New CBA is an Outrage

[Casey D]

If you think about it , the new CBA is nothing but a subsidy of the bigger revenue teams by the lower revenue teams.

 

By essentially changing the cap from being 65% of shared revenues under the old, to 59.5% of all revenues, for every non-shared $$$ a Washington or Dallas takes in, it automatically adds 59.5 cents to the cap, and hence the expenses of all teams, including the lower revenue teams. So while the big guys have 40.5 cents left over after taking in the $ and paying the 59.5 cents to the players, the small revenue teams are just 59.5 cents worse off.

 

The fairest system would be for every team to kick in 59.5% of ALL revenues into a common pot, then divide the pot by 32, and distribute that amount back equally. That would put everyone in the same boat salary cap wise, and still leave incentives to all teams to generate more revenue, because they still get to keep 40.5% of every non-shared $ they earn.

 

The notion that currently is on the table, that the big teams will give money to the small teams to "subsidize" them is really a misconception. Since the big teams already are adding costs to the smaller teams as they make more money, the "subsidy" is nothing more than picking up a small portion of the costs they already have pushed on to the smaller teams. Basically what we have now is that all costs are shared, at least vis the 59.5% of player costs, but not all revenues. This is regressive, and just another example of the little guy being screwed, while being made to come off as a whiner.

 

But you got to give it to Jones and Snyder, they eat other people's lunches and have the press acting like they are philanthropists when they throw back a potato chip to the guys they stole from. CD

[RayFinkle]

Ralph?

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Ray?

[CircleTheWagons]

The fairest system would be for every team to kick in 59.5% of ALL revenues into a common pot, then divide the pot by 32, and distribute that amount back equally.

665375[/snapback]

I'm sure the smaller market teams would think that is fair. The large market teams would probably prefer to kick in a specific amount of revenue (say $100 million) and then keep everything after that. In fact, if I were a large market team owner, I would be against revenue sharing completely. It's the salary cap that keeps the teams competitive not the revenue sharing.

 

Determine a salary cap level where 30-35 teams should be able to successfully compete without revenue sharing and move forward.

[Peter]

Exactly.

[Casey D]

I'm sure the smaller market teams would think that is fair.  The large market teams would probably prefer to kick in a specific amount of revenue (say $100 million) and then keep everything after that.  In fact, if I were a large market team owner, I would be against revenue sharing completely.  It's the salary cap that keeps the teams competitive not the revenue sharing. 

 

Determine a salary cap level where 30-35 teams should be able to successfully compete without revenue sharing and move forward.

665420[/snapback]

First, if you are against revenue sharing, then why is cost sharing OK. When the cap goes up for everyone when Washington and Dallas takes in a dollar, that is cost sharing.

 

You are wrong about the cap keeping teams competitive without revenue sharing. Say the salary cap is $150m, pushed to that level by 10 high revenue teams. Say Indianapolis and Buffalo only have total revenue of $150m, they simply can't spend to the cap given other expenses.

 

As to a cap that all can afford, the players don't want that. That was the old system where the cap was based only on shared revenues--they wanted and got access to non-shared revenues as well, because there are more $$$ there. So to deal with the players, they share all revenue with them at the tune of 59.5%

 

In short, unless all teams have enough revenue to fund up to the cap, the cap will not prevent an unfair playing field, because many teams will have to spend well below the cap. You see that in hockey right now--the Sabres only have a $29m payroll(the minimum) with a cap of $42m. Next year the cap will go to $46m, but the Sabres have no where near enough money to take on that payroll. When there young players move to free agency, most of them will go, because the Sabres can't afford them in a league with little revenue sharing.

[apuszczalowski]

The NHL cap is lower then 42 million (I believe high 30's) and will probably go up to the 42 million range after this season

[CircleTheWagons]

In short, unless all teams have enough revenue to fund up to the cap, the cap will not prevent an unfair playing field, because many teams will have to spend well below the cap.

665552[/snapback]

I think I quoted what is essentially your point and I agree with it, which is why I said that the league needs to set a salary cap that can be met by 30-35 teams.

 

All I'm suggesting is that they should lower the cap and allow the teams that generate extra revenue to keep it rather than propping up poorer teams to match player salaries.

 

Of course, I enjoy thinking that Pats, Skins and Cowboy fans are paying inflated prices to help pay Bills' player salaries

[Casey D]

The NHL cap is lower then 42 million (I believe high 30's) and will probably go up to the 42 million range after this season

665559[/snapback]

 

It's $42M this year, and projected to go to $45-6M next year...CD

[CircleTheWagons]

It's $42M this year, and projected to go to $45-6M next year...CD

665579[/snapback]

Not that it really matters, but the only number I've seen is $39 million cap this year - even after googling and checking a few sites. Any links for the $42M?

[GhostsOfTheRockpile]

It's $42M this year, and projected to go to $45-6M next year...CD

665579[/snapback]

 

Wrong. The NHL cap was $39 million, with a $21.5 million floor.

