Sisyphean Bills Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 With the spectre of a lock-out looming on the horizon, Dick Jauron is probably safe even if this season reaches epic train wreck status. Does anybody think Ralph is going to pay Dick Jauron to sit home and pay a name coach a huge salary to sit and wait for the lock-out to end?
PromoTheRobot Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 $9M is a lot of money...even to Ralphie. PTR
Tcali Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 $9M is a lot of money...even to Ralphie. PTR Dick Jauron...3 million a year....-I would take any Buffalo area high school coach over him.- Well ..this is the 50th anniversary of The Twilight Zone. By the way--good for Dick. He didn't point a gun at Ralph's head.
BillsVet Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I started wondering if Buffalo were to lose to Cleveland if a move would be made. But back in the 70s and 80s, RW was not on the hook for that kind of money. And it made me realize that nothing will change regardless of how the team fares. He's not taking an 8M hit AND have to hire another coach. It won't happen.
starrymessenger Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Dick Jauron...3 million a year....-I would take any Buffalo area high school coach over him.-Well ..this is the 50th anniversary of The Twilight Zone. By the way--good for Dick. He didn't point a gun at Ralph's head. Yeah we all stick up for the underdog overachiever.
West End Stench Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 He's not taking an 8M hit AND have to hire another coach. It won't happen. People on this board are so clueless sometimes. There is one rule of economics, finance and business that you guys think that Ralph Wilson, a self-made multi-millionaire, is forgetting. Contractual agreements with Dick Jauron all but make the $9 Million owed in salary completely sunk. Sunk costs are never ever considered in future business decisions, whether it is millions of dollars paid for the coach, or the $200 K sunk into stadium maintenance this past summer. Saying that "Ralph won't fire Jauron because he doesn't want to eat the $8 million" is so ignorant that it makes my head spin. Even if Wilson is in fact senile to the fact that he forgot this fundamental rule of thumb (which I doubt), he is still surrounded by a handful of financial advisors who are paid a healthy salary to remind him of elementary finance decisions. I'll agree with some that Jauron might be kept longer than we may like, but I'll put money ($9 million?) down that it's not because he's afraid to eat the sunk cost. The decision to keep him until the seasons end could be for a larger demand-rebound in the off-season if we wait to fire him in the off season, when our record is 0-0, instead of bringing in an unkown after the bye week when we're 2-6.
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 Bristling with arrows like a porcupine, the Buffalo Bills attempt to circle their flaming, wheel-less wagons.
damj Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 With the spectre of a lock-out looming on the horizon, Dick Jauron is probably safe even if this season reaches epic train wreck status. Does anybody think Ralph is going to pay Dick Jauron to sit home and pay a name coach a huge salary to sit and wait for the lock-out to end? You're probably right
Fan in San Diego Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 People on this board are so clueless sometimes. There is one rule of economics, finance and business that you guys think that Ralph Wilson, a self-made multi-millionaire, is forgetting. Contractual agreements with Dick Jauron all but make the $9 Million owed in salary completely sunk. Sunk costs are never ever considered in future business decisions, whether it is millions of dollars paid for the coach, or the $200 K sunk into stadium maintenance this past summer. Saying that "Ralph won't fire Jauron because he doesn't want to eat the $8 million" is so ignorant that it makes my head spin. Even if Wilson is in fact senile to the fact that he forgot this fundamental rule of thumb (which I doubt), he is still surrounded by a handful of financial advisors who are paid a healthy salary to remind him of elementary finance decisions. I'll agree with some that Jauron might be kept longer than we may like, but I'll put money ($9 million?) down that it's not because he's afraid to eat the sunk cost. The decision to keep him until the seasons end could be for a larger demand-rebound in the off-season if we wait to fire him in the off season, when our record is 0-0, instead of bringing in an unkown after the bye week when we're 2-6. Is his salary guaranteed? Maybe it is not!
BillsVet Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 People on this board are so clueless sometimes. There is one rule of economics, finance and business that you guys think that Ralph Wilson, a self-made multi-millionaire, is forgetting. Contractual agreements with Dick Jauron all but make the $9 Million owed in salary completely sunk. Sunk costs are never ever considered in future business decisions, whether it is millions of dollars paid for the coach, or the $200 K sunk into stadium maintenance this past summer. Saying that "Ralph won't fire Jauron because he doesn't want to eat the $8 million" is so ignorant that it makes my head spin. Even if Wilson is in fact senile to the fact that he forgot this fundamental rule of thumb (which I doubt), he is still surrounded by a handful of financial advisors who are paid a healthy salary to remind him of elementary finance decisions. I'll agree with some that Jauron might be kept longer than we may like, but I'll put money ($9 million?) down that it's not because he's afraid to eat the sunk cost. The decision to keep him until the seasons end could be for a larger demand-rebound in the off-season if we wait to fire him in the off season, when our record is 0-0, instead of bringing in an unkown after the bye week when we're 2-6. The greater issue, outside of pure business decisions, is that RW does not like paying people not to work. I'm sure you'll recall the Wade Phillips event, when Wilson claimed WP quit on and was not fired. The former would remove RW's obligation to pay WP. This is a stubborn man, Mr. Wilson. He's accustomed, over a lifetime of business and sports ventures, to getting his way. He's not fired a coach mid-season since the eigthties when HC's earned a fraction of what they used to.
