Kultarr Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 To take the contrarian side, I don't know if the owners would fear anti-trust rulings that much anymore. They'll point to the XFL, failed CFL in the US, and UFL as competitive models, and the fact that the NFL is doing nothing to stonewall those leagues. Their argument is the NFL is a natural monopoly, because the fans don't care for a watered down professional football league. The strongest legal support for the argument is the XFL, which had strong backing from another "sports" league and a major network contract, yet still failed. I'm guessing that everyone is watching the merchandise ruling that SCOTUS has decided to review. My guess is that the exclusivity deal the league has with its sponsors will pass, as there's ample precedent for it. Not to mention that the owners likely fear a negative net in their annual report a lot more than losing special trust status. Everyone involved (and that includes lenders both civic and private), with any brains left, should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kultarr Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 to be fair, i don't exactly recall what Mr. Wilson said/not said at time the CBA was announced. it's all a little hazy. i do know it didn't take long for him to get on the revenue-sharing pulpit in meeting with Pataki and announcing the long-term future of Bills franchise was in jeopardy. the most recent reference to not having all the information in front of the owners was from Mr. Wilson's recollections from interview this past weekend. he did say the deal was "no good financially" (though he might be speaking in hindsight), and stressed that owners never got a chance to see "the other side of the paper, all the rules and policy-making and so forth," while noting that many of the other owners (except for Brown ... happy now Cinc? ) were quick to raise their hands in approval. the point being: it was a rushed and patchwork process pieced together at the last minute, which i think goes against any suggestion that the owners understood exactly what they were getting themselves into. jw ADDS: "Didn't" Perhaps the owners learned the lesson then. It wasn't to their benefit to rush to pass the preeminent contract of their business in the last hour, literally, and without the details even having been written, much less read. The impression I got was the vote was largely to support the outgoing commish. With the present economic market, a repeat of such a rash decision-making process could ruin them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 There is one benefit of having an "old, senile coot" for an owner: He doesn't really care what anyone thinks about him, so you're generally going to get his honest opinion. He was very frank about the CBA. He gave his honest opinion when most of the rest of the owners were afraid to do so, becasue they might be perceived as "greedy". Of course, Ralph was skewered by ESPN in the most juvenile of ways. But then again, Ralph doesn't care what ESPN thinks. So fast forward to today, where the CBA now looks like mistake. Factor in the current economic situation, and the CBA is completely unworkable going forward. This is "white elephant" in the room: The worst economic downturn since the depression has affected every aspect of sports, including the NFL. It's a fact that even the premiere sport in the country has been (quietly) laying people off. That's also true of individual teams. It's going to make for some very interesting negotiations between the players and the owners, but I think a deal will get done, because both sides understand that a strike would be a disaster for both sides, even for the number one sport in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts