Will the next CBA make or break the Bills?

[Ramius]

Danny Snyder is not the only owner who would spend more to get the players he wants. Other guys like Jerry Jones, Aurthur Blank, Woody Johnson, Robert Kraft, The Mara and Tish families that own the Giants and the new owner of the Dolphins Steve Ross are all going to want to spend money. Once player X gets big money, player Y on the St.Louis Rams is going to hold out to get money. The excuse of the cap goes out the window and it only becomes about the money.

 

Once the top ten owners throw out big money on good not great players than the good and great players will hold out to get the big money that those players got. It becomes a domino effect it happens in all sports why is the NFL immune from stupid owners? Hockey and Basketball all had uncapped systems in which the owners went nuts and overinflated the salary structure which in turn resulted in holdouts that resulted in a capped system. Even Baseball which has no cap added the luxury tax and more revenue sharing to further balance the league.

 

Football is able to fall into the same trap that other sports fell into and as a Bills fan that worries me.

 

It costs a little bit more to fill out a 53 man roster than it does to fill out a 12, 22, or 25 man roster. The guys at the top will get huge bucks and a lot of guys in the middle will lose out without a salary floor.

[Flbillsfan#1]

It costs a little bit more to fill out a 53 man roster than it does to fill out a 12, 22, or 25 man roster. The guys at the top will get huge bucks and a lot of guys in the middle will lose out without a salary floor.

Exactly, the majority of players will vote for a Cap with a minimum teams must spend.

[Mr. WEO]

After that embarrassment of a CBA Jones, Snyder, and Kraft assured everyone was so great, only to see it killed just 2 years later, putting them in this predicament, yeah, the last owners to go on a spending spree will be these three jokers.

So you say they willstill be going on a spending spree and they will be "forced" to spend less? Which is it?

 

The top FA's will get ridiculous contracts----just like they do now. The rest of the FA's and guys up for contract renewal will get what they can, just like they do now. Teams are winning while staying below the cap and they will do so without breaking the bank in an uncapped year. Teams that toss money around like Dallas and Wash haven't doen anything in a long time.

 

The NFL owners have it better than MLB and the NBA because they have the ultimate weapon: contracts are not wholly guaranteed. They don't want a guy, they cut him. They owe him only his guaranteed portion and they are rid of his cost. The "cap hit" is only meaningful if the team plans on spending to the cap. The Rangers were still on the hook for $67 million of A-Rod's salary AFTER he started playing for the Yankess. Look at the Knicks---aren't they still paying Allen Houston, maybe Larry Johnson for crying out loud? They are years away from getting out from under outrageous contracts. Also, the Cowboys would never have taken TO off of Philly's hands if they had to assume his remaining contract (just signed for 7 year $49 mil contract the year before), as they would in the NBA. Top MLB players also have a "no trade clause" they often attatch to their contracts. In both leagues, players are getting 5,6,7, even 10 year contracts--all guaranteed. Even crappy players get much more money because the rosters are tiny compared to the NFL.

 

The NFL owners "own" the players. If there is no CBA agreement, expect them to shut out the players.

 

It's no wonder Ralph was arguing against the CBA. He's drooling (figuratively this time) over no minimum cap (while still getting the annual $120 million from the NFL TV contracts) and the possibility of a luxury tax (more free money from other owners). No doubt he will still put on the "po me" act saying how with an uncapped league it will be even harder for him to make a buck.

[VOR]

So you say they willstill be going on a spending spree and they will be "forced" to spend less? Which is it?

 

The top FA's will get ridiculous contracts----just like they do now. The rest of the FA's and guys up for contract renewal will get what they can, just like they do now. Teams are winning while staying below the cap and they will do so without breaking the bank in an uncapped year. Teams that toss money around like Dallas and Wash haven't doen anything in a long time.

 

The NFL owners have it better than MLB and the NBA because they have the ultimate weapon: contracts are not wholly guaranteed. They don't want a guy, they cut him. They owe him only his guaranteed portion and they are rid of his cost. The "cap hit" is only meaningful if the team plans on spending to the cap. The Rangers were still on the hook for $67 million of A-Rod's salary AFTER he started playing for the Yankess. Look at the Knicks---aren't they still paying Allen Houston, maybe Larry Johnson for crying out loud? They are years away from getting out from under outrageous contracts. Also, the Cowboys would never have taken TO off of Philly's hands if they had to assume his remaining contract (just signed for 7 year $49 mil contract the year before), as they would in the NBA. Top MLB players also have a "no trade clause" they often attatch to their contracts. In both leagues, players are getting 5,6,7, even 10 year contracts--all guaranteed. Even crappy players get much more money because the rosters are tiny compared to the NFL.

 

The NFL owners "own" the players. If there is no CBA agreement, expect them to shut out the players.

 

It's no wonder Ralph was arguing against the CBA. He's drooling (figuratively this time) over no minimum cap (while still getting the annual $120 million from the NFL TV contracts) and the possibility of a luxury tax (more free money from other owners). No doubt he will still put on the "po me" act saying how with an uncapped league it will be even harder for him to make a buck.

