change do to his age. PTR 656917[/snapback] That makes sense. The other 31 owners and the NFLPA had secret meetings to get the Bills out of Buffalo? It what other business are you required to share your revenue? Imagine being a top salesman and having to give up part of your commission to the weaker salesmen? The CBA is designed to force the weaker sisters of the league to step it up. Why should Jones and Snieder have to subsidize another team? They invest their money and get great returns. They spend money to give their fans the best product they can and the fans repay them with more revenue. It's how any business is supposed to work. If the revenue isn't here in WNY why do we expect the other teams to pay money so we can have a team? I heard a great point on the radio. This is Buffalo 2006. Not Buffalo 1965. We are no longer among the Cities like Boston, Philly or Pittsburgh. We are now Toledo, Akron or Rochester. It's time to wake up. We can't keep our parks open or our teachers and policemen employed.
Ramius Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 It what other business are you required to share your revenue? Imagine being a top salesman and having to give up part of your commission to the weaker salesmen? The CBA is designed to force the weaker sisters of the league to step it up. Why should Jones and Snieder have to subsidize another team? They invest their money and get great returns. They spend money to give their fans the best product they can and the fans repay them with more revenue. It's how any business is supposed to work. If the revenue isn't here in WNY why do we expect the other teams to pay money so we can have a team? 657085[/snapback] This is the piss poor attitude that the big market teams and the MLB have. What them and you have in common is that you see it as 32 separare businesses competuing against each other. In reality, the NFL is 1 business with 32 different franchises. Thats what has made the NFL king for so many years. The health of each franchise makes the league better as a product. You and the big market teams seem to think that each franshise should be responsible for themselves, and if you cant hack it too bad. While this may work for a short time, in the long run, it will only hurt the NFL. Heres an extreme example of the way you think the NFL should be run. The NFL allows teams to do whatever, and keep spending. Eventually we are down to dallas, washington, new england and philly as the only remaining viable franchises. Sure these guys will make the money, but when theres 4 teams left, those multi-billion dollar TV contracts will dry up when no one wants to watch just those 4 teams compete. The overall product of the NFL will keep it at the top of the sports world. And the way to ensure that the NFL product stays great is to make sure each one of its franchises is viable and can legitamitely compete with one another. And that means revenue sharing. Its a matter of giving up some personal gain for the better good of the entire league. The old guard understood this. The newbies snyder, kraft, jones, and jackasses like you dont.
Dan Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 That makes sense. The other 31 owners and the NFLPA had secret meetings to get the Bills out of Buffalo? It what other business are you required to share your revenue? Imagine being a top salesman and having to give up part of your commission to the weaker salesmen? The CBA is designed to force the weaker sisters of the league to step it up. Why should Jones and Snieder have to subsidize another team? They invest their money and get great returns. They spend money to give their fans the best product they can and the fans repay them with more revenue. It's how any business is supposed to work. If the revenue isn't here in WNY why do we expect the other teams to pay money so we can have a team? I heard a great point on the radio. This is Buffalo 2006. Not Buffalo 1965. We are no longer among the Cities like Boston, Philly or Pittsburgh. We are now Toledo, Akron or Rochester. It's time to wake up. We can't keep our parks open or our teachers and policemen employed. 657085[/snapback] Do I even need to respond to this?? So you're advocating that the NFL become baseball, where the richest team in the richest market has all the money, buys all the players and most every year buys the World Series. The idea behind revenue sharing is to keep the League strong, balanced and competitive. Without that, you'd have about 2 or 3 teams taking turns at winning the Superbowl each year. And what has become one of the greatest worldwide spectacles each year would loose its luster and be replaced in the ratings by Survivor. Revenue sharing is perhaps the biggest reason the NFL has become the most popular american sportt today. So you're right. Why share your money with less profitable clubs? To hell with Clevland, Buffalo, etc. It'll be a great ride for a few years, but get rid of the smaller market teams and the league becomes a shell of itself in less than 10 years.
