I'm with Ralph, and I'm glad he's goin down strong

[Kelly the Dog]

No disrect taken here, and I am not naive and following blindly behind what the team says, but don't be so sure the team is going to make money this year. We have no idea what kind of money the Bills have made previously (its been said around 10-15 million) and with the changes to the CBA and revenue sharing (which none of us know the complete details of), You can not honestly say that there is no way in hell the Bills will not lose money. Maybe I am wrong and Ralph is trying to do some underhanded dealings and trying to get everyone to pony up some more cash for him, but I would think a man at his age, with his money, is not exagerating that this team could be in some financial trouble. And I'm willing to believe him until I am shown evidence that it is not true.

661357[/snapback]

The Bills are several million under the cap. The Cap is 102 million. The Bills will get 116 million in TV money. That's a surplus 14 million before the season starts IF they spend all of their cap, which they aren't likely to do. That is BEFORE ONE TICKET is sold, one beer or hot dog or parking spot or jersey or hat is sold. One luxury suite. One radio contract or local TV contract for pre-season is paid. So please tell me how they are going to lose money this season. And all they have to pay for is the coaches, administrators and the running of the team (offices, travel, training camp, etc)

[Lv-Bills]

The Bills are several million under the cap. The Cap is 102 million. The Bills will get 116 million in TV money. That's a surplus 14 million before the season starts IF they spend all of their cap, which they aren't likely to do. That is BEFORE ONE TICKET is sold, one beer or hot dog or parking spot or jersey or hat is sold. One radio contract or local TV contract for pre-season is paid. So please tell me how they are going to lose money this season. And all they have to pay for is the coaches and the running of the team.

661399[/snapback]

Bingo.

 

And again, like I said, I'm with Ralph about the new state of affairs. But don't give me this crap that they are going to lose money next season.

 

Total BS. And that's where people will start to lose respect for him.

[finknottle]

I know this will be interpreted as disloyal and I love Ralph...but its really hard for me to jump on board the "Ralph pity train" when he has an asset he invested $25K in 1960 that is now worth north of a half a billion with probably net profits over those 46 years in the hundreds of millions of dollars...all paid by you and me and TV....

 

660958[/snapback]

 

I am really tired of this BS about 25k. Only an idiot too lazy to think things through would believe that the Bills did not lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in the early years. And he didn't sit back and do nothing - getting the AFL going was a full-time committment by the founders.

 

It was a lifetime of labor and hundreds of thousands of 60's dollars, in the face of extremely long odds, that earned him his franchise.

 

So if you think lucky people write checks for 25k and have them turn into fortunes, I have an email from Nigeria for you.

[Kelly the Dog]

I am really tired of this BS about 25k.  Only an idiot too lazy to think things through would believe that the Bills did not lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in the early years.  And he didn't sit back and do nothing - getting the AFL going was a full-time committment by the founders.

 

It was a lifetime of labor and hundreds of thousands of 60's dollars, in the face of extremely long odds, that earned him his franchise.

 

So if you think lucky people write checks for 25k and have them turn into fortunes,  I have an email from Nigeria for you.

661467[/snapback]

You're absolutely right about that. And the fact that dozens of times over the years Ralph could have either moved the Bills to greener pastures for a lot more money, or cashed out on the Bills and made a fortune on them and left them to move freely to another city. So we have a great debt to Ralph, and it's extraordinary that he has done what he has done for the city of Buffalo.

 

It would also be a disservice, however, for Ralph or Bills fans to discount that Ralph's worth skyrocketed from 200 million to 500 million over night because of the rich new breed of owners. So he has a debt to them as well. Otherwise, he would be selling for 300 million instead of 600-700 million. That is an enormous difference, too. And that wasn't just because of the way things were headed or the TV contracts. That was directly because billionaires with deep pockets outbid and overspent for new franchises. And Ralph cashed in on it.

[finknottle]

Nobody said Ralph is lying and one would be pretty naive to believe the threat of moving is anything but serious....but don't try to sell me that losing $10M this next year is a huge concern when your original investment has 20,000 times the value now...(based on $500M)...

