Hplarrm

Perhaps there is a lesson that true stars are those who make the players around them better and allow them to step up and shine at the right moments. To me the difference between Manning and Brady is that Manning is hands down a better QB in virtually every aspect of the game. However, Brady somehow makes the players around him play better and you see the difference in SB wins produced. Jordan was a great player not merely due to his unparalleled physical gifts but because he somehow got his "supporting cast" to play their best and at times above their heads. Rich is better than poor so you wanna be rich. You do want stars. However, while I will be surprised if LeBron never wins a championship I will not be shocked after seeing them brushed aside somewhat easily by a better in team in 7 game (excuse me 6) series. Manning is arguably the best QB ever. However, even with the best GM in the game putting together a great ST game, the best kicker in the game, an outstanding WR, and all Manning's team was clearly not good enough to win even 1 SB. I took getting the best defensive minded HC in the NFL to put some stud players like Freeney and Saunders into a position where they finally one one SB. Stars are necessary but clearly no where near sufficient to win an SB. Even more ironically since under the salary cap its hard to be great everywhere a team likely has to choose where they are going to be weak. The 85 Bears and the Ravens led by Lewis and Trent Dilfer (for gosh sake) indicate that when you look for your start D may be a better place to have your star than O.

1. Teams win championships rather than money or stars. Money helps a lot and though being rich is not the key it is better to be rich than poor. This being noted though the ultimate determining factor in this championship was that the Mavs played like a team and that loaded Heat played like a team where Wade was looking to LeBron, LeBron was looking to Wade, Bosh played a pivotal role but was not too pivotal and in the end the alleged team with it all lost on their home floor. The Bills should learn from this that we need to be about building a team rather than focusing on doing whatever we can to find that one franchise guru. 2. The key to this game in my view was when Dallas's big start Nowitzki simply sucked (I think he was 1 for 11 at one point), the Mavs were up by two. You really need a stud so do not get me wrong, Nowitzki deserved the overall MVP because of his cumulative stats and crunch time during the series when he had a 102 fever he overcame these problems to lead the team in scoring. However, it was the team's acquisition and use of Terry who chucked in 19 while usually stalwart Nowitzki was slumping that made the big difference in this game right now. 3. Owner are best seen and not heard. Perhaps it is just coincidence that the resurgence of the Mavs coincided with flamboyant owner Mark Cuban shutting up. However Cuban's postgame interview remarks were still right on target when he kept pointing to the players as the true stars on this team. The Bills and Mr. Ralph should take from this that the more Mr. Ralph hires actual football professionals and shuts up and gets out of the way the better. Players do come and do go, but the players we have right here and right now are the game. If their side prevails in their lawsuit we have a game. If the owners prevail then the off-field game continues to be the focus and that ain't football.

Agreed that we will not know what the future is until the future happens. Whether the team moves or not is one of those unknowns. Like you, I agree that without regard to what Mr. Ralph wants now, he will be dead so it does not guarantee that his wishes will happen like he wants. There are several methods which he might use to influence the question of what happens next that actually should heighten the chances the team remains here (for example he could deed the Bills to an irrevocable trust which he sets up upon his death with a mission of educating the public and kids about athletic involvement. This method can be used to escape all of what so politicos call the death tax. Further, this new 501c3 could be set-up with whomever he designates as original staff and for whatever reasonable compensation he wants to set them up for life.. or he and his lawyers who know more than I have forgotten about trusts and estates might do something else brilliant I do not have the knowledge to create. Mr. Ralph can try whatever he wants and actually has the resources now to give it a good chance of working whether it is move the team or keep the team here. The additional piece beyond that which your ideas seem to incorrectly dismiss is that the NFL essentially has a veto over the highest bidder so the statement that the team MUST be sold to the highest bidder is just factually wrong. If this point is part of your thinking then OK. If it is not then your point is factually wrong.

I think the point you are missing as well is that the actual sale of a team is not done in a single event, but in real life there are a series of steps where the concept is hatched by an individual. the concept is talked about by several folks to determine interest, the final deal is altered a number of times to satisfy the various stakeholders involved (for example the price is negotiated and whatever extras are offered or thrown into what will eventually be the final deal, and whatever else needs to happen before the final deal is done. To assign a static order to how this must happen is simply incorrect. It is not the case that FIRST the team is sold to the highest bidder and THEN the NFL approves or does not approve. In real life, the NFL will be asked (either behind the scenes in conversations or directly in an exchange of public letters) whether a particular owner is likely to be approved by the NFL in the future or not. An example of this is what happened with Rush Limbaugh as part of a potential bid from a St. Louis led group. There was a conversation between the St. Louis group and Rushbo to determine whether he would be part of the group and how much he would pay for what % interest. The deal was agreed to. In the world as you lay it out, this group would then go blithely ahead and eventually after they bought the team the NFL would then decide whether to approve or disapprove the sale. However, leaving your thinking and moving back to reality, a deal between Limburgher and the St. Louis group was concluded and they began talking about it feeling that RL's participation enhanced the group (he brought cash and the adulation of a small % of white men). However, questions were raised quite quickly by folks whether in fact Rush's involvement was an advantage. There was a little public back and forth about rights, money, etc. The NFLPA (which whether some want to admit it or not is now a partner in the enterprise known as the NFL after the post 80s lockout CBA and arguably is the majority partner after they got well over 50% of the total receipts in the last CBA negotiation) then still looking for revenge after they got Rushbo canned by ESPN after he accused Donovan McNabb of profiting from reverse discrimination made it clear that RLRushguy would not be acceptable as an NFL owner. Rush went away. You are simply wrong if you believe what you said that first the team is sold to the highest bidder and then the NFL decides whether this owner is acceptable or not. The process is far more intermingled than the unitary static scheme you pretend is real.

Actually it is the haves and the have mores.

As you note the truth is more is more. I think that it is a mistake to view this situation as a competition between team owners so that they are making judgments based on the marginal value of gate revenue because the TV money is the same for all. Instead, they are making judgments of the extent to which individualized beneficial actions endanger the far more money that they get from the TV networks. This is why the teams bent over and said thank you sir may I have another when Gene Upshaw dictated to them that the new CBA needed to be based on total revenue and not a designated gross and that the % take for the players salary cap needed to start with a 6 (the on paper agreement dedicated 60.5% of the total take to the salary cap and even though this got diminished in real life the final take still gave well over 50% of the total revenue to the players making them not only a partner in this arrangement but arguably the majority partner. What is wending its way through the courts right now is not so much a fight over a dollar amount, but a fight over whether this actually a partnership and who is the majority partner. The team owners are arguing that this is a traditional labor dispute and that no worker is entitled to see the books of the owner. The players are arguing that they are actually a partner in this enterprise and that the NFL is not treating its partner fairly or like a partner in that they refuse to open the books with their partner and even negotiated a deal where the networks continue to pay money to the NFL even if it is not providing a product. My sense of this whole thing is that though all have an interest in seeing football plated again that in reality the fans, owners, and players all have different interests in that the fans benefit mostly from having football played while the owners and players are operating from their particular interest in wanting to make a buck first and the mutual interest of seeing football played is being lost in this battle between millionaires and billionaires. If the warring parties force me to take sides, players or owners I am reluctant to do this as both sides are fighting over the last marginal dollar when they all can make far more than they deserve as human beings or business people if they would just settle this. As far as it goes (which is not very far as both sides strike me as not serving the customers interests I make several conclusions. 1. If the players position prevails in court as it did in two lower courts then we get football immediately. If the owners position prevails in court then we fall back into a protracted mano a mano fight which will cost us fans football for a chunk of if not all of this season. Do you think this is correct? 2. The owners have a tactical advantage right now as they won on appeal the lower court pro player position ruling and things are headed to a Supreme Court where oddly the ideological perspective is actually on the player side (the remedy requested by the players in Brady et al is a free market approach whereas the team owners want a business approach based on a social compact which would allow them to alter the past agreement to their wishes to a significant though not total extent. However, it appears clear that the narrow majority of the Supremes in case like Citizen United are quite willing to ignore precedent and ideology when it suits the needs of large capital forces. I doubt this approach stands the test of time and that in this case from an ideological standpoint likely one or more of the 5 person conservative majority is going to endorse the principle that the individual cannot be constrained by the powerful and the house of cards which is the current NFL is going to not work without the NFLPA being a partner with the teams to not allow adult individual players sign contracts with the highest bidder. Further in the big picture the team owners did provide capital when only a few people such as Mr. Ralph had the cajones to risk what was a significant investment back in the day. Further, the owners back in the day of Halas were real football men and sportsmen who effectively managed their teams. Today, not only has the NFL proved to be such a financial success that not only have the original owners been paid back beyond anyone's wildest dreams but there are clear management models such as the Packers were have proved successful on and off the field that no one has named anything the team owners provide that cannot be conceptually replaced (the major real world difficulty that any "replacement owner" strategy would bring is that even though the owners do not add critical value to the product and really are an economically inefficient drag on the game, they have a lot of bucks and will resist being ushered out. Its too bad as yes it is true that players come and players go and also one TV network is the same as another, if the owners just went away the game would find ways to be the same without missing a beat. I simply do not see why some folks have such a woody for the owners. If their 39.5% take was split between lowering ticket prices and paying the players more the game would be far better off. 1.

The rules Mr. Ralph and the other owners operate under are quite different than the rules the drunken Irsay operated under when he and Mayflower moved the Colts in the middle of the night or Modell operated under when he moved to satisfy his own personal interests and the NFL got beaten by a bunch of idiot elected officials in Cleveland. The rules are now that a team needs to get approval of 70+% if their fellow owners before a team can be sold or a major move takes place. This happened because the NFL tends to always go where the money is and there is better profit for the teams as a whole and individually UNLESS a team screws its partners to serve their own individual interests. Irsay took a sweetheart deal for himself and forced his partners to live with the embarassment of the midnight move and deal with the upset of the TV networks which saw their planning screwed up by an NFL owner pursuing his own interests rather than that of the rest of the social compact. The situation got really screwed up by Modell pursuing his own individual interests and the NFL was forced (mostly it appears by simply the threat of revocation of their limited anti-trust exemption. The NFL dealt with this by putting in place a rule which made large franchise changes subject to the approval of a greater than supermajority of the partners. The league changed again when the threat of decertification forced the owners to treat the players essentially as a partner. The players ran with this threat and essentially dictated to the NFL terms which awarded the players on paper 60% of the total assets and arguably made them the majority partner. Many folks make a flat-out mistake in assuming that the most important thing in the NFL team owners is their take at the gate. This mistake is understandable is that is how it used to be back in the 20th century. However. here in the 21st century the market is not one of small versus big markets but the lionshare of the money comes from realizing the market is the TV networks and the millions approaching billions they serve. The local gate is important but is small dollars compared to the TV revenue. The franchise being in Buffalo is simply worth more money to the other owners than a franchise in a larger market like LA because getting Mexico City and Toronto (and likely eventually eyeballs in Tokyo and Beijing to join a league with an original AFL team is worth more than splitting a franchise fee with 31 partners. Ask yourself where is the money and where is the market and you will see the relative importance (or unimportance of the big market versus small market thang. It is an issue but really a small one compared to the real money.

We outsiders do not know enough about the specifics of Bills finances to make a clear case one way or the other as to whether it would have made fiscal sense to move the Bills. However, what this means is that those who make a drop-dead assumption that it would make fiscal sense to move are wrong as far as the certainty. On the face of it I think WEO is probably correct that it would not make fiscal sense for the Bills to move in that the fact is that this has never happened and Mr. Ralph's history is that he knows and follows the bottomline. The fact that he has been public about committing to the team being here as long as he was alive provides a pretty good sense that it makes good fiscal sense for the Bills to be here. The question comes as to when Ralph dies will it make good fiscal sense for the Bills to move? I think the answer to this question is going to be determined by the decision-maker at that point and the the decision-makers in the NFL and Ralph historically have tended to go where the money tells them to go. I think the mistake that many make is the assumption that the money will be found by moving the Bills. I think that calculus is probably wrong. Yes the City of Buffalo and even the WNY/S.Ontario region is a small market. However, this view does not take into account that the real NFL market, the one which delivers boatloads of cash is the TV market. Yes, the cash from ticket sales, beer and hot dogs, parking, etc is substantial, but it pales in size to the dollars taken from the true client the TV networks. Particularly as by rule any new owner (even one sold by the estate) must be approved by a vote of 70% of the owners this means that any new owner is not necessarily the deepest pocket (osana bin laden was the example I used to use til Barack Obama got him so maybe a character of similar ill repute to NFL owners like Rush Limbaugh) will not become owners even if they have the deepest pockets or make the highest bid because you are not an eligible owner without massive approval from the other NFL owners. If you look at what is fiscally the best deal for the other NFL owners, though the transfer fee the new owner would pay to move to a larger market would be a large absolute amount, the individual owner splits it with 30 partners. This amount is chump change compared with the losses which come with a move from Buffalo. 1.You have to work hard to replace the 45,000 or so season ticket base. Perhaps you make that up even quickly with the excitement of moving to a new town. However, you have to make it up so you go from money in the bank to potential money in the bank. 2. In addition to having to replace the money in the bank of ticket sales you also have to build a new set of local advertisers and other cash streams you walk away from when you leave WNY. 3. The NFL strategy for expansion seems to be not to focus on the marginal gain for one individual owner of buying the Bills (or even a weaker franchise like Tampa Bay) but instead to get more eyeballs to collect money from the true cash cow the networks. The bad press of for weeks or years on end showing what he NFL did to Buffalo and Bills fans when they left Buffalo is not good advertising at all for expanding into new territory. 4. You might ask whether Toronto will even care about stiffing Buffalo when it has a new shiny franchise? A ppd question, but one answered by the fact it is silly to give away the Buffalo season ticket holders, advertisers, etc when you do not have to. The smart fiscal thing to do is set up a new franchise in Toronto all its own and sell tickets to its huge population base AND keep the Bills franchise. The area maintains separate Maple Leafs and Sabres franchises and though there are significant differences (stadium size and number of games for example between the two sports, it seems viable to keep both. In fact, the smart fiscal move for the Bills is to get taxpayers to build a new smaller stadium and simply out of scarcity of tickets the Bills fill the new stadium and make the fans even more ravenous. For these and several other reasons it probably makes little fiscal sense to move the Bills.

Welcome to the Wall. I agree that Mr. Ralph does not deserve booing. He has been essential to there simply being NFL football in Buffalo. This being acknowledged, I hope that your correct disdain for the catcalls does not extend to failing to also acknowledge Mr. Ralph's imperfections as an owner. Though I would strongly disagree with anyone who tries to label him cheap, I also lay the lionshare of he Bills problems on stupid actions taken by the team owner and demonstrably by him alone creating many of the failures folks routinely complain about. For example, only he could make a handshake deal with Jimbo to reward him in his next FA contract which never occurred. It was this poor football judgment that Jimbo had something left which has triggered a decade+ long series of miscues as the Bills have made killer mistake after killer mistake in the fruitless and desperate search for the next Jimbo. Miscues such as the Billy Joe Hobert adventure, the stupid misallocation of QB funds to both RJ and DF, the stupid extension and then needed cut of Bledsoe are examples of problems which stem from the initial Mr. Ralph miscue or if it was not him he should have known about them. In addition, Mr. Ralph has to bear primary responsibility for the decisions to fire Polian, for the mismanaged relationship with Butler and the forced rush to hire TD which ultimately led to his firing. It simply strikes me as nonsensical that folks chose to blame either Jauron, Marv or whomever for our current failings when though they are certainly to blame for their 2, 4 or limited number of year bad decisions, they cannot be blamed for the full decade plus of playoffless failures. Only Mr. Ralph had his hands on the throttle for the whole period. Finally, while you are correct that all the glorious accomplishments of the Bills must be acknowledged as Mr. Ralph owned outcomes. Likewise he cannot escape accountability for making the decision to hire Marv, Jauron, TD or whomever one wants to blame. Mr. Ralph is a mixed bag anyway you cut it.

I agree that the teams (and the mostly men who have owned them) are the backbone of the history of the NFL. No problem with us having a common vision of the past. What I am saying is the current owners do not add much that cannot be replaced to the pro football business. In that past history which the teams and the men who owned them were the backbone of, the owners added capital when other sources where not as smart or willing as folks like Mr. Ralph to risk their capital. In addition, folks like George Halas really understood the game and managed their teams. However, in great part due to the great work of these NFL innovators and risk takers, it is now the case that there is no where near the risk of investing in the near money printing press of pro football. Thus, the owners have enjoyed the fact that far larger sources of capital in the form of the TV networks are now willing and able to provide billions of dollars for the game. In addition, a professional cadre of functionaries, managers, and a history of operations have been created such that is now clear seeing ownership models such as the one employed by the Green Bay Packers that a successful economically and on the field team can be managed. One other huge demographic impact of the choices made by the team owners is that rather than take the route used by other sports like MLB and the NHL. the NFL pulled off he neat subsidy of getting colleges (many of which are funded by our taxes) do the training and development of their athletes). These two other national sports leagues have to sign teens to speculative contracts which market forces bid up. The NFL not only has created a space where the colleges spend all the money needed to train prospects, but also the NFL and NFLPA collude to restrict even adults of 18 to 21 from signing contracts. The courts even allow this abridgement of the rights of individual because the players are represented by the NFLPA. What strikes me as really outrageous about this infringement on the rights of adults is that the college players whose rights are blithely taken away are not even voting members of the NFLPA. Some who foolishly view this merely as a fight between a labor union and the owners are not thinking this through to recognize that it is due the partnership between the team owners and the NFLPA that the US courts have allowed the rights of individuals to be ignored. There are some who maintain that the decert move is just a tactic when actually even before decert the rights of individuals to negotiate with whomever they can make a deal with or do something radical like live wherever they want. One reason I do not begrudge the high salaries players command (they have the desirable physical talent the market wants and you and I do not) is that actually NFL athletes are denied basic rights you and I take for granted if they can make the deal with an employer. Make no mistake about it there is no need to feel sorry for an NFL player, they make a bunch of money and many of them are idiots, but also understand that if one insists on making an argument about this based on your principles, one of the principles given up here is the American right to live wherever you can afford to live. But back to the big picture the teams and the men who owned them are the backbone of the league not because of the personalities of the owners but merely because of the history. However, if the players formed the NewFL and the players in it were the same players playing in the NFL now and in the same towns. I would tune into the game with the Tom Brady led NE Bats against the Ryan Fitzpatrick led Buffalo Thrills with the same feelings I have when the Bills play the Pats even if Mr. Ralph and Bob Kraft are playing down the road with UB Bulls level players vs. BC level players. Perhaps you tune into the game because of the owners, or because of the stadiums, or because of the history (the history would be the thing I miss the most but I could not care less whether Mr. Ralph, Pegula, the City of Buffalo or whoever owns the team.