No there won't be a "spending spree" by any owner. That was hyperbole on my part, meant to say that if Jones, Snyder, or Kraft even entertained the idea of going on a spending spree, he/they would get slapped down by the other owners because they were responsible for putting them in this predicament. The reason why the owners opted-out was because the players got too much, and going on spending sprees would be the height of stupidity. Although I guess there is Al Davis.

 

I agree that there likely won't be an uncapped year, as there will probably either be a new CBA or a lockout. About two years too late the owners present a united front.

 

And Ralph was arguing against the CBA because it was garbage. Hence the reason why the owners opted-out of it. It's plainly obvious to even the simplest person. But since it was "Krafted" by your guy, you obviously think it was a work of art.

[Mr. WEO]

No there won't be a "spending spree" by any owner. That was hyperbole on my part, meant to say that if Jones, Snyder, or Kraft even entertained the idea of going on a spending spree, he/they would get slapped down by the other owners because they were responsible for putting them in this predicament. The reason why the owners opted-out was because the players got too much, and going on spending sprees would be the height of stupidity. Although I guess there is Al Davis.

 

I agree that there likely won't be an uncapped year, as there will probably either be a new CBA or a lockout. About two years too late the owners present a united front.

 

And Ralph was arguing against the CBA because it was garbage. Hence the reason why the owners opted-out of it. It's plainly obvious to even the simplest person. But since it was "Krafted" by your guy, you obviously think it was a work of art.

 

Well, as I pointed out and you did not dispute, the NFL owners have the best labor situation in sports.

 

The last CBA passed 30-2, pretty united most would say.

 

I don't really have an opinion on the CBA. I don't own a team. The new CBA did not make the Bills any more or less successful. I just watch the games and hope for the best. Why do you pretend to care about the CBA--it has nothing to do with you. If they didn't buy two years of labor peace with the "crappy CBA", we would just have been at the 2010 point two years ago, looking at lockout vs. no cap. Obviously they built in an opt out clause for a reason. They knew what 60% meant before they signed.

 

Ralph's first objection was only because the cap would immediately go up. But his protestations proved to be meaningless, becuase he had no obligation to pay the increased cap anyway. He wanted language on how the "big market teams" (I don't think even Ralph considers Denver in this group) were going to give him free money ("revenue sharing"). The CBA didn't hurt Ralph one bit.

 

Hey, look who can't resist bringing up the Pats.

[nucci]

Well, as I pointed out and you did not dispute, the NFL owners have the best labor situation in sports.

 

The last CBA passed 30-2, pretty united most would say.

 

I don't really have an opinion on the CBA. I don't own a team. The new CBA did not make the Bills any more or less successful. I just watch the games and hope for the best. Why do you pretend to care about the CBA--it has nothing to do with you. If they didn't buy two years of labor peace with the "crappy CBA", we would just have been at the 2010 point two years ago, looking at lockout vs. no cap. Obviously they built in an opt out clause for a reason. They knew what 60% meant before they signed.

 

Ralph's first objection was only because the cap would immediately go up. But his protestations proved to be meaningless, becuase he had no obligation to pay the increased cap anyway. He wanted language on how the "big market teams" (I don't think even Ralph considers Denver in this group) were going to give him free money ("revenue sharing"). The CBA didn't hurt Ralph one bit.

 

Hey, look who can't resist bringing up the Pats.

Ralph's biggest complaint about revenue sharing was that the money from boxes and suites is not shared but increases the cap. He wanted that money shared and if not , the cap should not go up based on unshared money.

[Mr. WEO]

Ralph's biggest complaint about revenue sharing was that the money from boxes and suites is not shared but increases the cap. He wanted that money shared and if not , the cap should not go up based on unshared money.

Teams like the Boys, Pats and Skins use that revenue to cover a huge monthly debt nut which Ralph doesn't have to worry about. These other guys aren't going to simply give away that revenue to a guy who they know is clearing tens of millions most years--no matter how bad his team is.

[nucci]

Teams like the Boys, Pats and Skins use that revenue to cover a huge monthly debt nut which Ralph doesn't have to worry about. These other guys aren't going to simply give away that revenue to a guy who they know is clearing tens of millions most years--no matter how bad his team is.

That's fine but that revenue should not be counted against the cap. That was his main point. The TV money is fixed and eventually would not cover all salaries if the cap goes up $5M-$8M per year because of the suite revenue.

[VOR]

Well, as I pointed out and you did not dispute, the NFL owners have the best labor situation in sports.

 

The last CBA passed 30-2, pretty united most would say.

 

I don't really have an opinion on the CBA. I don't own a team. The new CBA did not make the Bills any more or less successful. I just watch the games and hope for the best. Why do you pretend to care about the CBA--it has nothing to do with you. If they didn't buy two years of labor peace with the "crappy CBA", we would just have been at the 2010 point two years ago, looking at lockout vs. no cap. Obviously they built in an opt out clause for a reason. They knew what 60% meant before they signed.