 

Just change the messaging all to future tense and concern about degrading the franchise value and never again being able to run the franchise profitably without a change in the league revenue mix...but don't message around the short term $10M loss when you have made probably hundreds of million in profits and franchise value appreciation the past 46 years.. Its idiocy to talk about $10M...

661150[/snapback]

 

But people don't think that way in the real world. If I sink 10k into a stock and in 10 years it turns into 200k, great! But if after that it returns 2% a year, with no upturn in sight, guess what? I don't twiddle my thumbs and think happily about all the money I made, I sell. It's simply not a good investment.

[JoeF]

I am really tired of this BS about 25k.  Only an idiot too lazy to think things through would believe that the Bills did not lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in the early years.  And he didn't sit back and do nothing - getting the AFL going was a full-time committment by the founders.

 

It was a lifetime of labor and hundreds of thousands of 60's dollars, in the face of extremely long odds, that earned him his franchise.

 

So if you think lucky people write checks for 25k and have them turn into fortunes,  I have an email from Nigeria for you.

661467[/snapback]

 

Fish--noone is denying it was a risk in 1960 to invest the $25K. Noone is denying that Ralph is a shrewd entrepreneur who worked his ass off for today's franchise value and finally, noone is denying his loyalty to WNY.

 

However, you can't ignore what the franchise is worth today and you can't ignore that his net over the years is probably 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars in net profit from the team. What investment in a start up are you aware of that turns a profit right away?

 

To have as a core message of reasoning to put "the franchise future in Buffalo in doubt" be a projected $10M loss for next year is really challenging our intelligence.

 

Its not Nigera, its reality....

[finknottle]

:

It would also be a disservice, however, for Ralph or Bills fans to discount that Ralph's worth skyrocketed from 200 million to 500 million over night because of the rich new breed of owners. So he has a debt to them as well. Otherwise, he would be selling for 300 million instead of 600-700 million. That is an enormous difference, too. And that wasn't just because of the way things were headed or the TV contracts. That was directly because billionaires with deep pockets outbid and overspent for new franchises. And Ralph cashed in on it.

661473[/snapback]

 

I agree with that. My pet peeve is just the over-simplistic 'Ralph paid 25k and it turned into a fortune' mantra.

[kasper13]

I have the article in front of me right now. All it does is give general numbers with nothing to back it up. This team treasurer guy Littmann looks like Dan Snyder. A total slimeball.

 

Littmann says the Bills profit last year was "between $12 and $18 miilion". I read somwhere that it was $15 million Why not just say that it was $15 million a-hole?

 

Back up the numbers with facts. Without facts, in my opinion, they are just flat out liars.

 

Let's assume RW made $15 million last year and by some strange accounting tricks they lose $8 million in 2006. RW is still up $7 million over two years.

 

I don't understand why the hell RW will not sell the naming rights to the stadium. Even if it was for $1 million a year, that's better than nothing. They claim it's not worth it. How the hell is an extra $1 million per year not worth it if profits are down?

 

The kick in the sack are these two paragraphs:

 

"Selling the team, under the proposed wording of the new revenue sharing plan, could wipe out the revenue sharing potential for a new owner"

 

Read: Team wouldn't need revenue sharing in a big market like LA.

 

"The proposed revenue sharing plan also would penalize teams like the Bills that can't generate 80 perecnt of the average NFL team's ticket revenue."

 

Read: Bills would have to raise ticket prices high enough to meet the average but then wouldn't sell out in Buffalo because prices are too high. Screwed either way.

 

Selling the team to a local owner wouldn't help. A new stadium wouldn't help. Raising ticket prices wouldn't help. Selling out every game now doesn't help. Giant amounts of cash from TV & Merchandise revenue doesn't help. The Bills are totally F-ed. They are gone.

[finknottle]

Fish--noone is denying it was a risk in 1960 to invest the $25K.  Noone is denying that Ralph is a shrewd entrepreneur who worked his ass off for today's franchise value and finally, noone is denying his loyalty to WNY. 

 

However, you can't ignore what the franchise is worth today and you can't ignore that his net over the years is probably 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars in net profit from the team.  What investment in a start up are you aware of that turns a profit right away?

 

To have as a core message of reasoning to put "the franchise future in Buffalo in doubt" be a projected $10M loss for next year is really challenging our intelligence. 

