Fan in San Diego Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 following. Ralph should sell the naming rights to Ralph wilson stadium to the highest bidder. I would raise ticket prices to be in the middle price in the spectrum. If thats $50.00 a ticket then so be it. People will just have to dig a little deeper. I pay hell of lot more to go to a local San Diego Chargers game. If that's what it takes to get revenue sharing for the Bills then do it tomorrow. Because the Bills need to stay in Buffalo. And Ralph needs to suck it up and do his part to hit the benchmarks for revenue sharing by doing those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 Yes, good article. Honestly though, I don't know what to think. Roth, like Ralph Wilson seems to be of the opionion that the new CBA contains a clause limiting the revenue sharing of a new owner in Buffalo, or any other NFL city. This is the "poison pill" for Ralph, because it would make selling his franchise, and keeping it in Buffalo, all the more difficult, in a market that is already hard. Yet, people like John Clayton continue to insist that this is not the case. I would assume, Ralph being one of the only 32 NFL owners who has seen the CBA, is correct. Yet, I still wonder why Clayton keeps arguing the point. Has Clayton seen the agreement, or is he getting his info from one of his "new guard" sources? I know, I know, everyone thinks Clayton is an idiot, yadda yadda yadda....I just think it is odd that he, and others continue to insist Ralph is either lying, or still doesn't understand the CBA. Jeff Littman, Ralphs financial guy, seems agreement with Ralph, but Ralph signs his paychecks...I guess only time will tell. If Ralph is wrong, and is making all of this noise, knowing that the (Bills) poison pill is not really in the CBA, I really have to question his motives. True, he is not asking for state money, and is not threatening major ticket price increases. Yet, maybe he is seeing that, at 87, he is not going to get the 650million (or so) he thought his franchise was worth before. I would hardly be one to side with Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones, but it seems reasonable, in a business sense, that the revenue sharing of the leauge would somewhat inflate the perceived value of a small market team like Buffalo. Maybe the new agreement precludes a new owner from getting this money, if the selling owner has already received it. In effect, if the money that the Bills receive from revenue sharing is taken out of the equation in determining the value of the Bills, they become a lot less valuable. It is a harsh reality, I am sure, for Wilson. Whatever the case, I am still glad that Wilson is making some noise. I just want some assurance from the NFL that the Bills are not going anywhere, so putting some political pressure on the leauge is fine by me...I will sign any petition in regards to this matter. I am not one of those who can look anyone in the eye and say I would just do other things, if the Bills left Buffalo. Seriously, the Bills have been the most constant prescence in my 40-something life. When I was old enough to buy my own season tickets, I purchaed them happily, sitting through some miserable football, and some miserable weather watching some of the most miserable teams in the history of the leauge (1983-1988 my season ticket years!). I didn't even own a car...I relied on NFTA to get to and from a lot of those games. I left WNY in 1988, just when things were getting good. I lived in NYC, Atlanta, Baltimore, and finally Austin. That whole time, wth no satellite dish (this is long before satallite were common place), and no television at all for a few years, I managed to find a way to watch all but one Buffalo Bills game (the infamous 1991 game against the Colts that spurred the Jim Kelly/Harold Ballard dispute- I saw it on video tape a few years later!). That is 23 seasons, minus 1 game...I can't understate what that team means to me. In all seriousness, losing the Bills would almost be like losing an immediate family member. I expect to get flamed for this, but I think some of you would be much more upset than you are letting on! Give 'em hell Ralph! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted April 16, 2006 Share Posted April 16, 2006 Yes, good article. I can't understate what that team means to me. In all seriousness, losing the Bills would almost be like losing an immediate family member. I expect to get flamed for this, but I think some of you would be much more upset than you are letting on! Give 'em hell Ralph! Ditto............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Yes, good article. Honestly though, I don't know what to think. Roth, like Ralph Wilson seems to be of the opionion that the new CBA contains a clause limiting the revenue sharing of a new owner in Buffalo, or any other NFL city. This is the "poison pill" for Ralph, because it would make selling his franchise, and keeping it in Buffalo, all the more difficult, in a market that is already hard. Yet, people like John Clayton continue to insist that this is not the case. I would assume, Ralph being one of the only 32 NFL owners who has seen the CBA, is correct. Yet, I still wonder why Clayton keeps arguing the point. Has Clayton seen the agreement, or is he getting his info from one of his "new guard" sources? I know, I know, everyone thinks Clayton is an idiot, yadda yadda yadda....I just think it is odd that he, and others continue to insist Ralph is either lying, or still doesn't understand the CBA. Jeff Littman, Ralphs financial guy, seems agreement with Ralph, but Ralph signs his paychecks...I guess only time will tell. If Ralph is wrong, and is making all of this noise, knowing that the (Bills) poison pill is not really in the CBA, I really have to question his motives. True, he is not asking for state money, and is not threatening major ticket price increases. Yet, maybe he is seeing that, at 87, he is not going to get the 650million (or so) he thought his franchise was worth before. I would hardly be one to side with Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones, but it seems reasonable, in a business sense, that the revenue sharing of the leauge would somewhat inflate the perceived value of a small market team like Buffalo. Maybe the new agreement precludes a new owner from getting this money, if the selling owner has already received it. In effect, if the money that the Bills receive from revenue sharing is taken out of the equation in determining the value of the Bills, they become a lot less valuable. It is a harsh reality, I am sure, for Wilson. Whatever the case, I am still glad that Wilson is making some noise. I just want some assurance from the NFL that the Bills are not going anywhere, so putting some political pressure on the leauge is fine by me...I will sign any petition in regards to this matter. I am not one of those who can look anyone in the eye and say I would just do other things, if the Bills left Buffalo. Seriously, the Bills have been the most constant prescence in my 40-something life. When I was old enough to buy my own season tickets, I purchaed them happily, sitting through some miserable football, and some miserable weather watching some of the most miserable teams in the history of the leauge (1983-1988 my season ticket years!). I didn't even own a car...I relied on NFTA to get to and from a lot of those games. I left WNY in 1988, just when things were getting good. I lived in NYC, Atlanta, Baltimore, and finally Austin. That whole time, wth no satellite dish (this is long before satallite were common place), and no television at all for a few years, I managed to find a way to watch all but one Buffalo Bills game (the infamous 1991 game against the Colts that spurred the Jim Kelly/Harold Ballard dispute- I saw it on video tape a few years later!). That is 23 seasons, minus 1 game...I can't understate what that team means to me. In all seriousness, losing the Bills would almost be like losing an immediate family member. I expect to get flamed for this, but I think some of you would be much more upset than you are letting on! Give 'em hell Ralph! 663180[/snapback] What, this thread wasn't good enough for yous guys? As far as Clayton goes, I can't say for sure because I don't recall exactly what he has been saying, but my impression is that the "poison pill" clause that was introduced into the CBA is not finalized. It's part of the CBA that hasn't been formally voted on yet, but will be later this year. So even though it's part of the CBA, it's not officially part of it...yet. I'm guessing that this is where Ralph and Gazoo differ...Gazoo probably is getting on Ralph's case for crying about a clause that isn't officially part of it yet, but Ralph (rightly so, in my mind) is raising a ruckus about it to make sure that as much public support as possible is on his side, forcing the owners' hands. Just my $0.02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I find it hard to debate about something I honestly don't completely understand. Even the so-called experts can't agree. But I do know this: If the Bills leave Buffalo, I am going to punch everyone in the USA right in the mouth. Every man, woman and child. Then I'm gonna lay down on the ground and cry for about six months, then I'm gonna die of loneliness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts