WE have plenty of money were 35 mill under the cap

[JCBoston]

One other thing to keep in mind: the cap went up in a big way last year due to the new CBA. However, there were still (statistically speaking) the same number of free agents available. In other words, the demand was significantly less than the supply, so not all teams spent to the cap -- nor could they. Well, they could have signed me for $80 million, but that wasn't going to happen. But you get my point.

 

Anyway, going forward, I suspect you will see teams not spending to the cap because of the local revenue problem.

[The_Real]

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.

 

 

Committment to Buffalo? Are you serious? You think this is about a committment to Buffalo? If his commitment was to Buffalo he wouldn't have threatened in the 90's about tax money being spent on the Stadium. He'd be smart enough to take his name of the stadium and have a corporate sponsor pay him for the naming rights. He'd keep his antics and fuzzy math to himself.

 

This is about money. If you and the rest of the sheep want to believe that the Bills or any other NFL franchise is in trouble of losing their team, feel free to follow the manger. I look at the financial state of the NFL and the revenue that is shared amongst all teams and I see it being a matter of greed.

 

So some of the larger markets can throw 10 or 15 million dollars more at top line free agents. That still leaves the other 99% of the NFL players available. Not to mention with the ability to franchise and transition players, you can choose to spend some of your profit on keeping those players.

 

 

I watch Ralph Wilson throw scare tactics at the fans of this area and I'm sickened. Every day for the past two years I've been reminded that the area can't afford a team. BS. Put a winner on the field. Make good decisions with how your spend your money. Let's see all of that happen first and then let's check the financial climate of the area. Let's see how many fans show up for games. How much revenue is generated.

 

 

How's the koolaid?

 

 

The Real

[Kelly the Dog]

Committment to Buffalo? Are you serious? You think this is about a committment to Buffalo? If his commitment was to Buffalo he wouldn't have threatened in the 90's about tax money being spent on the Stadium. He'd be smart enough to take his name of the stadium and have a corporate sponsor pay him for the naming rights. He'd keep his antics and fuzzy math to himself.

 

This is about money. If you and the rest of the sheep want to believe that the Bills or any other NFL franchise is in trouble of losing their team, feel free to follow the manger. I look at the financial state of the NFL and the revenue that is shared amongst all teams and I see it being a matter of greed.

 

So some of the larger markets can throw 10 or 15 million dollars more at top line free agents. That still leaves the other 99% of the NFL players available. Not to mention with the ability to franchise and transition players, you can choose to spend some of your profit on keeping those players.

I watch Ralph Wilson throw scare tactics at the fans of this area and I'm sickened. Every day for the past two years I've been reminded that the area can't afford a team. BS. Put a winner on the field. Make good decisions with how your spend your money. Let's see all of that happen first and then let's check the financial climate of the area. Let's see how many fans show up for games. How much revenue is generated.

How's the koolaid?

The Real

The fact, however, remains, that any single day during the entire decade of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s, that Ralph Wilson cared about money more than Buffalo he could have decided to move the team and made tens and tens of millions more for his own pocket, if not hundreds of millions (at least in the last decade). It's about Buffalo, and money, with Buffalo in the lead.

[tennesseeboy]

Of ALL the free agents available to us this year the one who would help us immediately and the most is=Nate Clements. Hence signing him should be our number one priority. Next priority should be defensive or offensive line upgrades. The way the system and parity works, I suspect next year is the year to make a run deep into the playoffs and maybe go all the way. Not a time to leave money on the table.

[BADOLBILZ]

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.

 

I completely disagree.

 

First of all, the NFL is not at that point yet. It may get there, but if you want to sign one player and you are $35M under the cap, you can do it, plain and simple.

 

Second, the Bills have already been approaching their own free agents in that manner, and it's been disastrous. Donahoe actually preferred to let star players walk. He did it in Pittsburgh, and prematurely dismantled a Super Bowl contender despite pretty good drafting. When Donahoe left Pittsburgh, they actually began making large investments in their own, and that approach proved to be better. The fact is, trading Peerless Price for a first round pick(Willis) neutered a powerful offense. Peerless was not a popular player with fans, but his loss coincided with a total offensive meltdown the following year, negating gains made defensively and then some. Letting Pat Williams go turned out to be a catastrophic loss for the defense. The KEY to that defense was the TWO big DT's.

 

Both of those losses came after seasons that saw the Bills finish as an "up and coming" team, and IMO, WASTED two seasons altogether. Losing Clements threatens to do the same. Nate makes every other member of that secondary's job easier the way that Williams made every defender look like a better run defender. Prior to matching Clements against the opponents #1 receiver after the bye week, the Bills defense was just BAD against the run and pass. After that point, the defense was actually effective in the passing game and producing turnovers. Lose Clements and even if they sign a number of other players, as Donahoe did after dealing Price, they probably will be a worse team. Most cover 2 defenses need a great front 4, the Bills get by with a lot less because they can play a sort of "box and 1" with Clements and make opponents go away from their best receiver.

 

After 7 years and no playoffs, they can't afford to take another step back. I've said it before, it would be penny-wise and pound-foolish to let Clements walk. At least there is hope that Marv knows this, he always believed that losing key free agents usually hurt the old team more than it helped the new team.

[Dan]

Make good decisions with how your spend your money.

 

Firstly, you say Ralph is cheap because he won't spend big money (perhaps atrocious money) to keep Nate and/or sign other big name free agents. Then you say he should make good decisions with how he spends his money. The two comments seem in opposition to one another. Which is it? Spend like a drunken sailor or spend wisely?

 

Secondly, the notion that Ralph doesn't care about Buffalo, etc. Well, quite frankly, that doesn't deserve a rebuttal.

[KRT88]

We definetly have the money, but having Ralph Wilson stop being cheap for once is another thing.

 

That is so easy for you to say but in all truth, the Bills are spending a much higher percentage of their revenue compared to Washington and company.

 

At the end of the Nate Clements may not want to stay in Buffalo regardless of the money because this team does not go to the playoffs. If Buffalo offered 7 years 45 million and The Jets offered 5 years 30 million where would you go? I'd be off to NY with a young team on the rise!

[Kelly the Dog]

After 7 years and no playoffs, they can't afford to take another step back. I've said it before, it would be penny-wise and pound-foolish to let Clements walk. At least there is hope that Marv knows this, he always believed that losing key free agents usually hurt the old team more than it helped the new team.

But Marv says he doesn't want to know anything about contracts.

[Koufax]

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.

 

This is a good comparison in terms of how to be smart and look for the best value and not pay $126 million to a player who is not worth $126 million. But the difference is that the A's work in a different system with big payroll discrepencies that the NFL salary cap does not allow.

 

So we should let Nate go if he costs more than he is worth (if the improvement of having him is less than the improvements we could make with that money if we spend it elsewhere), but I also think he is worth a lot, and should try to make him a pretty big offer before he hits the market.

 

There are many misconceptions about the salary cap, but I think a big one is that since lots of teams have more cap space than in the past (and the money to fill it), yet the players available are no different than a typical year, there will be some drastic inflation this off season. Players will sign this off season for prices that would have seemed impossible last winter, and any players you can lock in before this reality sets in will be available at better levels. So we have to figure out the best way to spend our 35 million (I hope we don't stay under the cap), and signing Nate and London early might be a lot easier than signing Steinbach or Tony Gonzalez in the open market.

[Dibs]

There are many misconceptions about the salary cap, but I think a big one is that since lots of teams have more cap space than in the past (and the money to fill it), yet the players available are no different than a typical year, there will be some drastic inflation this off season. Players will sign this off season for prices that would have seemed impossible last winter, and any players you can lock in before this reality sets in will be available at better levels. So we have to figure out the best way to spend our 35 million (I hope we don't stay under the cap), and signing Nate and London early might be a lot easier than signing Steinbach or Tony Gonzalez in the open market.

Also, most players....esp. the good ones....have contracts where their salary increases each year of the contract. In essence, reducing the effect of the increase to the salary cap each year. I'd say that most teams making a 'superbowl run', bank on the cap increasing so as to sign the big names using the future dollars that they assume will occur. This is why certain teams end up over the cap even though it increases every year.