 

Its not Nigera, its reality....

661483[/snapback]

 

The point is that he invested FAR more than 25k. There is a big difference between a 25k investment growing to $600 million over 50 years and, say, a million growing to 600.

 

Or do you think that that's all he shelled out during the AFL years? There must have been a lot of sell-outs...

 

(I don't know how much time and money he actually put in)

[Kelly the Dog]

The point is that he invested FAR more than 25k.  There is a big difference between a 25k investment growing to $600 million over 50 years and,  say,  a million growing to 600.

 

Or do you think that that's all he shelled out during the AFL years?  There must have been a lot of sell-outs...

 

(I don't know how much time and money he actually put in)

661493[/snapback]

You're also totally discounting the millions that he has made over the years on a yearly basis. Surely, in the first few years he could have lost some money. But the players weren't paid much then. Sure in the lean years he could have lost some money. But a very conservative estimate would put him making two million a year on average. That's almost 100 million profit that has zero to do with the 700 million the team is worth. You cannot believe for one second that if Ralph Wilson was actually losing money on a yearly basis over all this time he would not have moved the team to greener pastures or raised a stink about it or sold it. He was making a couple if not several and sometimes tens of millions on a yearly basis profit. I would bet he's made 200 million in 46 years (Consider the fact that they "admitted" making 15 million alone last year and other people like Forbes had them making 20-30 million profit)

[Lv-Bills]

Checking back in and reading through more of these posts..........I also don't care about the 25k Ralph bought the team for. Hell, I don't care if he bought it for $25.00 and then turned it into the first NFL franchise worth 1 Billion.

 

I do care though, about this douchebag in the Buffalo News today telling us with a straight face that the Bills are going to lose 5-10 million dollars next year. Now, we truly do look like idiots.

 

There is no one in their right mind that would believe that for one minute. Not when the TV money alone is going to cover pretty much all of player payroll.

 

Total horseshit, and it actually made me angry when I saw that today. I'm willing to support Ralph's not liking the new CBA. But don't insult us and tell us the Bills are about to take a loss next season.

[JoeF]

The point is that he invested FAR more than 25k.  There is a big difference between a 25k investment growing to $600 million over 50 years and,  say,  a million growing to 600.

 

Or do you think that that's all he shelled out during the AFL years?  There must have been a lot of sell-outs...

 

(I don't know how much time and money he actually put in)

661493[/snapback]

 

 

His additional investments I believe are all operating expenses for which he may not have made a net profit every year of the 46 but he probably has a significant net profit over that entire period. He has never to my knowledge taken ownership of a facility as some owners have or invested in a facility which would be additional capital expenditure -- that has all been public money. Hammer, Lori, Bob Lamb, GG, Rockpile or someone who has more of a knowledge of history of the franchise may know better.

 

The franchise appreciation in value is a capital appreciation.

 

You can't compare the two...but both in net operating profit for the 46 years of franchise operation and in capital appreciation of total franchise value he has made a relative killing compared to other places he could have invested.

 

I don't give a sh-- whether you agree or not--its the way it is...the capital appreciation part is inarguable...the net is admittedly speculative but as Kelly said he would have gotten rid of the team ages ago if he wasn't making the net.

 

Basing part of his argument for poor mouthing on losing $10M next year is a !@#$ing joke.

[Olaf Fub]

I've got a theory, might be crazy but I'll weigh in. It explains why Ralph doesn't want to sell the naming rights, why he didn't ask Pataki for money and why he made a comment on Friday about the 3 million the County gives him each year ibeing counted as revenue. (which I thought was kind of weird.)

 

There is one public source of numbers on NFL revenues and income. Forbes writes an article on it each year.

 

NFL Revenues and Operating Income

 

I read that revenue sharing was tiered. Top 5 teams share the most, 6-10 less and 11-16 less than 6-10. The lowest revenue teams will get the most, the closer you are to 16, the less you will get.

 

The above article is 2004 numbers. The Bills were 14th in operating income and 21st in revenue.

 

I think Ralph's main beef with the new CBA isn't that he is not making enough money in Buffalo, it's that he's making too much. His income and his revenue are too high to maximize revenue sharing. If he raises ticket prices, sells the naming rights, etc, it gets worse.