 

Those numbers were based on estimated revenues of $1.8 billion, with provisions built in for falling below, meeting, or exceeding those expectations. Those provisions included the controversial "escrow account" that caused players to see decent chunks of their paycheks withheld earlier in the season. Provided certain benchmarks are hit (which the league believes they will with EASE), the players will get that money back.

 

Hitting those benchmarks should also trigger a rise in the cap next season (under the current CBA, players are guaranteed 54% of "hockey-related revenues" - that number rises as league revenues rise).

[Casey D]

Not that it really matters, but the only number I've seen is $39 million cap this year - even after googling and checking a few sites.  Any links for the $42M?

665596[/snapback]

I got that figure from an interview with Regier between periods of a game on CBC , when it was discussed that the cap this year actually was $42M, and was expected to go to $45-6, and Regier said that the team was at $28-29M, and would go no higher than $30-31M next year. But that was about 3 weeks ago and I could have misunderstood or misheard ...CD

[Casey D]

Wrong.  The NHL cap was $39 million, with a $21.5 million floor.

 

Those numbers were based on estimated revenues of $1.8 billion, with provisions built in for falling below, meeting, or exceeding those expectations.  Those provisions included the controversial "escrow account" that caused players to see decent chunks of their paycheks withheld earlier in the season.  Provided certain benchmarks are hit (which the league believes they will with EASE), the players will get that money back.

 

Hitting those benchmarks should also trigger a rise in the cap next season (under the current CBA, players are guaranteed 54% of "hockey-related revenues" - that number rises as league revenues rise).

665602[/snapback]

That sounds right, but revenues are expected to be over $2.1 billion, so I think that is where the higher actual cap figure comes from that I heard Regier discuss...CD

[rockpile]

If you think about it , the new CBA is nothing but a subsidy of the bigger revenue teams by the lower revenue teams.

 

By essentially changing the cap from being 65% of shared revenues under the old, to 59.5% of all revenues, for every non-shared $$$ a Washington or Dallas takes in, it automatically adds 59.5 cents to the cap, and hence the expenses of all teams, including the lower revenue teams.  So while the big guys have 40.5 cents left over after taking in the $ and paying the 59.5 cents to the players, the small revenue teams are just 59.5 cents worse off.

665375[/snapback]

 

Why is Ralph Wilson the only owner complaining out of 32 teams? I am not asking to be belligerent - I just don't understand.

 

thx

[stuckincincy]

Why is Ralph Wilson the only owner complaining out of 32 teams? I am not asking to be belligerent - I just don't understand.

 

thx

665646[/snapback]

 

B'gals owner Mike Brown has been vocal. He, along with Ralph, voted no to the CBA.

[Casey D]

Why is Ralph Wilson the only owner complaining out of 32 teams? I am not asking to be belligerent - I just don't understand.

 

thx

665646[/snapback]

 

I don't know. Perhaps they think the ultimate revenue sharing will be fair, or enough to meet the cap. Perhaps they are planning on building new stadiums to raise revenue. Or perhaps they are simply embarassed because they were had, and their egos are too big to admit it. But the system is out of whack right now the way it is set up, and will only get worse as local unshared revenues keep pushing up the cap, and many teams unable to keep up the pace.

[Pyrite Gal]

Why is Ralph Wilson the only owner complaining out of 32 teams? I am not asking to be belligerent - I just don't understand.

 

thx

665646[/snapback]

 

 

It could be for a number of reasons and unless we are in his head we cannot know for sure.

 

One can try to figure out his motivations from the $ numbers involved, but since while we have good knowledge about a lot of numbers involving things like the cap amount and the general revenue cost calculations which determine it, there are a lot of particulars about the Bills and other individual teams at a business we really are guessing about. Some of these guesses are based on other publicly available information like the tax dollars Erie County puts into the Ralph.

 

There really is fairly unusual and even unprecedented info available about privately held businesses, because the NFL and NFLPA require relatively full and accurate disclosure about a lot of this info so they can check each other.

 

However, there still is a lot of private unavailable info about the particulars and the growing partnership between the NFL and NFLPA only requires bottomlines for lots of things and not the particulars.

 

Among Ralph's motivations which differentiates him from other owners may be:

 

1. He is one of 2 bright folks who really understand this out of 32 owners.

 

This is doubtful since there is the separate party of Tags and the NFL infrastructure which endorses this deal. It is incredibly doubtful that all these folks are blind fools hoodwinked by that wily genius Gene Upshaw. In fact, given that the company that Ralph has on his side is that idiot Mike Brown who ran the Bengals into the dirt for well over a decade until he finally hired the right guy in Marvin Lewis does not speak well for an argument that Ralph simply sees and understands what few others do.

 

2. The rest of the league (for the most part) understands it all, but Ralph is one of the few who ofthe smaller revenue teams who understands how this screws smaller revenue clubs.

