BILLS #1 Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Everybody is so worried about signing nate clements.. if marv had any brain at all he would do that 1st.. sign fletcher.. get rid of spikes.. sign briggs..get drew bennet ..we have a lot of money and hopefully we use most of it
Ozymandius Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 We have a lot of cap space. Having a lot of money is a different thing.
Whitner20 Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 We have a lot of cap space. Having a lot of money is a different thing. We definetly have the money, but having Ralph Wilson stop being cheap for once is another thing.
bobblehead Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Everybody has alot of cap space. That's what the owners want, and this is what Ralph is fighting - the owners are eliminating the salary cap without 'officially' eliminating the salary cap. ,
nucci Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Everybody has alot of cap space. That's what the owners want, and this is what Ralph is fighting - the owners are eliminating the salary cap without 'officially' eliminating the salary cap. , Excellent point - most teams have a ton of cap space.
nucci Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 We definetly have the money, but having Ralph Wilson stop being cheap for once is another thing. Why do you call him cheap? Just because he won't write a check to Clements for 20 mil - must be fun spending someone else's money.
ganesh Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Why do you call him cheap? Just because he won't write a check to Clements for 20 mil - must be fun spending someone else's money. I think the perception comes from this: The salary cap is 109M (or something close). This is the money each team gets from the TV revenue (and nothing else). This means Ralph has 109 M dollars to disperse to the players. Additionally the owners make money with gate receipts/box sales and parking etc. The question of "cheapness" comes in when Ralph refuses to spend up to that cap limit of 109M dollars towards players costs. However the hard part comes in is that even though the regular salaray might be 109M for a team, because they might have to pay these huge upfront bonus (20M reportedly for Clements), the net cost for a particular year might shoot beyond the 109M dollars as only a pro-rated portion fo that signing bonus counts against the salary cap. The problem with Ralph is to what level can he allow his net cost to shoot beyond 109M for that year. This involves digging deeper into your pockets (profits) to come up with that money. The Jones and Snyders and Krafts make approximately 50 to 60M more in revenues than the small market teams like Buffalo due to being in a bigger city. They can use that extra money to pay for those one time signing bonus while a smaller owner like Wilson cannot. So you decide whether Ralph is Cheap or Smart. I will call him smart if he uses the full cap, but does not spend outside money to pay for these huge bonus. I will call him cheap if he does not even come close to the cap, because in that case he is taking money away from the product into his own pockets.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 We have a lot of cap space. Having a lot of money is a different thing. So true.
Ozymandius Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Everybody has alot of cap space. That's what the owners want, and this is what Ralph is fighting - the owners are eliminating the salary cap without 'officially' eliminating the salary cap. , Yep. And I'd say they have already succeeded. I've said this before... the Oakland A's fans didn't concern themselves with signing Barry Zito. They knew he was gone. I don't see why we should concern ourselves with signing Nate Clements.
IDBillzFan Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Somewhere Ralph Wilson is sitting hunched in the dark over stacks of gold coins, his crippled, aged arms surrounding them like the walls of Fort Ticonderoga, candle at his desk, peeking at his computer, reading this thread and thinking to himself: "Who is this 'we' he is referring to? When did 'we' suddenly have plenty of money?"
a player to be named later Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 When has Ralph ever been cheap when the team was competitive? During the Donahue era we spent and spent (not wisely), during the Butler era as well. They will get the players that they need, this isn't the Buffalo Sabres of the early 2000's.
The_Real Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 When has Ralph ever been cheap when the team was competitive? During the Donahue era we spent and spent (not wisely), during the Butler era as well. They will get the players that they need, this isn't the Buffalo Sabres of the early 2000's. Uhhhh.... What? How did the Sabres get brought into this coversation and what the hell are you talking about? Is it a shot on the Rigas family for not 'getting the tools to finish the job'? Or are you saying that Ralph isn't afraid to spend carelessly if his GM says so? Comparing an unstable market like hockey to that of the football is the difference in night and day. There is no level ground that makes any sense in the argument. Each team in hockey gets something like 2 or 6 million with the tv contract. Football's tv contract allows them to pay for their whole roster. Basically this makes absolutely no sense and I'm curious what your point was. The Real PS Open your wallet and spend Ralph. I don't care if it's Nate and London or their replacements, just spend the damn money. Stop whining like a baby about how you aren't being taken care of. Once you are in the millions in profit, you should be happy. Maybe a smaller market team doesn't offer the same financial viability that say New York City does but you have profitted just fine for 30 years off of this team's fans. Remember folks, Ralph isn't a Western New Yorker. He brought the team here. He's still making money but just not as much as he'd like. Boo Fricken Hoo. I'm sorry but I've had enough of Ralph Wilson and his posturing for more. He annoys me.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 There is a misconception of "salary cap" and actual money each owner pays each year. It's very simple but fans and media types often forget it. The main misconception is that none of the bonuses, except this years (including roster and workout bonuses) are actual money. So while, the 60 or so players that the Bills paid in 2006, a portion, and sometimes a large portion of that approximately 100 million didn't have to be paid. It was already paid. Sometimes a third of a players dollar figure, especially for the ones with the decent bonuses from before like Spikes, and Evans/Losman, and McGee, plus dead money from Mike Williams or Milloy/Moulds. Those amounts (because of the enormous TV contracts beginning in 2006) can be used as cash to sign new players to significant bonuses. It's millions and millions. Of course, players like Whitner and McCargo, along with Royal and the other free agents were actual monies a lot higher than their salary cap figures. So it often tends to pretty much even out. The trickiness occurs, of course, when you are asked to pay a 20 million bonus, which, of course, we never pay. But this year might (however doubtful that is). This throws it a little out of whack, although it is made up in ensuing years. Ralph easily has the money and the cash and the available money to sign anyone he wishes under the cap, including Clements and a couple other FAs, and without dipping into his personal deep pockets and taking food from his family's table. It's just a matter of whether Clements or Steinbach are worth it to Ralph, and whether Ralph wants to cry poor and publicly pay huge amounts, which ain't gonna happen. Our best bet in FA, by FAR, is not going after Clements or Steinbach, it's rooting for the owners and league to clear up the qualifiers before FA starts. Otherwise, we are signing no big names at all.
Sketch Soland Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 PS Open your wallet and spend Ralph. I don't care if it's Nate and London or their replacements, just spend the damn money. Stop whining like a baby about how you aren't being taken care of. Once you are in the millions in profit, you should be happy. Maybe a smaller market team doesn't offer the same financial viability that say New York City does but you have profitted just fine for 30 years off of this team's fans. Remember folks, Ralph isn't a Western New Yorker. He brought the team here. He's still making money but just not as much as he'd like. Boo Fricken Hoo. I'm sorry but I've had enough of Ralph Wilson and his posturing for more. He annoys me. The point Ralph is making is about the future and the financial viability of the team to compete in the future as the NFL moves toward a more unbalanced gap between small and large market owners, i.e., the jerry joneses and danny snyder's finding loopholes to exploit additional revenue streams not available to small market clubs. this is a real concern, and whether ralph is blowing steam up everyone's arse or not, better him fight like a b**tard to get the best deal for the small market teams than fold tent and become MLB. But you would rather ralph STFU and the Bills eventually move from Buffalo than Ralph keep on "posturing"? I doubt that. I don't see what your problem is here. Ralph "posturing" can only be a good thing for the Bills and shows Ralph's committment to the franchise STAYING in Buffalo. So what if he annoys you? Deal with it.
HurlyBurly51 Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 I've said this before... the Oakland A's fans didn't concern themselves with signing Barry Zito. They knew he was gone. I don't see why we should concern ourselves with signing Nate Clements. Yep. I think a good comparison. Goodbye Nate. The sooner March comes, the better, so we can all move past the false hope that Nate might be here in 2007.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Yep. I think a good comparison. Goodbye Nate. The sooner March comes, the better, so we can all move past the false hope that Nate might be here in 2007. Probably right. I do, however, think that Marv made a huge error in judgment by telling Clements he wouldn't franchise him this year. It simply wasn't necessary. Nate would clearly have signed anyway and played 16 games. It's almost certain that he would have been the same player. We could have franchised him this year, if only to try and force a decent trade, or just kept him.
UConn James Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Somewhere Ralph Wilson is sitting hunched in the dark over stacks of gold coins, his crippled, aged arms surrounding them like the walls of Fort Ticonderoga, candle at his desk, peeking at his computer, reading this thread and thinking to himself: "Who is this 'we' he is referring to? When did 'we' suddenly have plenty of money?" All right, everybody! Start reading "Silas Marner" in five... four... three....
HurlyBurly51 Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 Probably right. I do, however, think that Marv made a huge error in judgment by telling Clements he wouldn't franchise him this year. It simply wasn't necessary. Nate would clearly have signed anyway and played 16 games. It's almost certain that he would have been the same player. We could have franchised him this year, if only to try and force a decent trade, or just kept him. Dude, don't even get me started on this one. I agree wholeheartedly with you. Since when does it make business sense to let one of your best assets walk out the door for nothing, when you had the tools all along to at least get something in return if it did indeed happen? Stupid, stupid move by Marv on this one. Sorry, but he screwed the pooch on that one. Nate would've ultimately had to come in under his franchise offer last year, and we woud have retained at least the right to franchise him again if for no other reason than to gain the leverage to trade him. Unforgivable. Nate and his agent are laughing - all the way to the bank.
nero47 Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 I think the perception comes from this: The salary cap is 109M (or something close). This is the money each team gets from the TV revenue (and nothing else). This means Ralph has 109 M dollars to disperse to the players. Additionally the owners make money with gate receipts/box sales and parking etc. The question of "cheapness" comes in when Ralph refuses to spend up to that cap limit of 109M dollars towards players costs. Correction needed. The cap does not represent TV money. It represents a percentage of the leagues gross revenues (which includes all receipts), divided by 32, the number of teams in the league. However, the total revenues are not divided by all teams. Hence TV money may make up 80% of the cap money. then the teammust draw from its other revenues to make up the cap. on top of that bonuses are paid out separately, but count against future cap money. This means a team making 40-50mill profit is going to outbid a team making 9-10mill profit. The smaller market team in actuality may not have the money to pay up to the cap, unless the owner can dig into his own pocket.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 6, 2007 Posted January 6, 2007 I think the perception comes from this: The salary cap is 109M (or something close). This is the money each team gets from the TV revenue (and nothing else). This means Ralph has 109 M dollars to disperse to the players. Additionally the owners make money with gate receipts/box sales and parking etc. The question of "cheapness" comes in when Ralph refuses to spend up to that cap limit of 109M dollars towards players costs. Correction needed. The cap does not represent TV money. It represents a percentage of the leagues gross revenues (which includes all receipts), divided by 32, the number of teams in the league. However, the total revenues are not divided by all teams. Hence TV money may make up 80% of the cap money. then the teammust draw from its other revenues to make up the cap. on top of that bonuses are paid out separately, but count against future cap money. This means a team making 40-50mill profit is going to outbid a team making 9-10mill profit. The smaller market team in actuality may not have the money to pay up to the cap, unless the owner can dig into his own pocket. No, not really. The TV money now exceeds the salary cap, by millions. Teams cannot spend over the cap, although there are some instances when they pay out several bonuses in cash, and then make it up in future years. When you see teams that pay out huge bonuses the salaries on those players are often relatively minimal, especially in the first couple years. And the amount they pay out in cash in salary is FAR less, and can be tens of millions less. But over the course of a few years, teams really cannot outspend other teams, except in so far as always being several million behind. Basically, the Redskins are the only ones that do that and look where it got them. And it's also why they always seem to have cap room even though they pay out these outrageous bonuses. TV money now makes up about 110% of the cap money, for each and every team. That is not counting ONE ticket or jersey or luxury box or beer or hotdog or parking spot sold.
Recommended Posts