The Senator Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Dick Jauron...3 million a year....-I would take any Buffalo area high school coach over him.-Well ..this is the 50th anniversary of The Twilight Zone. By the way--good for Dick. He didn't point a gun at Ralph's head. You gotta be kidding - $3M/year for Jauron??? That's a shame - for $2.5M Ralph coulda signed... Mike Leach
Doc Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 If the money owed were an issue, Ralph would never have agreed to get rid of a guy like Dockery, who was given a large signing bonus, and fired after just 2 years.
Haven Moses Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Like I tried to say before, the tickets for this year are already pretty much sold. Why take millions off of the bottom line by hiring a new coaching staff now? Jauron will go when they start thinking about next year's ticket sales.
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 If the money owed were an issue, Ralph would never have agreed to get rid of a guy like Dockery, who was given a large signing bonus, and fired after just 2 years. Um, not so fast. Dockery was cut because he was due a roster bonus the next day. Money had everything to do with it. But, yes, there is no way they can "get back" money already spent.
Steve in NY Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Bristling with arrows like a porcupine, the Buffalo Bills attempt to circle their flaming, wheel-less wagons. That has got to be the funniest thing I have ever read on this board!! Man that is classic!!!
The Senator Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Um, not so fast. Dockery was cut because he was due a roster bonus the next day. Money had everything to do with it. But, yes, there is no way they can "get back" money already spent. The roster bonus was, I think, a couple hundred thou - chump change, really - like throwing a deck chair off the Queen Mary when compared to the $$$multi-million$$$ signing bonus that the Bills still have to pay Dockery regardless of whether he plays for us or not ($18 million signing bonus, the third largest in NFL history at his position). So it definitely wasn't about a few hundred thousand dollars roster bonus - it just became apparent that he couldn't keep up in the no-huddle, his overall play seemed to be slipping, and his attitude was worsening. Much like FatBoy Peters, once Dockery got the big bucks - the $18 million - he just didn't seem to give a !@#$ about excelling at football any more. If you don't think so, then why has no one else signed the guy?
CircleTheWagons Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 People on this board are so clueless sometimes. There is one rule of economics, finance and business that you guys think that Ralph Wilson, a self-made multi-millionaire, is forgetting. Contractual agreements with Dick Jauron all but make the $9 Million owed in salary completely sunk. Sunk costs are never ever considered in future business decisions, whether it is millions of dollars paid for the coach, or the $200 K sunk into stadium maintenance this past summer. Saying that "Ralph won't fire Jauron because he doesn't want to eat the $8 million" is so ignorant that it makes my head spin. Even if Wilson is in fact senile to the fact that he forgot this fundamental rule of thumb (which I doubt), he is still surrounded by a handful of financial advisors who are paid a healthy salary to remind him of elementary finance decisions. I'll agree with some that Jauron might be kept longer than we may like, but I'll put money ($9 million?) down that it's not because he's afraid to eat the sunk cost. The decision to keep him until the seasons end could be for a larger demand-rebound in the off-season if we wait to fire him in the off season, when our record is 0-0, instead of bringing in an unkown after the bye week when we're 2-6. Sorry but this is not a sunk cost decision and I don't think your condescending tone really adds much to the conversation. It's a replacement project decision. The cost of the current equipment over its projected lifespan (Jauron) needs to be compared with the ROI of replacing the equipment with newer, more effective equipment. Of course, in sports the return of a new coach is not guaranteed and its value needs to reflect that. If you're going to call everyone idiots, it would be more effective if you knew what you were talking about. Your "one rule of economics" sounds like a guy with a hammer that only sees nails.
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 The roster bonus was , I think, a couple hundred thou - chump change, really - like throwing a deck chair off the Queen Mary when compared to the $$$multi-million$$$ signing bonus that the Bills still have to pay Dockery regardless of whether he plays for us or not ($18 million signing bonus, the third largest in NFL history at his position). So it definitely wasn't about a few hundred thousand dollars roster bonus - it just became apparent that he couldn't keep up in the no-huddle, his overall play seemed to be slipping, and his attitude was worsening. Much like FatBoy Peters, once Dockery got the big bucks - the $18 million - he just didn't seem to give a !@#$ about excelling at football any more. If you don't think so, then why has no one else signed the guy? What the !@#$ are you talking about? Dockery signed with the Redskins the next day. For more money!
The Senator Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 What the !@#$ are you talking about? Dockery signed with the Redskins the next day. For more money! Wow. My bad. Colour me embarrassed. I had him totally confused with the other fat load, Langston Walker. Must still be hung over from Sunday.
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 Wow. My bad. Colour me embarrassed. I had him totally confused with the other fat load, Langston Walker. Must still be hung over from Sunday. No problem.
Recommended Posts