DeLuca1967 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Do I even need to respond to this?? So you're advocating that the NFL become baseball, where the richest team in the richest market has all the money, buys all the players and most every year buys the World Series. The idea behind revenue sharing is to keep the League strong, balanced and competitive. Without that, you'd have about 2 or 3 teams taking turns at winning the Superbowl each year. And what has become one of the greatest worldwide spectacles each year would loose its luster and be replaced in the ratings by Survivor. Revenue sharing is perhaps the biggest reason the NFL has become the most popular american sportt today. So you're right. Why share your money with less profitable clubs? To hell with Clevland, Buffalo, etc. It'll be a great ride for a few years, but get rid of the smaller market teams and the league becomes a shell of itself in less than 10 years. 657091[/snapback] Welcome to a free market economy. Like it or not it's what this country has been based on for over 200 years. The only reason you care is becuase it's your team. Nobody cared when it was St Louis, Oakland or Cleveland. And those cities had the revenue to support an NFL team. Buffalo is in a unique position. If they didn't have the Bills already there would be no chance in hell they could get an NFL franchise. Add MLB, NHL and the NBA to that list. And to correct you. TV revenue is why the NFL is the #1 sport in the U.S., not revenue sharing.
Fan in San Diego Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Still have the estate-tax situation to deal with. Much like the Robbies (Dolphins), Ralph's daughters might have to sell the team to pay them... 657055[/snapback] Thats bad estate planning. They should have trust funds set up etc. No reason to pay estate taxes.
Buftex Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 This is the piss poor attitude that the big market teams and the MLB have. What them and you have in common is that you see it as 32 separare businesses competuing against each other. In reality, the NFL is 1 business with 32 different franchises. Thats what has made the NFL king for so many years. The health of each franchise makes the league better as a product. 657090[/snapback] Ramius, I share, and appreciate your sentiment. I will go on record as saying, if the Bills leave Buffalo, I will be devastated. I haven't lived there in nearly 20 years, but make it back as often as I can to go to games. That being said, I think what DeLuca is saying, as much as I hate it, is essentially true. Even if the NFL is one business with 32 different franchises, there comes a time when the businessmen prevail, and they say, "Well, we only have 32 franchises in our company, why is one of them in Buffalo, when there are X number of better places (ie: wealthier places) that are willing to bend over to accomodate us? If we get rid of the team in Buffalo, which contributes amongst the least to our overall wealth, the other 31 of us can make more money by starting a new "store" somewhere else. Time to shut that franchise down." What I find interesting is that this clause in the CBA, about no revenue sharing with new owners kind of precludes the often rumoured teams (Bills, Saints) from moving to Los Angeles, unless their current owners go with them. It seems like Benson and the Saints are being primed to move to LA, while the Bills are being primed to shut down business. Assuming the Bills came to that point, and assuming Ralph were still with us, he appears uninterested in moving the team elsewhere. So the Bills would have to fold, and not move. I think the way the clause is worded is that a new owner of a new NFL team can be paid through revenue sharing, but a new owner of an existing franchise cannot. So, essentially, it seems like the NFL, with this new CBA is trying to snuff the Bills out, so they can open a new franchise in Toronto (again, not just move the Bills there), or Albuquerque, or wherever the hell... As much of a smug prick Taglibue is, his retirement could be bad for the Bills too. Unless Goodell takes his place (a WNYer) Buffalo may not really have any allies beyond Ralph Wilson. Tags seemed to place a high priority on keeping teams from moving. It appears that he had less influence on this latest CBA (or at least its' substance) than in the past. The new guard owners, with the most money are rising to the top, and taking over the leauge, and changing the way it does business. I am sure this has something to do with Taglibues' retiring. Ralph may be whining, but I think his concerns are very real....I am going to start writing my letters!