 

In the issue of re-signing NC.....his contract is bound to increase each year. Since we have several young (potential) future stars....when it is time to re-sign them, I'd rather have the money to do it over having an over-paid NC. I believe we should keep him if the price is right.....but not at any price.

[The_Real]

Firstly, you say Ralph is cheap because he won't spend big money (perhaps atrocious money) to keep Nate and/or sign other big name free agents. Then you say he should make good decisions with how he spends his money. The two comments seem in opposition to one another. Which is it? Spend like a drunken sailor or spend wisely?

 

Secondly, the notion that Ralph doesn't care about Buffalo, etc. Well, quite frankly, that doesn't deserve a rebuttal.

 

 

Unlike a lot of the TBD faithful, I don't gush over Nate Clements. The first half of the season I thought he looked pretty ordinary. Did he come on in the second half of the season? Sure he did but I'd expect nothing less in a contract year. The 'atrocious money' that is going to be spent on Nate Clements this offseason doesn't have to be by the Bills for me to feel like Ralph is adequately addressing this teams needs. He just better replace him with someone who can get the job done. If you have Payton Manning, you realize you have one of the best players at his position in the game. He's your 'franchise'. I personally don't feel like Nate is our franchise and I wouldn't pay him as such.

 

The same goes for London Fletcher-Baker. I like what he does on the field but I'm not married to him by any means. Yet, if you are going to let him go make sure you put someone there who can adequately handle the position. You see that is where the concept of spending wisely comes into play. Don't let the market determine the price, let your evaluation of the specific player. If the Bills are 35 million under the cap, I want it spent on players.

 

 

Here is a good article for you. http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html It's from last year but the same principles still apply. 2/3 of any team's revenue is based on the Television contract. 2/3 of total revenue per team goes to paying it's players. So we can summise that the television contract pays for the players. Nothing out of pocket from old Ralphy boy. Just money that is given to the Bills just like every other team in the league.

 

You argument is poor. Spending money doesn't make you a drunken sailor. It makes you committed to the success of your franchise. I don't understand the parallel you are trying to draw. I'm a life long fan of this team just like you. I've been drudgen to death with repeated losing seasons and missed playoffs.

 

I want to see them make a splash in free agency and try to go forward rather than back. Who was the last big signing for the Bills? Takeo? Until his horrendous injury was he not a difference maker? Did you think that contract was a bad one?

 

 

Bottomline: Spend money on difference makers.

 

 

 

The Real

[Bills Fan888]

Ralph is trying to prepare for the future. Not being cheap.

[DrDawkinstein]

THE FUTURE IS NOW!!

 

especially when your 187 years old like Ralph.

[Dibs]

So we can summise that the television contract pays for the players. Nothing out of pocket from old Ralphy boy. Just money that is given to the Bills just like every other team in the league.

Actually that's not exactly correct.

Let's use NC for an example & say(just for ease of numbers) he will get a 6 year $48mil contract.....BUT.....he is given $18mil as a signing bonus & yearly salaries of $3mil, $3mil, $5mil, $5mil, $7mil & $7mil.

This means his cap numbers each year will be $6mil, $6mil, $8mil, $8mil, $10mil, $10mil

Only $6mil in the first year.....BUT......the team that pays him has to find $21mil....or another $15mil above his cap number.

Therefore if the cap is $100mil the team would have to spend $115(minus the numbers from previous signing bonus deals)

That means if we were to sign 2 or 3 BIG names in an offseason Ralph would have to find massive amounts more cash this year than the TV revenue would be generating......esp. since we do not have many(only TKO I think) existing BIG contracts out to the players.

 

IMO....looking at things this way.....we really should have gone after a BIG name last season so as to not have so much cash needed at once. Then again, maybe Ralph saved the $7mil(or so) that was left over this season to help pay the costs of some BIG signing bonuses for next season.

 

I still get baffled how the Skins can sign the BIG names year after year......basically using tomorrows money today......but when tomorrow comes, they seem to be able to do it again.(off-topic, I know, but I don't understand how they keep doing it.)

[Kelly the Dog]

Actually that's not exactly correct.

Let's use NC for an example & say(just for ease of numbers) he will get a 6 year $48mil contract.....BUT.....he is given $18mil as a signing bonus & yearly salaries of $3mil, $3mil, $5mil, $5mil, $7mil & $7mil.