Gee, you think the owners said "we have the best labor situation in sports" and "hallelujah, we have labor peace!" when they voted 32-0 (totally united, not "pretty united") to kill the CBA they signed just 2 years before? And they had an "opt out" clause because they had a feeling it would blow up in their faces, like it did.

 

But the problem is that now, they've opened the floodgates. It will be a lot harder to get the players to accept a percentage of shared revenue, like it was before, now that they've been getting total revenue. The lockout should have happened 2 years ago and the increase in money to the players should have never happened, or been minimal at best. Touting "labor peace for 2 years" is probably the dumbest defense of the CBA that's I've heard yet.

 

Look, it's obvious to everyone that the CBA was a POS. Why you can't bring yourself to admit it is anyone's guess, but I have an idea why. And the CBA should mean a lot to Bills fans. Basing the salary cap on total revenue, and not shared revenue, puts the Bills at a competitive disadvantage.

 

Ralph's first objection was only because the cap would immediately go up. But his protestations proved to be meaningless, becuase he had no obligation to pay the increased cap anyway. He wanted language on how the "big market teams" (I don't think even Ralph considers Denver in this group) were going to give him free money ("revenue sharing"). The CBA didn't hurt Ralph one bit.

Oh, so "Ralph's first objection was only because the cap would immediately go up." Yet he was under "no obligation to pay the increased cap anyway," so why would he be protesting? Makes no sense.

 

What Ralph really protested was revealed by what he said after the infamous "I didn't understand [the CBA]" clip that ESPN embarrassingly ran, which was "I think the players got too much." Obviously his fellow owners figured that out, a couple years late®.

 

And really, why should you as a fan care if he gets "free money" from the other owners? You should be ecstatic, because it means the ticket prices for "your" team stay the lowest in the NFL. Hmmmmm.

 

Hey, look who can't resist bringing up the Pats.

Hey, if it walks like a duck...

[NewHampshireBillsFan]

The least problem the Bills have is with a potentially uncapped year or a new labor agreement. Buffalo is a small market team in a league of owners determined to maximize their investment. Sooner or later the way the NFL is going Buffalo will have a hard time even surviving as a team and already we are having trouble competing at a high level. The point is whats it to us what happens to the NFL next year regarding the CBA? Its not like any option looks that great for the Bills at this point. But that aside the odds are the NFL management is not going to allow this golden cow to deteriorate and will reach some agreement with the players union in time to prevent an uncapped year. The union also will have an incentive not to tick off the fans, especially in this tough economy.

 

The damages of even one uncapped year can be significant. How do you get the genie back in the bottle? If some team suddenly has a payroll of $160 million how to you get it back to $120 million for the next year when a new agreement is reached.

[Mr. WEO]

Gee, you think the owners said "we have the best labor situation in sports" and "hallelujah, we have labor peace!" when they voted 32-0 (totally united, not "pretty united") to kill the CBA they signed just 2 years before? And they had an "opt out" clause because they had a feeling it would blow up in their faces, like it did.

 

The owners make no money on games that are not played. I'm guessing that they thought this was not a good time for a lockout. Also, many of the owners have derived most of their wealth outside of football--I would venture that nearly all of Ralph's pile is from the profits he pockets from owning the Bills. Most other owners also have serious debt and likely went into panic mode when the economy started to tank last year. Hence the opt out clause was exercised.

 

Touting "labor peace for 2 years" is probably the dumbest defense of the CBA that's I've heard yet.

 

That may be so, but it is the only rationale I have heard. Again, owners with large debt to service aren't going to dip into their savings to pay their mortgage on the stadium.

 

Look, it's obvious to everyone that the CBA was a POS. Why you can't bring yourself to admit it is anyone's guess, but I have an idea why. And the CBA should mean a lot to Bills fans. Basing the salary cap on total revenue, and not shared revenue, puts the Bills at a competitive disadvantage.

 

I have already told you (you don't pay attention very well)--I don't really care about the specifics of the CBA. Saying that the CBA put the Bills at a competitive disadvantage is just ridiculous. The current salary cap (or the old one for that matter) has done nothing to prevent us from playing in a playoff game for almost 10 years. That "probably is the dumbest" statement you have crapped out all day.

 

Oh, so "Ralph's first objection was only because the cap would immediately go up." Yet he was under "no obligation to pay the increased cap anyway," so why would he be protesting? Makes no sense. What Ralph really protested was revealed by what he said after the infamous "I didn't understand [the CBA]" clip that ESPN embarrassingly ran, which was "I think the players got too much." Obviously his fellow owners figured that out, a couple years late®.

 

Ralph's first reaction was to the increase in the cap. He realized at some point that the new revenue sharing with the players is essentially voluntary--no team HAS to give more money to players (i.e., spend to the cap). But he continued on his "little guys don't stand a chance" stuff. Also, remember that, at the time the CBA was announced, it was understood that the top 15 revenue teams would be required to pay into the increased player revenue-sharing pool. So.....