Nanker Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Ramius, I share, and appreciate your sentiment. I will go on record as saying, if the Bills leave Buffalo, I will be devastated. I haven't lived there in nearly 20 years, but make it back as often as I can to go to games. That being said, I think what DeLuca is saying, as much as I hate it, is essentially true. Even if the NFL is one business with 32 different franchises, there comes a time when the businessmen prevail, and they say, "Well, we only have 32 franchises in our company, why is one of them in Buffalo, when there are X number of better places (ie: wealthier places) that are willing to bend over to accomodate us? If we get rid of the team in Buffalo, which contributes amongst the least to our overall wealth, the other 31 of us can make more money by starting a new "store" somewhere else. Time to shut that franchise down." What I find interesting is that this clause in the CBA, about no revenue sharing with new owners kind of precludes the often rumoured teams (Bills, Saints) from moving to Los Angeles, unless their current owners go with them. It seems like Benson and the Saints are being primed to move to LA, while the Bills are being primed to shut down business. Assuming the Bills came to that point, and assuming Ralph were still with us, he appears uninterested in moving the team elsewhere. So the Bills would have to fold, and not move. I think the way the clause is worded is that a new owner of a new NFL team can be paid through revenue sharing, but a new owner of an existing franchise cannot. So, essentially, it seems like the NFL, with this new CBA is trying to snuff the Bills out, so they can open a new franchise in Toronto (again, not just move the Bills there), or Albuquerque, or wherever the hell... As much of a smug prick Taglibue is, his retirement could be bad for the Bills too. Unless Goodell takes his place (a WNYer) Buffalo may not really have any allies beyond Ralph Wilson. Tags seemed to place a high priority on keeping teams from moving. It appears that he had less influence on this latest CBA (or at least its' substance) than in the past. The new guard owners, with the most money are rising to the top, and taking over the leauge, and changing the way it does business. I am sure this has something to do with Taglibues' retiring. Ralph may be whining, but I think his concerns are very real....I am going to start writing my letters! 657114[/snapback] Absent compelling evidence that LA would support a team, why the incessant push to transplant the beating heart of a living team to that corner of the world? Hell, compelling? Absent ANY evidence that the basin would support a team it's an absurd proposition for the league to force a team there when they're proven to be TWO TIME LOSERS. A new owner of the LA Basins would not make any money there - unless the entire stadium was $200k skyboxes. There is not a significant number of NFL fans there. That's why our own LABills Fan is so unique. I'll get behind the league putting a team in LA when they take Dallass out of the NFC East and put them in the AFC South. Fuggers got me angry now.
Buftex Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Absent compelling evidence that LA would support a team, why the incessant push to transplant the beating heart of a living team to that corner of the world? Hell, compelling? Absent ANY evidence that the basin would support a team it's an absurd proposition for the league to force a team there when they're proven to be TWO TIME LOSERS. A new owner of the LA Basins would not make any money there - unless the entire stadium was $200k skyboxes. There is not a significant number of NFL fans there. That's why our own LABills Fan is so unique. I'll get behind the league putting a team in LA when they take Dallass out of the NFC East and put them in the AFC South. Fuggers got me angry now. 657132[/snapback] However much you or I object, getting a team in Los Angeles seems to be a priority to the NFL owners. Like I said, I think it will be Benson moving the Saints to Los Angeles, and the Bills franchise, unless somthing happens, just outright folds. A new franchise will start in Toronto, so the new owner can share in the revenue sharing plan. The NFL will be under the (mistaken?) impression that this will appease (literally) dis-enfranchised Buffalo Bills fans. If you think giving Los Angeles another crack at a team, ask yourself why Houston got a new franchise to replace the Oilers so quickly. Oilers fans were almost as apathetic as it gets. It really does not have much to do with selling out stadiums, as it does all of the outside bells and whistles that cities allow teams to make. Houston is a major television and business market. Buffalo has neither of these things in its' favor. Fan loyalty is our only trump card....
Nanker Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 However much you or I object, getting a team in Los Angeles seems to be a priority to the NFL owners. Like I said, I think it will be Benson moving the Saints to Los Angeles, and the Bills franchise, unless somthing happens, just outright folds. A new franchise will start in Toronto, so the new owner can share in the revenue sharing plan. The NFL will be under the (mistaken?) impression that this will appease (literally) dis-enfranchised Buffalo Bills fans. If you think giving Los Angeles another crack at a team, ask yourself why Houston got a new franchise to replace the Oilers so quickly. Oilers fans were almost as apathetic as it gets. It really does not have much to do with selling out stadiums, as it does all of the outside bells and whistles that cities allow teams to make. Houston is a major television and business market. Buffalo has neither of these things in its' favor. Fan loyalty is our only trump card.... 657142[/snapback] You're probably right. Enough of this depressing s#it. Any chance of getting your Avatar to loosen her buttons?
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 And to correct you. TV revenue is why the NFL is the #1 sport in the U.S., not revenue sharing. This is so wrong, it's not even in the AREA code of right. The NFL supplanted MLB as the #1 sport BECAUSE of revenue sharing, the salary cap, and parity. You see, when ALL fans think their team can be competitive because of a level playing field, there's more interest. And the NFL itself is far from "free market." Witness the "G-3" loan program, which essentially gives free money (50% of new stadium costs) to owners with the ONLY stipulation being that they don't sell the team for at least 10 years from the opening of the new stadium. Yeah, that's REAL "free market."
DeLuca1967 Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Ramius, I share, and appreciate your sentiment. I will go on record as saying, if the Bills leave Buffalo, I will be devastated. I haven't lived there in nearly 20 years, but make it back as often as I can to go to games. That being said, I think what DeLuca is saying, as much as I hate it, is essentially true. Even if the NFL is one business with 32 different franchises, there comes a time when the businessmen prevail, and they say, "Well, we only have 32 franchises in our company, why is one of them in Buffalo, when there are X number of better places (ie: wealthier places) that are willing to bend over to accomodate us? If we get rid of the team in Buffalo, which contributes amongst the least to our overall wealth, the other 31 of us can make more money by starting a new "store" somewhere else. Time to shut that franchise down." What I find interesting is that this clause in the CBA, about no revenue sharing with new owners kind of precludes the often rumoured teams (Bills, Saints) from moving to Los Angeles, unless their current owners go with them. It seems like Benson and the Saints are being primed to move to LA, while the Bills are being primed to shut down business. Assuming the Bills came to that point, and assuming Ralph were still with us, he appears uninterested in moving the team elsewhere. So the Bills would have to fold, and not move. I think the way the clause is worded is that a new owner of a new NFL team can be paid through revenue sharing, but a new owner of an existing franchise cannot. So, essentially, it seems like the NFL, with this new CBA is trying to snuff the Bills out, so they can open a new franchise in Toronto (again, not just move the Bills there), or Albuquerque, or wherever the hell... As much of a smug prick Taglibue is, his retirement could be bad for the Bills too. Unless Goodell takes his place (a WNYer) Buffalo may not really have any allies beyond Ralph Wilson. Tags seemed to place a high priority on keeping teams from moving. It appears that he had less influence on this latest CBA (or at least its' substance) than in the past. The new guard owners, with the most money are rising to the top, and taking over the leauge, and changing the way it does business. I am sure this has something to do with Taglibues' retiring. Ralph may be whining, but I think his concerns are very real....I am going to start writing my letters! 657114[/snapback] Thanks. You seem to get the point I was making. I don't want the Bills to leave Buffalo. Being a life long citizen I have to wonder if this is a top priority? There is so much to fix in WNY the Bills may be a luxury we can no longer afford.
Dan Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Welcome to a free market economy. Like it or not it's what this country has been based on for over 200 years. The only reason you care is becuase it's your team. Nobody cared when it was St Louis, Oakland or Cleveland. And those cities had the revenue to support an NFL team. Buffalo is in a unique position. If they didn't have the Bills already there would be no chance in hell they could get an NFL franchise. Add MLB, NHL and the NBA to that list. And to correct you. TV revenue is why the NFL is the #1 sport in the U.S., not revenue sharing. 657106[/snapback] Again, I still haveto very much disagree with you. First of all, I don't just care because its the Bills. I was quite pissed when the league let Cleveland lose its team and never considered them the LA Raiders, but always the Oakland Raiders. I think that's one of the better things Tags has done is try to put an end to all the moving around of teams. If you care anything at all about the NFL and the Bills, then you want teams to stay where they are. You want the rivalries and the tradition. And you want small market teams to be competitive with large market teams. I agree you probably won't get new teams into small market areas, suc as Buffalo. I lived in Memphis for 6 years and watched them try to get team. There were alot of reasons they didn't get a team, but I'm sure one of them was connected to Memphis being a smaller market and somehow making that work. Free Market or not, the NFL enjoys the success that it does because of its Revenue Sharing and Salary Caps. Thes two poicies more than any other, I believe, help to keep all teams on a level playing field, personnel-wise. Which, in turn, leads to all teams being equally matched, i.e. parity. Because all teams have a shot, not to mention its a relatively short season (only 16 games) in comparison to other sports, combined with the fact that only a relatively small portion of teams make the postseason, all means each game does matter. Therefore, you want to watch every week, because week one is just as important as week 6 or week 14. Hence, TV ratings/revenue are great. If they change the league such that many of the teams have no way of competing, how many years before people begin to give up hope and stop watching games? When that happens, ratings will drop and so will the money from the TV companies. The league has been extremely well managed and marketed over the years. Such that it is the premier sport in the US. However, I can assure you that if it changes and the haves and havenots diverge from one another, the league may still make money, but it'll loose everything it has built up.
