Nice job, Ralph

[buffalobillsfootball]

“I just wanted a deal that was fair.”

 

PHOENIX — When Ralph C. Wilson Jr. voted against extending the collective-bargaining agreement last year, his decision was met with criticism, even ridicule.

 

The Buffalo Bills owner said at the time that he didn’t understand all the particulars of the deal, which was passed by a 30-2 vote.

 

“I don’t think anyone else understood it, either,” Wilson said.

 

What he did understand was that an agreement without additional revenue sharing would threaten his small-market franchise’s chances of survival because it wouldn’t be able to compete with the National Football League’s spiraling labor costs. He went on a yearlong campaign to spread the message that financial balance between the small- and large-market teams was vital to the league. The overwhelming approval of an expanded revenue-sharing plan Monday shows that a lot of his fellow owners have gotten the message.

 

“We looked over that ledge, and we didn’t like what we saw,” New England Patriots owner Robert K. Kraft said during an interview at the Arizona Biltmore Resort, where the NFL’s annual spring meetings are being held. “Ultimately, our job, our responsibility as owners, is doing what is best for the National Football League. This is not the best plan, but it is a plan that is in the best interests of all our teams.”

 

Under the terms of the four-year revenue-sharing agreement, the 15 richest teams will contribute $430 million ($100 million in 2006 and $110 million from 2007 to 2009) to a pool from which the needy teams will draw. The $3.7 billion shared equally by the 32 teams from the league’s television contracts is not affected by the new pool.

 

As many as 17 teams may get money from the pool, provided they meet the criteria to qualify for extra funds, including spending at least 65 percent of their revenues on player costs. If below that figure, a team can receive only enough money to get it back to 65 percent.

 

Teams also must have gate revenue equal to at least 90 percent of the league average, and if a team has a new or substantially renovated stadium, it won’t be eligible to receive money over the length of the four-year agreement.

 

Not every team is happy with the agreement, Wilson said. Some bigmoney teams believe they are paying too much. Small-market franchises such as Cincinnati and Jacksonville, which cast the only no votes, believe that the plan doesn’t go far enough.

 

“Nobody is happy,” said Robert C. McNair, owner of the Houston Texans. “So, I guess, maybe it’s a good deal that way. The important thing is, the deal got done.”

 

It is also important to note that the 15 large-market teams — among them, New England, Dallas, Houston, Washington and Denver — that have to put money into the revenue-sharing pool all voted in favor of the plan.

 

“This is a strong testament to our teams’ willingness to do what is best for the league,” Bills Treasurer Jeffrey C. Littmann said. “This wasn’t about a win. This was about making our case.”

 

Many of the owners said Wilson was a driving force behind this revenue- sharing plan getting approved. He lobbied owners and politicians to make sure his voice was heard.

 

“Ralph is one of our most respected owners, so you listen when he has something to say,” Pittsburgh Steelers owner Daniel M. Rooney said. “He and his people were very much involved. He did a good job presenting his case.”

 

“I’m certainly sympathetic to Ralph’s situation in Buffalo,” said Denver Broncos owner Patrick D. Bowlen. “From what I saw, he was pretty persuasive in, No. 1, keeping the team in Buffalo, and, No. 2, having some better revenue-sharing arrangements than we do. Ralph’s been around since Day One. So I think what he had to say and his input was very important.”

 

Perhaps Wilson should feel vindicated now that so many owners see this issue from his perspective. But that was never his aim.

 

“I wasn’t looking for vindication,” Wilson said. “I just wanted a deal that was fair.”

 

His quest for a fair deal began shortly after the owners met to ratify the collective-bargaining agreement last March in Dallas. He thought owners felt rushed because they were facing a ratification deadline.

 

Some owners saw it as the lesser of two evils — a flawed deal was better than no deal at all. But Wilson viewed it as giving up too much (60 percent of the gross revenues) to the players. More important, he felt that the Bills and other small-market teams would suffer without more revenue sharing.

 

He enlisted the services of Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who had meetings with the NFL’s former commissioner, Paul Tagliabue, and the current one, Roger Goodell, to help ensure the Bills’ long-term security in Buffalo.

 

Before stepping down, Tagliabue named Wilson to a “qualifiers committee” of eight NFL owners to tackle the revenue-sharing issue. Littmann served on a revenue-sharing study group named by the commissioner. After months of conference calls, meetings and debates, the deal was struck.

 

Had the new agreement not passed, Goodell would have had the authority to make the final ruling. But it didn’t come to that, and now the Bills and their small-market brethren can breathe a sigh of relief.

 

“I’m not totally satisfied, but I’m happier with this plan,” Wilson said. “It took a lot of work to make this happen.”