 

If he could sell the naming right to the stadium, for example, for 3 million a year, he'd earn more revenue than the Giants. (The Bills are already ahead of the Jets.)

 

Cincinnati is in a similar situation. (which would explain the other no vote.)

 

I hope the political pressure works. More money for Ralph should equal a better product on the field. I do agree he went overboard with the Bills could lose money comments, however.

[finknottle]

I've got a theory, might be crazy but I'll weigh in. It explains why Ralph doesn't want to sell the naming rights,

:

 

661604[/snapback]

 

hmmm... interesting.

[Lv-Bills]

I've got a theory, might be crazy but I'll weigh in. It explains why Ralph doesn't want to sell the naming rights, why he didn't ask Pataki for money and why he made a comment on Friday about the 3 million the County gives him each year ibeing counted as revenue. (which I thought was kind of weird.)

 

There is one public source of numbers on NFL revenues and income. Forbes writes an article on it each year.

 

NFL Revenues and Operating Income

 

I read that revenue sharing was tiered. Top 5 teams share the most, 6-10 less and 11-16 less than 6-10. The lowest revenue teams will get the most, the closer you are to 16, the less you will get.

 

The above article is 2004 numbers. The Bills were 14th in operating income and 21st in revenue.

 

I think Ralph's main beef with the new CBA isn't that he  is not making enough money in Buffalo, it's that he's making too much. His income and his revenue are too high to maximize revenue sharing. If he raises ticket prices, sells the naming rights, etc, it gets worse.

 

If he could sell the naming right to the stadium, for example, for 3 million a year, he'd earn more revenue than the Giants. (The Bills are already ahead of the Jets.)

 

Cincinnati is in a similar situation. (which would explain the other no vote.)

 

I hope the political pressure works. More money for Ralph should equal a better product on the field. I do agree he went overboard with the Bills could lose money comments, however.

661604[/snapback]

You done good here. This is a very interesting theory. Have no idea if it's true, but you make some interesting points.

 

Well Done!

[Dan]

I've got a theory, might be crazy but I'll weigh in. It explains why Ralph doesn't want to sell the naming rights, why he didn't ask Pataki for money and why he made a comment on Friday about the 3 million the County gives him each year ibeing counted as revenue. (which I thought was kind of weird.)

 

There is one public source of numbers on NFL revenues and income. Forbes writes an article on it each year.

 

NFL Revenues and Operating Income

 

I read that revenue sharing was tiered. Top 5 teams share the most, 6-10 less and 11-16 less than 6-10. The lowest revenue teams will get the most, the closer you are to 16, the less you will get.

 

The above article is 2004 numbers. The Bills were 14th in operating income and 21st in revenue.

 

I think Ralph's main beef with the new CBA isn't that he  is not making enough money in Buffalo, it's that he's making too much. His income and his revenue are too high to maximize revenue sharing. If he raises ticket prices, sells the naming rights, etc, it gets worse.

 

If he could sell the naming right to the stadium, for example, for 3 million a year, he'd earn more revenue than the Giants. (The Bills are already ahead of the Jets.)

 

Cincinnati is in a similar situation. (which would explain the other no vote.)

 

I hope the political pressure works. More money for Ralph should equal a better product on the field. I do agree he went overboard with the Bills could lose money comments, however.

661604[/snapback]

 

I agree. A very interesting tidbit. There's definitely more to all this than we can see on the surface. And this theory could have some validity in the mix.

[Pyrite Gal]

No disrect taken here, and I am not naive and following blindly behind what the team says, but don't be so sure the team is going to make money this year. We have no idea what kind of money the Bills have made previously (its been said around 10-15 million) and with the changes to the CBA and revenue sharing (which none of us know the complete details of), You can not honestly say that there is no way in hell the Bills will not lose money. Maybe I am wrong and Ralph is trying to do some underhanded dealings and trying to get everyone to pony up some more cash for him, but I would think a man at his age, with his money, is not exagerating that this team could be in some financial trouble. And I'm willing to believe him until I am shown evidence that it is not true.