Dan Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 There is so much to fix in WNY the Bills may be a luxury we can no longer afford. 657185[/snapback] That's the completely wrong attitude, in my opinion. The Bills are not a luxury at all. The Bills are an integral part of WNY as well as being integral to WNY's economic revocery. I agree, you can't tax people like mad to keep the team there. But, I also thing that's what underlies alot of Ralph's concerns. He's more than knowledgeable about what it takes to run and maintain a franchise in Buffalo, and the last thing he needs is for the league to pass policies that hinder his efforts and make it harder to keep the team there.
socalfan Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Welcome to a free market economy. Like it or not it's what this country has been based on for over 200 years.............. 657106[/snapback] We don't have a free market economy now, we didn't have a fee market economy over the last 200 years, and we won't have a free market economy in the future. The free market economy version of the NFL would look like this... No NFL TV contracts. Each team would have to broker it's own deal for it's own local market. No NFL draft. All players are free agents. They can sign contracts, but they would also be able to walk at the end of any contract. No revenue sharing including ticket receipts, TV revenue, sales of team merchandize. No cost sharing as is done now when the salary cap increases due to increased revenues. No salary cap.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 What I find interesting is that this clause in the CBA, about no revenue sharing with new owners ...657114[/snapback] Just to clearify, all franchises share all of their total revenue. The lowest grossing 17 are supposed to receive a subsidy from the highest grossing 15 clubs to help them spend up to the cap. This figure was originally reported as about $10M per club. Over the last month, the actual amount, and the qualifiers that enable clubs to receive it, has come into question. I believe Ralph is referring to this subsidy not being transferrable to a new owner. The logic being, that a new owner who has met a very high asking price doesn't need the subsidy that the prior owner did. This is so wrong, it's not even in the AREA code of right. The NFL supplanted MLB as the #1 sport BECAUSE of revenue sharing, the salary cap, and parity. You see, when ALL fans think their team can be competitive because of a level playing field, there's more interest. 657152[/snapback] Pete Rozelle sold the post-merger TV rights to CBS and NBC and coordinated their coverage. Ralph and other AFL owners helped convince Wellington Mara and other NFL owners that sharing the windfall equally among each franchise would enable each team to compete. Without the TV money, there's nothing to share.
dave mcbride Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 I am reading post after post about Ralph being cheap, Ralph looking for a handout, Ralph wanting a new stadium, blah, blah, blah... Do you people understand English?? 1) Ralph is only looking for political pressure to force the NFL from installing the rule where a new owner of the Buffalo Bills would not get revenue sharing. That rule was written just make it impossible for the Bills to stay in Buffalo after Ralph passes on, and it's totally unfair! 2) While raising prices on tickets, parking, etc. helps a little, it doesn't solve the problem. 3) Ralph does not want a new stadium. He says a new stadium would not incrase revenue. Besides RWS is fine. Those are his words. 4) Ralph has no interest in selling, or moving the Bills. 5) This is not about Ralph not making enough money. It's about keeping the Bills out of the red, in business, and competitive IN BUFFALO!!! Anyone who posts otherwise is misinformed, or simply has their head jammed up their colons. PTR 656492[/snapback] he'll have roughly a 25% profit rate over the next few years. cry me a freakin' river.
Recommended Posts