 

And really, why should you as a fan care if he gets "free money" from the other owners? You should be ecstatic, because it means the ticket prices for "your" team stay the lowest in the NFL. Hmmmmm.

 

Maybe I would be as ecstatic if I was as comfortable as you are with mediocrity and futility, but I'm not. If all the extera money was wisely invested by Ralph into putting a winning team on the field, I would be very happy. And I'm sure that just about any Bills fan would pay more to see a playoff caliber team play at home, so your "you should just be happy you you have the cheapest tickets in the league" song is just another brainless statement.

 

Buffalo is a small market team in a league of owners determined to maximize their investment.

 

No owner in the NFL has maximized and continues to maximize his investment more than Ralph Wilson. No one can dispute this.

 

And I can assure you that Ralph was absolutley NOT worried about an uncapped year OR a lockout--he was not concerned about "damage".

[VOR]

The owners make no money on games that are not played. I'm guessing that they thought this was not a good time for a lockout. Also, many of the owners have derived most of their wealth outside of football--I would venture that nearly all of Ralph's pile is from the profits he pockets from owning the Bills. Most other owners also have serious debt and likely went into panic mode when the economy started to tank last year. Hence the opt out clause was exercised.

 

That may be so, but it is the only rationale I have heard. Again, owners with large debt to service aren't going to dip into their savings to pay their mortgage on the stadium.

 

I have already told you (you don't pay attention very well)--I don't really care about the specifics of the CBA. Saying that the CBA put the Bills at a competitive disadvantage is just ridiculous. The current salary cap (or the old one for that matter) has done nothing to prevent us from playing in a playoff game for almost 10 years. That "probably is the dumbest" statement you have crapped out all day.

It's obvious you "don't really care about the CBA." Your utter lack of knowledge about it already made that known.

 

For starters, the owners didn't need to lockout the players prior to the 2006 season. Therefore any talk of losing revenue is just ignorance on your part. The only reason the big market owners passed that POS CBA was because the NFLPA stopped pushing back the start of FA, and if there wasn't an increase in the cap, teams like the Redskins, Cowboys, and Patriots* would have had to cut players left and right to get under it. So instead of doing that and telling the players they weren't going to get more, the most logical thing to do was give the players a huge raise and increase the cap, and subisidize the smaller markets. Brilliant I'm sure you'll claim, again because you "don't care about it."

 

As for "large debt service," the only owners to whom that would have applied in 2006 were McNair, Lerner, Johnson, and Wilf. That is, owners who recently bought their teams for $800M+. No owner at the time had debt service on his team's stadium because they had them paid for them by the taxpayers (hence the reason none of them own their teams' stadiums), except for Snyder and Kraft. And in their cases, probably not even, since they've charged the fans enough to pay for their stadiums several times over.

 

And basing the cap on total revenue and not shared revenue DOES put the Bills at a competitive disadvantage, among other reasons, and hamstrings the future owner. Assuming the future owner decides it's worth keeping the team in Buffalo like Ralph did.

 

Ralph's first reaction was to the increase in the cap. He realized at some point that the new revenue sharing with the players is essentially voluntary--no team HAS to give more money to players (i.e., spend to the cap). But he continued on his "little guys don't stand a chance" stuff. Also, remember that, at the time the CBA was announced, it was understood that the top 15 revenue teams would be required to pay into the increased player revenue-sharing pool. So.....

Don't talk to me about "Ralph's first reaction," pally. The fact that the owners opted-out of the CBA after two years proves that Ralph knew what he was talking about. Any mindless ramblings by you about Ralph's "first reaction" and underlying motives is wasted bandwidth. The CBA was junk. Ralph knew this. The owners realized this later and killed it. There is really nothing more to say, unless you're so thick that you can't get that through your head. Oh, wait...

 

Maybe I would be as ecstatic if I was as comfortable as you are with mediocrity and futility, but I'm not. If all the extera money was wisely invested by Ralph into putting a winning team on the field, I would be very happy. And I'm sure that just about any Bills fan would pay more to see a playoff caliber team play at home, so your "you should just be happy you you have the cheapest tickets in the league" song is just another brainless statement.

 

No owner in the NFL has maximized and continues to maximize his investment more than Ralph Wilson. No one can dispute this.

Another simplistic statement. All of the "old guard" owners have maximized their investment on their team, having bought them for (compared to now) peanuts back some 40+ years ago and having had their stadiums built by the taxpayers all along, some even getting state-of-the-art stadiums built which increased their revenue even more. Just because you "don't care to know about it" reveals more about you than anything else.

 

And you're really losing it if you think that making the playoffs will lead people in a horrible economy to begin with (nevermind the global slowdown) to start paying even close to average ticket prices, should the team start making the playoffs again. A $10 price increase wouldn't get them out of the bottom quarter, yet would probably kill most families' chances to see games, and I bet it would do the same in your case, assuming you even go to games. But let me know where this vast, untapped pot of wealth is located in WNY. And we all know the taxpayers can't even approach affording building a new stadium for Ralph, like virtually every other team has had done for them.

And I can assure you that Ralph was absolutley NOT worried about an uncapped year OR a lockout--he was not concerned about "damage".

You can't even assure me that you can think for yourself. What makes you think that I believe what you can assure me about Ralph thinks?

[Mr. WEO]

For starters, the owners didn't need to lockout the players prior to the 2006 season. Therefore any talk of losing revenue is just ignorance on your part. The only reason the big market owners passed that POS CBA was because the NFLPA stopped pushing back the start of FA, and if there wasn't an increase in the cap, teams like the Redskins, Cowboys, and Patriots* would have had to cut players left and right to get under it. So instead of doing that and telling the players they weren't going to get more, the most logical thing to do was give the players a huge raise and increase the cap, and subisidize the smaller markets. Brilliant I'm sure you'll claim, again because you "don't care about it."

 

I did not suggest that there would have been a lockout in 2006. Just that if there was no extension of the CBA then, we would have been looking at a lockout by now (i.e., 2 years earlier), instead of 2010. And the economy now is different than 2006, hence the unease of the owners.

 

As for "large debt service," the only owners to whom that would have applied in 2006 were McNair, Lerner, Johnson, and Wilf. That is, owners who recently bought their teams for $800M+. No owner at the time had debt service on his team's stadium because they had them paid for them by the taxpayers (hence the reason none of them own their teams' stadiums), except for Snyder and Kraft. And in their cases, probably not even, since they've charged the fans enough to pay for their stadiums several times over.

 

Don't leave out Jones--he has to come up with over $500 million (nonpublic) to cover the cost of his stadium. Also, just beacuse an owner didn't "recently buy their team for $800M+", doesn't mean they aren't still paying for their purchase. And claiming that Snyder and Kreaft have paid off their stadium debt already--and "several times over"--is more plain dumb from you.

 

 

And basing the cap on total revenue and not shared revenue DOES put the Bills at a competitive disadvantage, among other reasons, and hamstrings the future owner. Assuming the future owner decides it's worth keeping the team in Buffalo like Ralph did.

 

If Ralph truly wanted to maximize the likelihood of keeping the Bills in Buffalo, he would have sold them 10 years ago, when the purchase price and the possibility of a new stadium weren't prohibitive.

 

Don't talk to me about "Ralph's first reaction," pally. The fact that the owners opted-out of the CBA after two years proves that Ralph knew what he was talking about. Any mindless ramblings by you about Ralph's "first reaction" and underlying motives is wasted bandwidth. The CBA was junk. Ralph knew this. The owners realized this later and killed it. There is really nothing more to say, unless you're so thick that you can't get that through your head. Oh, wait...

 

From the NFL:

 

In addition, as we have explained to the union, the clubs must spend significant and growing amounts on stadium construction, operations and improvements to respond to the interests and demands of our fans. The current labor agreement does not adequately recognize the costs of generating the revenues of which the players receive the largest share; nor does the agreement recognize that those costs have increased substantially -- and at an ever increasing rate -- in recent years during a difficult economic climate in our country. As a result, under the terms of the current agreement, the clubs’ incentive to invest in the game is threatened.

 

 

Another simplistic statement. All of the "old guard" owners have maximized their investment on their team, having bought them for (compared to now) peanuts back some 40+ years ago and having had their stadiums built by the taxpayers all along, some even getting state-of-the-art stadiums built which increased their revenue even more. Just because you "don't care to know about it" reveals more about you than anything else.

 

There majority of owners are not "old guard" who bought the team for peanuts 40 years ago.

 

And you're really losing it if you think that making the playoffs will lead people in a horrible economy to begin with (nevermind the global slowdown) to start paying even close to average ticket prices, should the team start making the playoffs again. A $10 price increase wouldn't get them out of the bottom quarter, yet would probably kill most families' chances to see games, and I bet it would do the same in your case, assuming you even go to games. But let me know where this vast, untapped pot of wealth is located in WNY. And we all know the taxpayers can't even approach affording building a new stadium for Ralph, like virtually every other team has had done for them.

 

Another tired statement. Ralph has raised ticket prices, as much as 10%, over the last few years. Stadium sells out. People are going to secondary outlets to pay far over ticket value.

 

You can't even assure me that you can think for yourself. What makes you think that I believe what you can assure me about Ralph thinks?

 

"We were not afraid of an uncapped year," Wilson said in the news conference. "We were not afraid of a strike in 1987."

 

Any other questions?

[VOR]

I did not suggest that there would have been a lockout in 2006. Just that if there was no extension of the CBA then, we would have been looking at a lockout by now (i.e., 2 years earlier), instead of 2010. And the economy now is different than 2006, hence the unease of the owners.

The owners opting-out had nothing to do with the economy, although that certainly hasn't helped. They have been looking to opt-out of the CBA from almost the beginning, but they had to wait two years before they could do it. And a lockout 2 years ago (which probably wouldn't have happened since the players had no incentive to do it) during a better economy and before giving the players a huge raise (to the owners' detriment, which is a mistake in ANY economy), would have been a lot better than one now. The NFLPA said they won't accept a pay cut and a cap. And that means lockout. And if there is a lockout, so much for labor peace and "the best labor situation in sports."