This means his cap numbers each year will be $6mil, $6mil, $8mil, $8mil, $10mil, $10mil

Only $6mil in the first year.....BUT......the team that pays him has to find $21mil....or another $15mil above his cap number.

Therefore if the cap is $100mil the team would have to spend $115(minus the numbers from previous signing bonus deals)

That means if we were to sign 2 or 3 BIG names in an offseason Ralph would have to find massive amounts more cash this year than the TV revenue would be generating......esp. since we do not have many(only TKO I think) existing BIG contracts out to the players.

 

IMO....looking at things this way.....we really should have gone after a BIG name last season so as to not have so much cash needed at once. Then again, maybe Ralph saved the $7mil(or so) that was left over this season to help pay the costs of some BIG signing bonuses for next season.

 

I still get baffled how the Skins can sign the BIG names year after year......basically using tomorrows money today......but when tomorrow comes, they seem to be able to do it again.(off-topic, I know, but I don't understand how they keep doing it.)

The TV contract I think is 11 mil this year above the cap. He makes more than 30-40 million in gate receipts. He makes 7 million in luxury boxes. He makes millions and millions in merchandising. He makes millions and millions from other deals the NFL has with corporate sponsors like Verizon and web deals. He makes a couple million from concessions and parking. He was seven million or so under the cap last year he didn't spend and is 40 mil under it this year. How many more millions does he need to sign these players?

[BuffaloRebound]

I totally agree about Ralph having the money to spend. I would love to see a Cash Flow Statement for the Bills. We probably have the lowest front office and coaching staff payroll in the NFL. I doubt Ralph pays very much for using Ralph Wilson Stadium. We have also had a fair share of dead cap money every year that although paid in the past still inflates the current cap numbers. Take out Villarial's salary next year and we are approaching $40m in unused cap space. I personally feel that Ralph, although wealthy, has that depression-era thriftness exhibited by most people his age, and laments the size of the bonuses and salaries, and spends reluctantly.

[Dibs]

The TV contract I think is 11 mil this year above the cap. He makes more than 20 million in gate receipts. He makes 7 million in luxury boxes. He makes millions and millions in merchandising. He makes millions and millions from other deals the NFL has with corporate sponsors like Verizon and web deals. He makes a couple million from concessions and parking. He was seven million or so under the cap last year he didn't spend and is 40 mil under it this year. How many more millions does he need to sign these players?

Firstly, I was not arguing that he shouldn't sign the players.....I was responding to the concept that the TV money will cover the players contracts.....which when....as I said.....factoring in a few BIG deals in one season will certainly NOT cover the contracts.

 

Secondly, there IS a very valid(irrefutable) argument about cash flow regarding the Large revenue teams over the small revenue teams. If we do sign NC, Steinback & one of the top LBs, there is little doubt that the Bills would be running at a loss for this financial year due to paying three very large signing bonuses needed to get these players. It all works out in the wash though.....i.e. the money paid will mean extra profit in future years(assuming no cuts/retirements). The point is.....if Ralph didn't save the money, he will have a hard time finding the $50-60mil extra needed to sign up 3 BIG names in the one season.

 

Thirdly, don't get your knickers in a twist just yet.......he hasn't NOT signed them yet has he......in fact their not even FAs yet are they?

 

The facts are that it is harder for small revenue clubs to sign the BIG names.....not impossible.

 

IMO, Ralph knows his mortality & surely can see that we are positioned the best we have been in years to make a run. I believe he will find the cash.

 

p.s.

there is a HUGE difference between money made & profits realized.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Dibs

[Kelly the Dog]

Firstly, I was not arguing that he shouldn't sign the players.....I was responding to the concept that the TV money will cover the players contracts.....which when....as I said.....factoring in a few BIG deals in one season will certainly NOT cover the contracts.

 

Secondly, there IS a very valid(irrefutable) argument about cash flow regarding the Large revenue teams over the small revenue teams. If we do sign NC, Steinback & one of the top LBs, there is little doubt that the Bills would be running at a loss for this financial year due to paying three very large signing bonuses needed to get these players. It all works out in the wash though.....i.e. the money paid will mean extra profit in future years(assuming no cuts/retirements). The point is.....if Ralph didn't save the money, he will have a hard time finding the $50-60mil extra needed to sign up 3 BIG names in the one season.