 

The numbers in favor of the CBA are so losided this probably is not true as well. Figure that of the lowest 1/3 of revenue owners in the NFL of these roughly 10 teams either the Bills and the Bengals earn so poorly that even though all understand the numbers, the Bills and Bengals are so low revenue that only they need some relief. Alternately, a larger amount of lower revenue teams are going to lose money soon as the cap formula changes but they simply are not as smart as Ralph and Mike Brown.

 

I doubt both the almost a thrid of the league are fools and 2/3 are mercenary folks calculation as there is nothing to substantiate this in other activities and I doubt the idea that the Bills and Bengals are so poorly run they are demonstraby worse than other teams. In fact, the estimates made by Forbes magaine seem to show the Bills do be one of the more proitable teams.

 

2.The big difference here between teams is that Ralph will not live forever and when he goes that is actually when the Bills take it in the shorts and he is fighting against this.

 

This one is true to some extent as Ralph's death will mean two likely occurences:

 

A. The new owners will not qualify for revenue sharing and the team will lose this cash stream.

B. Ralph's estate will owe the taxes it cannot protect itself from for a capital gain of an investment of a few thousand bucks that is now worth over half a billion. The tax on this gain will force Ralph's heirs to sell the team in order to pay this tax.

 

While both of these things are true what I think is incorrect is that either of these effects force the team to relocate to a higher revenue market. Ralph actually has the ability to unilaterally bind this franchise to Buffalo for a very long time. If the Bills make contractual obligations to remain here, play in a stadium here, or he sells off partial ownership of the team to another party and extends them shares that can veto a move if they choose (for example Ralph can sell a 10% share to Golisano and the owners of the Bills can then require 95% approval to move the team or to change this rule and Golisano gets ability to veto a move.

 

While there is no requirement that Ralph do this as such a maneuver would likely result in diminished estimated value of the team as it cannot move to higher income areas, such a maneuver not only binds the Bills to WNY but also lowers the estate tax hit on the Bills as the value of the team drops.

 

Its hard for me to imagine that Ralph and the bright folks he hires cannot work out some arrangement where his heirs actually lose no money in this deal as though they will still get huge bucks from selling the team, they still would have a huge stake in a lesser value team if the value falls. In fact if the value f the franchise falls enough they can in fact retain ownership of the team.

 

3. Ralph is actually ringing the alarm bells in order to create a climate in which NYS politicos help the Bills business big time by setting up an authority to issue tax free muni bonds to build a new stadium which the Bills utilize in a similar manner as the current arrangement with the Ralph to have Erie County bear the costs of building and owning while they are compensated for the costs of operations.

 

This actually is my personal favorite and what I would guess is going on here given what Ralph is saying and the timing of his rants vis a vis when gubernatorial elections are occuring,

 

Ralph is flat out saying he is not after profit (usually a sure sign a businessman is after profit) and that he is quite satisfied with the current stadium (though even in a smaller market like Buffalo a new stadium almost certainly means new revenues for the team and if the costs are held by the auhtority its hard to see how this does not help the situation).

 

My sense is that the thing which differentiates Ralph from much of the rest of the NFL is that the majority of teams play in new stadiums built in the last five years. Ralph would say exactly the things he is saying if he is setting up a situation where NYS would make what is a huge corporate welfare payment to benefit the team, though actually it is a fairly small payment compared to the overall size of the NYS budget and economy.

 

I hope this latter course is true because though the result here would be patentedly infair, the main beneficiaries would be my football team and potentially my home City of Buffalo if the new stadium is built in downtown Buffalo.

 

I hope to gosh that what is going on here is that Ralph is simply bellying his business up to the government corporate welfare bar just like so many other corporations are and have done. It ain'r fair but it will really benefit Bills fans and potentially Buffalo and WNY. While there will be an unfair cost for this subsidy it would be spread across all NYS taxpayers and in addition to be far lower than the corporate welfare payments NYS residents make to Wall St. firms and to the medical business infrastructure though our inefficient health care system. Since this unfairness will benefit my team and my City and region potentially I do support it.

[apuszczalowski]

Why is Ralph Wilson the only owner complaining out of 32 teams? I am not asking to be belligerent - I just don't understand.

 

thx

665646[/snapback]

 

The Bengals owner supports Ralph (also voted no on the CBA)

 

As for the others, Who knows? Maybe they don't have the balls to stand up to the other owners like Ralph. Ralph has been around the league for a long time and help keep it around, now the new owners want to take control and run it themselves, mybe the other small market teams are afraid to get on the super power's (Kraft, Jones, Snyder) bad sides

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Why are Wilson and Brown the only owners saying anything? How would you as a fan like it if your lower-revenue owner voted yes and later came out and said it was a bad deal?

[sfladave]

Why are Wilson and Brown the only owners saying anything?  How would you as a fan like it if your lower-revenue owner voted yes and later came out and said it was a bad deal?

665687[/snapback]

In my opinion this is why we haven't seen more owners come out publicly with their displeasure against the new CBA. I think that if we see more state and federal government involvement more owners will start to speak publicly about finding an "amicable solution" for all.