 

Don't leave out Jones--he has to come up with over $500 million (nonpublic) to cover the cost of his stadium. Also, just beacuse an owner didn't "recently buy their team for $800M+", doesn't mean they aren't still paying for their purchase. And claiming that Snyder and Kreaft have paid off their stadium debt already--and "several times over"--is more plain dumb from you.

These guys have been making money hand over fist for over a decade, thanks to TV revenue and unshared revenue like luxury boxes, PSL's, club seats, advertising, naming rights, etc, as well as the highest ticket prices in the NFL. Maybe Snyder hasn't fully paid-off his stadium, but Kraft had such a minimal investment in his, he surely has.

 

If Ralph truly wanted to maximize the likelihood of keeping the Bills in Buffalo, he would have sold them 10 years ago, when the purchase price and the possibility of a new stadium weren't prohibitive.

LOL! Maybe he should have forced Erie County to build him a new stadium 10 years ago, like almost every owner has done, instead of asking for stadium improvements, which were much more palatable. And maybe he should plan on dying next year, when there's (currently) no estate tax. Hell if he'd sold 10 years ago, the team would no longer be in Buffalo.

 

From the NFL:

Yes, the owners realized too late that the CBA was junk. But hey, labor peace!

 

There majority of owners are not "old guard" who bought the team for peanuts 40 years ago.

I never said the "majority" of owners are old guard. But how much do you think Bud Adams has maximized his profitability? He moved his team and got a new stadium built. Same goes for Art Modell. What about Al Davis? The Browns? Irsays? Hunts? Maras? McCaskeys? Fords? Bidwells? Frontiere? They paid little for their teams and haven't spent a single dime on their stadiums either, many of them getting new stadiums paid-for by taxpayer money, which are used to jack-up prices even further. Yet Ralph "has maximized and continues to maximize his investment more than" any other owner and "[n]o one can dispute this?" From where do you pull such crap?

 

Another tired statement. Ralph has raised ticket prices, as much as 10%, over the last few years. Stadium sells out. People are going to secondary outlets to pay far over ticket value.

A 10% raise (like prior to the 2008 season) is just $5. That's $20 more per a family of 4. Raising them $10 is a $40 increase. Raising them by $30 to even just average league prices is $120. Get the picture? And it still doesn't take into account the lack of luxury box sales.

 

Any other questions?

Nope, you've answered any questions I had about your grasp on things.

[Mr. WEO]

The owners opting-out had nothing to do with the economy, although that certainly hasn't helped. They have been looking to opt-out of the CBA from almost the beginning, but they had to wait two years before they could do it.

 

You should have stopped after "nothing to do with the economy". It had a large part in this scenario.

 

 

And a lockout 2 years ago (which probably wouldn't have happened since the players had no incentive to do it)

 

Ah, let me help you a bit on this one: the players don't "lockout", they are locked out. My my my.

 

These guys have been making money hand over fist for over a decade, thanks to TV revenue and unshared revenue like luxury boxes, PSL's, club seats, advertising, naming rights, etc, as well as the highest ticket prices in the NFL. Maybe Snyder hasn't fully paid-off his stadium, but Kraft had such a minimal investment in his, he surely has.

 

Snyder bought the stadium for $200 mil and put another 100 mil into it. Since you are the math wizard (see below), I'll let you tally up his total. Kraft is on the hook for at least 325 mil (is that what passes for a "minimal investment" in your house?)---plus the cost of development of the area around the stadium. Snyder has owned his stadium for 5 years longer than Kraft, so how is is that you think he hasn't paid off and Kraft has (oh, you made that up. I see.)?

 

They have made money, true. Yet Ralph is completely insulated form the economic domwnturn. His fans are, by your estimation, amongst the most destitute in the nation, yet he doesn't have to worry about empty seats, even when he raises ticket prices.

 

I never said the "majority" of owners are old guard. But how much do you think Bud Adams has maximized his profitability? He moved his team and got a new stadium built. Same goes for Art Modell. What about Al Davis? The Browns? Irsays? Hunts? Maras? McCaskeys? Fords? Bidwells? Frontiere? They paid little for their teams and haven't spent a single dime on their stadiums either, many of them getting new stadiums paid-for by taxpayer money, which are used to jack-up prices even further. Yet Ralph "has maximized and continues to maximize his investment more than" any other owner and "[n]o one can dispute this?" From where do you pull such crap?

 

More BS from VOR.

 

Adams offered $85 million towards a new stadium in Houston (he was playing in an "updated" dump--Astrodome). They declined. Tenn accepted the $85 million and a new stadium was built. "The Browns" stadium was 25% privately financed. Irsya's stadium is 15% (100 mil) privately financed (and the Colts actually lost money in '07). Pittsburgh 40% (109 mil). Bears was 34% (200 million). Cardinals 37% (169 mil). Ford Field 49% (211 mil--and the Lions are losing money also). The Giants and the Jets are financing the 1.3 billion for their new stadium. The Hunts will pitch in $125 mil towards the new stadium.

