K Gun Special

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/1/4/1913932/buffalo-bills-attendance-drops-dramatically-in-2010 Bills had 2nd lowest attendence in AFC in 2009 http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2007/01/01/daily45.html Bills drop 5% while rest of league has record year. Last year they played to 86% capacity. Sounds just like the glory years!! Next time use facts.

Well it doesnt guarantee the Bills stay here but it puts all the pieces in place. Those saying the team has to be sold to the highest bidder are incorrect. Its simply not the case. Ralph may be old cheap and generally a less than stellar owner, BUT he is very concerned about his legacy (part of the reason they never re-sold stadium naming rights), he will not go down as an owner who screwed his beloved Bills.

Wawrow is on the money here. From my dealings there has been a plan in place for a number of years. Thats why Jerry in using all of his journalistic intregrity says "KNOWN" succession plan. Yea its not publicly known jerry because of guys like you. The corp Ralph owns, which owns the Bills, came up with the plan in the late 80's, and it has mechanisms in place to keep the Bills in WNY.

Right. This analysis is terribly flawed. Who was the next Jim Kelly? Who replaced thurman thomas? Oh yea.......... Star players arent so replaceable unless you cherry pick the only example you could come up with. GB If what you and others posit was remotely true, why on any given sunday are there still just as many, actually more, Kelly and TT jerseys than Fitz and Freddy??? arent they just the next line of players on the Bills? shouldnt fans just go out and buy them bc they blindly support the Bills? No it doesnt work that way now does it. Fans do root for teams, but the part that is lost on you is that star players get MORE people to root for teams. You see if teams were all that fans cared about, there would be no real reason to invest in star players because there would be no payoff. Except that there is in real life outside of the narrow ideological view some are taking on this issue. Thats the reason networks market player showdowns...... Brady v Manning is the lead not colts pats. The movie example someone used is probably the most similar. Star Power is king in Hollywood and with the paying public. I

Perhaps, as I have said in other threads, the real issue with the viability of teams liek the Bills is revenue sharing among owners, not necessarily, or only, players salaries. The more there is unshared revenue the more it kills the Bills. Ralph knows this and I think he is out for less player sharing and more team sharing. Its a position he needs to take.

I would think the two guys who voted no the last time would be the most obvious. wilson and brown.

No. The fact remains that drinking a beer does not affect those around you. Drunken people may, just as stupid sober idiots may. It does not, however, have the same impact as smoking. Its easy to ban smoking because of the direct health effects it has on the user and the indirect effects on those around. I agree with some that perhaps there should be an area where it is still permitted. You don't have a right to smoke at a game and the team is well within its discretion to ban it. You are right that alcohol does not have the same direct effects and is a huge moneymaker.

http://hosted2.ap.org/txdam/2328593e932a4d72bf7e9798dc61d072/Article_2011-06-15-FBN-Fan-Behavior/id-1e8fcc0d3673493abdd1cf4c340a62fe Interesting article on fan code of conduct.

This has been talked about ad nauseum. You dont know the profits of all the NFL teams so how can you make that comparison? Apparently its being made by using a $10 million dollar player against the not for profit Packers, who are not out to make a profit, unlike the CEOs mentioned in this thread. The top paid CEO btw had a pretty low base salary, and nearly all of his compensation was bonus related, which is not allowed in the NFL generally. Again, please stop using this comparison it doesnt hold any water. Further, as I've said several times, professional sports are afforded special protections under the law. Law schools teach years worth of classes designed specifically on professional sports. Here is an article by ross tucker explaining how the NFL isnt like your beloved fortune 500 companies. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ross_tucker/05/05/business/index.html The NFL also isnt like other businesses in that they arent capitalist, they share revenues, expenses profits etc. Indeed, in what other business do the owners ask for guaranteed profits? esp where their employees are the product? Most of the team owners are independently wealthy - their sole purpose of owning a franchise isnt to earn mega profits like in the private sector. They want to win. See Mark Cuban, Pegula. Yea no one wants to lose money, no one is either, but its still not like a mega corporation in that regard. The whole out of the country talent thing you discuss is off point. Adding more talent would have no positive effect but actually a negative effect? You are actually trying to say that if there was more talent, less people would watch football? Lets see in soccer they have something called the champions league, full of the best teams, and it does pretty well. The playoffs, arguably have the most talented teams, charge higher ticket prices and have better TV ratings. So no, more talent would not be a bad thing.

Thats a pretty tough sell. Because popular players are usually the best and help teams win and Winning gets people in the seats. There is a reason the NFL markets players the most.

i didn't say on what side i was involved in contracts, so draw any inference you may like. The point is that I do have some basis for my statements other than just how I feel about the issue although you imply the same. You may have never bought one of those jerseys but millions of people have. There is a reason attendance increases when certain teams play on the road. People love the game, but they love the players too.

Right that's why TV markets Brady v Manning etc etc, and teams make a killing on jersey sales and whatnot. Its not just about the game, the players are a huge part. Tell the fans at the Ralph or in Green Bay its just entertainment. Sports are far more than entertainment, especially the NFL. Geez, even the owners arent taking that drastic of a position.

I fully understand the issues and the financials. Ive actually helped draft player contracts in professional sports. I know what im talking about. You and others are basing your arguments in part based on the only not for profit teams 2009 operating income number. The packers goal is not to generate the most profit, unlike some CEO. i mean cmon? The fundamental problem is that people keep comparing professional sports to other industries. Professional sports is not the same. The financials interactions arent the same, the court and legal system do not treat them the same. It really doesn't matter how much a CEO at publicly traded company makes, who is beholden to shareholders, in comparison to the 1st round draft pick of the Raiders. Its beyond silly to compare the same.

I see where you are going. But its not analogous. in the NFL the players are the product and nearly all of the employment costs, so the costs are going to be higher because of that. So take all of Danaher's costs for those items and then maybe you can begin to compare. Start comparing it fairly, find a business where the employees are the product.

The Packers are a NPO, the goal isnt to make as much $$ as possible. For example, """ Volunteers work concessions, with sixty per cent of the proceeds going to local charities. Even the beer is cheaper than at a typical N.F.L. stadium.""" Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2011/01/those-non-profit-packers.html#ixzz1PB7sKFmf The packers are not a good example but i realize they are the only team for which we have google-able info. While you say the players should get less to increase parity, isnt it just as easy to say the owners should share more? make the league more equitable between the haves and have nots. I mean you are arguing that the players should get less of a smaller pie. The players share of revenues has not gone up. The problem for small market teams isnt the players its the unshared revenue that continues to grow.

Thats different from what the other poster said and from what the owners' position has been. They said they are currently suffering from lower revenues. They certainly have the right to negotiate whatever they want. Several TV contracts are up in a few years, and rating haven't been suffering. I think its safe to say they will be getting a serious influx of revenue when those deals go through, kinda like they did when the current deals were signed in 2006.

The league isnt in danger, reducing the players share isnt going to change the viability of the league all that much. Your statement has to be premised on the supposed fact that teams are losing money. There is nothing to support that notion. If you just dont like unions thats fine.

No its not. http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/01/17/instead-of-player-pay-cuts-nfl-needs-more-revenue-sharing/ According to Forbes, their dat ""shows (that) instead of asking the players to take a pay cut, what is really needed is increased revenue-sharing."""

Its a good article. It also states " But thanks to long-term television contracts negotiated before the recession, the NFL's profitability has never been stronger"" The league is very very profitable. The only example they can cite, because they dont the financials of any other team, is the not for profit Packers.

you say that because you are assuming they didnt know about this story before it printed. Do you really think there was a rogue writer at a daily who snuck this story past everyone?

The NFL isnt losing money. There is absolutely nothing anywhere to support the notion that revenues are down. And take a look around, many corporations are making record profits even in these so called hard economic times. In fact they had the highest reported profits ever in 2010 as a whole. Yes some are struggling and the little people are for a number of reasons. But corporations have the $$ to support the NFL.

Its a multi billion dollar deal and they disclosed 5 years of limited financials. So no, its not just posturing.

Ill bet he doesnt. He likely has a source. He only siad they have reached a tentative agreement but clearly states the deal isnt final and the lockout isnt over.

Stated succinctly and correctly.

The issue isnt about what the average American receives as a salary. The average American is not an integral part of a product generating billions of dollars in revenue. This is not a typical employer employee relationship. THe owners cannot simply replace their employees easily or they would have by now. Hence the standoff. You see part of the reason the sides don't agree is because they to gain more benefits BECAUSE their careers are short. And to say they work half the year is absurd. I mean we have threads on here talking about unofficial OTAs. And you know, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to suggest the league is losing money.