 

Thirdly, don't get your knickers in a twist just yet.......he hasn't NOT signed them yet has he......in fact their not even FAs yet are they?

 

The facts are that it is harder for small revenue clubs to sign the BIG names.....not impossible.

 

IMO, Ralph knows his mortality & surely can see that we are positioned the best we have been in years to make a run. I believe he will find the cash.

No one in their right mind thinks we are signing Clements AND Steinbach AND a top LB. I don't think any team has ever signed two players in the same year to 15 mil bonuses let alone three with 20. We are talking about signing Clements OR Steinbach. And there are ways that 20 million bonuses do not have to be paid all in the same year. The Bills can sign Nate to a 10 mil bonus and a guaranteed roster bonus of 10 mil next year (there are all kinds of ways to do it, all they have to do is "guarantee" the money to him and it's the same thing. Or a 10 mil a year contract this year with a 10 mil bonus, since we are so far under. The misconception, in my eyes, is not that smaller market teams cannot pay these guys. They can, and easily can, starting with this past season (because the TV deals skyrocketed, up 36% from the previous year). They just won't make as many millions in profit as the big guys.

[The_Real]

Firstly, I was not arguing that he shouldn't sign the players.....I was responding to the concept that the TV money will cover the players contracts.....which when....as I said.....factoring in a few BIG deals in one season will certainly NOT cover the contracts.

 

Secondly, there IS a very valid(irrefutable) argument about cash flow regarding the Large revenue teams over the small revenue teams. If we do sign NC, Steinback & one of the top LBs, there is little doubt that the Bills would be running at a loss for this financial year due to paying three very large signing bonuses needed to get these players. It all works out in the wash though.....i.e. the money paid will mean extra profit in future years(assuming no cuts/retirements). The point is.....if Ralph didn't save the money, he will have a hard time finding the $50-60mil extra needed to sign up 3 BIG names in the one season.

 

Thirdly, don't get your knickers in a twist just yet.......he hasn't NOT signed them yet has he......in fact their not even FAs yet are they?

 

The facts are that it is harder for small revenue clubs to sign the BIG names.....not impossible.

 

IMO, Ralph knows his mortality & surely can see that we are positioned the best we have been in years to make a run. I believe he will find the cash.

 

p.s.

there is a HUGE difference between money made & profits realized.

 

 

I don't believe your argument is valid based on the fact that you are using no factual information to support it. You are suggesting that the money provided each team from the television contract can't or doesn't pay for the player's salaries and I can and will show you 100 different articles that suggest exactly the opposite. Did you read the first article that I provided? I have more if you need to see it.

 

Further, finding the cash isn't like pulling it out of a hat. Ralph even this year will make millions from the Bills. If that's not true show me the numbers to suggest differently. I've looked acrossed the NFL for any team that could 'possibly' be in the red and I have yet to find one example of a foundering team.

 

Business owners want to make money and I understand that. Yet, at some point you have to be willing to invest your earnings to make more earnings. That's what I want to see. That's it, nothing complicated.

 

 

I respect your viewpoint Dibs, I just don't agree on the principles.

 

 

The Real

[The_Real]

No one in their right mind thinks we are signing Clements AND Steinbach AND a top LB. I don't think any team has ever signed two players in the same year to 15 mil bonuses let alone three with 20. We are talking about signing Clements OR Steinbach. And there are ways that 20 million bonuses do not have to be paid all in the same year. The Bills can sign Nate to a 10 mil bonus and a guaranteed roster bonus of 10 mil next year (there are all kinds of ways to do it, all they have to do is "guarantee" the money to him and it's the same thing. Or a 10 mil a year contract this year with a 10 mil bonus, since we are so far under. The misconception, in my eyes, is not that smaller market teams cannot pay these guys. They can, and easily can, starting with this past season (because the TV deals skyrocketed, up 36% from the previous year). They just won't make as many millions in profit as the big guys.

 

 

Well put sir.