 

That leaves pretty much the Bills, the Rams and Oakland from the group you mentioned. So the "haven't spent a single dime on their stadiums either" is clearly wrong.

 

 

 

A 10% raise (like prior to the 2008 season) is just $5. That's $20 more per a family of 4. Raising them $10 is a $40 increase. Raising them by $30 to even just average league prices is $120. Get the picture? And it still doesn't take into account the lack of luxury box sales.

 

My favorite part. Nice job! Did you have to take off your shoes to help you with all that cipherin'? Anyway, the market clearly shows that the Bills could raise prices. The games are sold out. Season ticket prices are at near record levels.

[VOR]

You should have stopped after "nothing to do with the economy". It had a large part in this scenario.

The economy had NOTHING to do with them opting out of this POS CBA. Whether you choose to believe that fact is immaterial.

 

Ah, let me help you a bit on this one: the players don't "lockout", they are locked out. My my my.

Sorry, my statement required you to take the next logical step, i.e. "the players had no incentive to [reject a CBA that was more favorable to the owners, thus forcing the owners to lock them out]."

 

Snyder bought the stadium for $200 mil and put another 100 mil into it. Since you are the math wizard (see below), I'll let you tally up his total. Kraft is on the hook for at least 325 mil (is that what passes for a "minimal investment" in your house?)---plus the cost of development of the area around the stadium. Snyder has owned his stadium for 5 years longer than Kraft, so how is is that you think he hasn't paid off and Kraft has (oh, you made that up. I see.)?

Snyder has owned the Redskins for 10 years now. Even if you think he's making just $30M a year in pure profit, that's enough to cover the (let's see, carry the one) $300M stadium. And he's seen the value of his team triple. Kraft is in an even better position, having bought his team for $175M, only to see it increase in value over 7 times. And his portion of the stadium was $325M-$150M from the NFL's G-3 fund. Add them to Jones, who is paying for his stadium, and you have 3 owners TOTAL who paid for their own stadiums, as I said.

They have made money, true. Yet Ralph is completely insulated form the economic domwnturn. His fans are, by your estimation, amongst the most destitute in the nation, yet he doesn't have to worry about empty seats, even when he raises ticket prices.

Most NFL teams don't have to worry about empty seats. The only team that does is Jax.

 

More BS from VOR.

 

Adams offered $85 million towards a new stadium in Houston (he was playing in an "updated" dump--Astrodome). They declined. Tenn accepted the $85 million and a new stadium was built. "The Browns" stadium was 25% privately financed. Irsya's stadium is 15% (100 mil) privately financed (and the Colts actually lost money in '07). Pittsburgh 40% (109 mil). Bears was 34% (200 million). Cardinals 37% (169 mil). Ford Field 49% (211 mil--and the Lions are losing money also). The Giants and the Jets are financing the 1.3 billion for their new stadium. The Hunts will pitch in $125 mil towards the new stadium.

 

That leaves pretty much the Bills, the Rams and Oakland from the group you mentioned. So the "haven't spent a single dime on their stadiums either" is clearly wrong.

Fair enough. Some of the teams did spend money on their stadiums. But outside of the Jets and Giants (who are in the largest market in the US, received $300M from the NFL and are sharing the cost between them, not to mention the exorbitant prices they're charging), every owner stuck his taxpayers with well over a $200M bill. Moreover, they raised their ticket prices by 50%, and the taxpayers are still responsible for stadium upkeep. And in Adams' case, he MOVED the team. Try proposing those to Erie County, versus what Ralph asked for, and see how far you get.

 

My favorite part. Nice job! Did you have to take off your shoes to help you with all that cipherin'? Anyway, the market clearly shows that the Bills could raise prices. The games are sold out. Season ticket prices are at near record levels.

As opposed to your cents-less claim that the Bills could just raise prices without any concern? LOL! And you realize that season tickets cost less per game than gameday tickets, and that most years, people can sell even just a couple tickets and payoff most or all of their cost for the seasons, right? Hence the reason you see the stadium filled with Pats fans, or Cowboys fans like in 2007?

 

How much did you spend on Bills tickets this past season? How much more would you be willing to pay per ticket?

[Sisyphean Bills]

The uncapped year doesn't seem like an advantage to either the players or the league. There is no minimum or maximum in team payroll. Players will lose a list of paid benefits and free agency will be more limited. For example, the years of service to become a UFA increases from a minimum of 4 to 6 years. Teams will have additional tags to use on players. Playoff teams have additional restrictions on the number of players they can sign. Guaranteed salary is reallocated into this year. There is no signing bonus deferment when a player is dumped...

[VOR]

The uncapped year doesn't seem like an advantage to either the players or the league. There is no minimum or maximum in team payroll. Players will lose a list of paid benefits and free agency will be more limited. For example, the years of service to become a UFA increases from a minimum of 4 to 6 years. Teams will have additional tags to use on players. Playoff teams have additional restrictions on the number of players they can sign. Guaranteed salary is reallocated into this year. There is no signing bonus deferment when a player is dumped...