661357[/snapback]

 

Even if you want to take what Ralph says as the truth at face value, an estimate that the Bills are going to lose money this year (as apparently some bozo in the Buffalo News said today) or even in 2 years as you seem to theorize for some reason, this is not what Ralph is saying at all.

 

His alarm bells are about the Bills not being economically viable at some undefined point in the future. Two years is the future, but there is nothing in Ralph's own words that would take this fastest possible meaning of years as being what he was talking about.

 

Again, if you look specifically at what Ralph is saying it is that when he sales the team (either by choice or because the celestial forces call him upstairs) he expresses concern that this new future owner will not be able economically viable in Buffalo because they will not qualify for payment from the higher revenue teams.

 

If this calculation is important then the team actually may be economically viable with this cost sharing payment even when he dies.

 

Unless you are Ralph's doc and know something we do not know or your insider sources have word from God, I do not even think he is talking about leaving this world in the next two years (it may happen and Ralph should plan for this, but he is talking about the future.

 

There are no indications whatsoever that the Bills are going to lose money this season or even in the next two. This reality is probably true even if Ralph dies.

 

I think one false assumption that Ralph has allowed to stand is that there is a real difference between the Bills being economically unviable on an absolute basis and economically unviable on a relative basis.

 

The diference between these two formulations is that under a new owner, the measure of success for the new owner may well not be whether the Bills make an absolute profit (which I think they are assured of doing under the new CBA actually( but whether this profit relative to what a franchise can make in a new market attracts them to move.

 

Under the new CBA, the Bills are guaranteed to receive their share of 40.5% of the gross total receipts of the league. While they will be relatively less well off than the higher revenus teams, as the cap is set at only 59.5% of the total revenue the Bills can only lose money is their relative earning compared to the higher revenue teams is lower than the employees cut of this income.

 

I have seen no numbers that indicate this will be the case and clearly is not the case with the higher revenue teams writing a check to the lower revenus teams to share the profits.

 

If you want to point to the lack of real numbers for us fans, the actual case is that there has been no demonstration whatsoever of how the Bills will lose money this season or in the near future while Ralph is still alive. In fact, there is a reasonable case to be made from what Ralph says that the Bills willl still make an absolute profit for the forseeable future, but under a new owner that person might chose to move the team to make even higher profits elsewhere.

[ConradDobler]

Politicians, Accountants, and semantics. (Or Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.)

 

Littmann said the Bills may lose XX million dollars next year. What he didn't say was that they would be XX million dollars in the red. Anyone here from NYS knows the drill, "Politician Z lowered taxes by 10%" No he didn't! He took a 25% tax increase and changed it to a 15% increase (which is what they had in mind all along). For the Bills to go from a ~ $15m profit to a ~ $5 - 10m loss implies a swing of (minus) $20 to 25m. Not likely.

[shibuya]

HAHAHAHA! Way to go unions! They're destroying cities faster than any terrorist ever could.

661009[/snapback]

 

 

Oh God

 

where does this complete idiocy come from.

 

Are you sure its not the CEO's and VP's who take millions in compensation and only return shareholder value by cutting jobs, benefits, wages etc...

 

We need more unions and we need more people to get pissed off and stop the white collar greed.

 

If you cannot see this then you will continue to see the destruction of the American way of life. More and more people are falling into poverty. There is money, lots of it, but its being horded by few, and its not trickling down. That's what unions do to workers, they ensure the money is trickling down to those who make companies run.

 

I sincerely hope you can see the truth. I work for the IAM 751, and if it wasn't for the union I'd be making $10 - $15 less, i wouldn't have a pension, I wouldn't have the better then average health care I have, and I sure as hell wouldn't be able to do much of anything like maintain my house etc...

 

 

Unions are not the problem, upper management is, as well as what Americans like yourself have come to view as acceptable, the middle-class and blue collar worker is nothing more then a pawn or a tool that is interchangeable replaceable, and if need be can be thrown out and replaced in the name of better profits.

 

and that is WRONG !

 

 

Now of course there are some negative draw backs to unions, but they are greatly out weighed by the what happens when people are not rightfully represented.

 

I'll always back the unions, because I've seen enough of what its like without them... and I say No Thanks to No Unions

[cåblelady]

They can make a ton of money selling pink jerseys for us ladies.