[The Dean]

Indeed. Is the deal PERFECT? No. Is Ralph wise to get a favorable deal done, rather than having the issue being unsettled while working toward the "perfect" (for Buffalo) plan that would have no chance of being adopted? Yes

 

Ralph done good...and you all know it.

[ganesh]

I think Ralph deserves to be in Canton for uniting the divided owners again and keeping the game intact....Kudos to Mr. Wilson.

[ganesh]

What is sad is that all those media guys in ESPN, CNNSI and NFL network who were jumping on Wilsons back last year, taking cheap shots at him, don't have the guts or class to praise him this time around.

[stuckincincy]

And then there is Mike Brown, B'gals owner, who voted NO!

 

Too much isn't enough for Brown

BY PAUL DAUGHERTY Cincy Enquirer

 

 

Here is something you might not have known: It is difficult to be one of 32 monopolists in the most successful, highly profitable league in the history of American sports. It is hard making ends meet in a free stadium that is absolutely filled every time it opens for an NFL game. You think it's easy, scraping by on the proceeds from $8 bottles of beer?

 

While owners of 30 of the NFL's 32 teams on Monday agreed to share even more money among themselves, Bengals owner Mike Brown voted against it. (The other no vote came from Jacksonville's Wayne Weaver.) It isn't that the Bengals aren't profiting from revenue-sharing; it's that they aren't profiting enough.

 

The Cincinnati Bengals' logo should not be a tiger; it should be an outstretched hand, palm upturned.

 

Understand: This was a "supplemental" plan for revenue-sharing. This was sharing on top of sharing. Karl Marx's league just became more generous.

 

The Bengals don't even know yet how much extra money they'll get on top of the money they already get. All they know is, it's not enough. With the Bengals, it never is.

 

Because I am not an economist, a capologist or an expert on socialist corporations, maybe I'm not qualified to comment on the Bengals' ongoing cries of poverty. But here's what I do know about our starving little football team:

 

They sell every seat for every game.

They sell every luxury box, and they keep all the money.

They sell lots of $8 beers, and they keep most of the money.

They're the proud possessors of a Manhattan-for-beads lease that makes them lords of Cincinnati's central riverfront.

The public built them a $600 million stadium our children will be paying for.

 

And, oh yeah, they've had one winning season in 17 years.

 

Imagine another business in the free world complaining about this arrangement.

 

The Bengals' argument boils down to this:

 

The salary cap is based on a fixed percentage of what the NFL calls gross designated revenues. They come from the national TV contract, ticket and merchandise sales and local sources such as stadium naming rights and advertising. Because the Bengals are in the bottom third of revenues in the league, every time a Washington, New England or New York increases its revenues, the cap rises and the Bengals have to spend a greater portion of their revenues on salaries.

 

No one should fault Brown for getting the best deal he can. He has to answer to shareholders, even if most of them are related to him. He also feels he has legitimate issues about the long-term financial health of his team.

 

But consider this:

 

The Bengals are privately owned. They don't show us their books. They say they're lagging financially and we have to take their word for it.

 

The list of people sharing in their "poverty" is very short.

 

If you choose to own a team in a place like Cincinnati, don't expect to make the kind of cash you would in New York. Some owners aren't as wealthy as others, if only because they're located in smaller places and/or they don't work as hard.

 

So it is that Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, whose team plays in a relatively new stadium that was not publicly funded, gives some of his revenues to an owner like Mike Brown, who has a free stadium. So it is that Jerry Jones, who worked hard to revive the Dallas Cowboys brand, shares equally his merchandise revenues with Brown, who works not at all selling his.

 

So it is that on Monday, the 15 biggest revenue producers voted to give even more money to the 17 smallest revenue producers. Everyone but Brown and Weaver was fine with that. Again: Fifteen owners agreed to write checks, and two owners said the checks won't be big enough.

 

Even if I agreed with the Bengals' position that they're heading toward the financial rocks, their constant more-more-more-ing after so much public generosity, faith and good will - and in an industry subsidized like few others, even if you stink - makes me want to lie down in a cool place.

 

The Reds don't receive nearly the shared revenues the Bengals do. I don't hear Bob Castellini complaining."

[Whites Bay]

I think Ralph deserves to be in Canton for uniting the divided owners again and keeping the game intact....Kudos to Mr. Wilson.

 

 

I couldn't agree more. If there's truly justice in the universe, he'd end up in Canton while he's still around to sit in the sunshine on the stage at the ceremony.

[The Dean]

What is sad is that all those media guys in ESPN, CNNSI and NFL network who were jumping on Wilsons back last year, taking cheap shots at him, don't have the guts or class to praise him this time around.

 

 

BINGO! Saw it coming though, didn't ya?