The uncapped year can be advantageous to the owners if they can reign-in the big spenders, which I think they'll do. The problem is that the NFLPA has said that if there is a lockout, or if the owners try to reduce the percentage of total revenues, they won't accept a salary cap again. The time to make a stand was last time.

[Mr. WEO]

Snyder has owned the Redskins for 10 years now. Even if you think he's making just $30M a year in pure profit, that's enough to cover the (let's see, carry the one) $300M stadium. And he's seen the value of his team triple. Kraft is in an even better position, having bought his team for $175M, only to see it increase in value over 7 times. And his portion of the stadium was $325M-$150M from the NFL's G-3 fund. Add them to Jones, who is paying for his stadium, and you have 3 owners TOTAL who paid for their own stadiums, as I said.

 

First you say "maybe Snyder hasn't paid off his stadium". Then it's "he's making just $30M a year in pure profit, that's enough to cover the (let's see, carry the one) $300M stadium."

 

A team's value is only relevant when it comes time to sell it. Also, a significant part of the value of the top rated franchises derives from their new stadiums.

 

It is clear that you are not aware that the G-3 is a loan program. It is paid back, in other words--just like all the other loans a team secures in building a new facility. It was available to all teams, including Ralph, since 1999. So, instead of threatening the poor souls who run Erie County with moving his team in the late 90's in order to get them to buff up "his" stadium, Ralph could have had plans for a new stadium in the works. A new stadium could have been built for under $300 mil back then and if Ralph could have gone with a majority private financing plan (he's got tons and can borrow against the value of a debt free team), combined with matching G-3 money, we might have a new stadium. That would have been a huge bonus for the new owner and the fans and would have likely guaranteed that the Bills remain in Buffalo after he boxes.

 

Fair enough. Some of the teams did spend money on their stadiums. But outside of the Jets and Giants (who are in the largest market in the US, received $300M from the NFL and are sharing the cost between them, not to mention the exorbitant prices they're charging), every owner stuck his taxpayers with well over a $200M bill. Moreover, they raised their ticket prices by 50%, and the taxpayers are still responsible for stadium upkeep. And in Adams' case, he MOVED the team. Try proposing those to Erie County, versus what Ralph asked for, and see how far you get.

 

Adams moved the team because Houston wouldn't take his money as part of financing of a new stadium. Nashville took his money. The not so bright folks in Houston then quickly coughed up nearly $200 million for a new stadium for the hapless expansion Texans.

 

Found this on Baseball Prospectus:

 

There is no such thing as a "small market" in football.

One of the vox populi arguments for the NFL is that teams in its smallest cities--Green Bay, Jacksonville, Minneapolis--are competitive. It's a nice thought, but the fact is, where an NFL team plays is essentially irrelevant. With the national-TV contract bringing in so much money, all that's left is to fill a stadium eight days a year. The population base required to sustain an NFL team is probably one-tenth that needed to sustain an MLB franchise, when you consider the limited number of home dates and the greater percentage of seats sold via season tickets.

 

If anything, the NFL's system has led to some real absurdities. One Los Angeles team moved to Oakland, another to St. Louis. The team in Houston moved to Memphis. If "markets" mattered, these things would never happen. Essentially, NFL games are studio events, and where the studios happen to be located isn't important, as long as there are 80,000 interested parties within an hour's drive.

 

As opposed to your cents-less claim that the Bills could just raise prices without any concern? LOL! And you realize that season tickets cost less per game than gameday tickets, and that most years, people can sell even just a couple tickets and payoff most or all of their cost for the seasons, right? Hence the reason you see the stadium filled with Pats fans, or Cowboys fans like in 2007?

 

How much did you spend on Bills tickets this past season? How much more would you be willing to pay per ticket?

 

A senseless claim is that the Bills would have to double their prices to get in line with the league average. They are less than $20 from the average. The Skins are not even in the top 5. All teams did not increase their ticket prices after they opened their new stadiums.

 

More BS.

[Sisyphean Bills]

The uncapped year can be advantageous to the owners if they can reign-in the big spenders, which I think they'll do.

Other than your fervent wish, there is no evidence that some of the owners won't blow out the top and bottom of the salary cap in short order. Teams like the Bills and Packers are just as likely to fall out of the bottom as the Redskins and Cowboys are to blast through the top.

The problem is that the NFLPA has said that if there is a lockout, or if the owners try to reduce the percentage of total revenues, they won't accept a salary cap again. The time to make a stand was last time.

The League pushed the deal hard for labor peace. Rather than a strike or a lockout, they were willing to push forward a deal based on poor economics. The NFLPA and the owners are going to be doing a lot of posturing. But, the NFL will struggle if the NFLPA thinks that the owners deserve no revenue and/or should even support the players with other independent revenue streams. When they say "global economy", they don't mean "everyone except NFL players" and they don't mean that television contracts can continue to rise while media companies hemorrhage money.