Who do you think is advocating a free market approach here and who do you think prefers a more socialist approach based on a compact of a group. It is the players who if they win the lawsuit the game continues as it is for us fans. If the owners instead prevail in the court case it means a truncated season if not a couple of years where the action is in the courts and not on the field. You do understand this don't you? As a by-product of the lockout, individual players in Brady et al have filed suit and demanded that the NFL team owners use a free market approach and sign individual personal services contracts. One of the faults I find with the NFLPA is that they have colluded with the team owners to completely abridge the rights of individual players to live where they choose to live and instead they are forced by the NFL draft to negotiate with one and only one team. For those who want to uphold individual rights over forced negotiations created by the team owners simply begging the NFLPA to come back after the last lockout if you are worried about individuals being told what to do then opposing the owners is where you should be.

I think the issue here is not one of either side being right or wrong (from my view both hold their own interests as their primary goal and this means that the fans interests which are related to but not the same as the team owners or players interests are dealt with as by-product by both players and owners). The debate here is actually one about economic efficiency and the team owners were essential in the old days as a source of capital and for management of the team, However, times have changed and there are ample and better sources of capital out there and also better systems for managing the team, The team owners are an economic drag on the product. It won't happen this way because the players will take 100% of the receipts if they can, but I think a far better world would be if the owners 39.5% of the total receipts were divided between the players and the fans in lower ticket prices. The owners really add very little to the quality of the product and the main reason why they get anything is that they used to own it all and its hard to confiscate wealth from rich people in this society. The good news for the fans and the players is that the owners appear to have once again overplayed their hand. Just as the owners used tactical advantage to kick the butt of the old AFL-CIO style NFLPA led by Ed Garvey, they allowed for the talented tenth of players led by Gene Upshaw to sell the decert strategy. Incredibly rather than compete in a free market, the owners agreed to a CBA which established the players as their partners. The last CBA awarded the players with the majority of total assets making them the majority partner. This current decert has opened the way for Beady et al. to sue the owners demanding a real free market. I doubt the players will win that but nay see a system which eliminate the economic drag of the owners. It was the owners after all who recognized their right to opt out and they made this bed. So if the NFLPA shows the same cajones it showed when it first decerted, they could bring about a situation where we get replacement owners. I doubt the NFLPA does this because they want to weaken the owners but not kill them because they sign the checks. However, if the owners went away the game could easily continue on its merry way and the players and fans can split the owners share without much loss to the game.

While I do not subscribe to the argument style of others that claims you totally do not understand the nature of this business, I think that your (and my since none of us has perfect knowledge of all this stuff) thinking would profit from looking at this in a couple of different ways: 1. What selling a service or product generally is about is the market. The customer is always right business truism comes from understanding and applying this concept. One mistake I think many make in analyzing this is that they seem to assume that the customer is the individual municipal market. It is true this used to be the case and it is true that the local market is a significant income center. However, a key to understanding this business situation from my perspective is to recognize that the real customer by far are the TV networks and the 100s of millions of eyeballs that the networks can sell commercials to see. Folks are correct that the NFL is always about the cash. The cash produced by ticket sales, advertising, parking, stadium beer etc simply pales next to the billions produced by the networks. The town of Buffalo and regional affiliations is a small market compared to NYC or LA. However, the market that produces the money is all the eyeballs nationwide (and based on the NFLs plans- worldwide. The Buffalo Bills provide two assets to selling to the real customers A. They are an original AFC team and as long as we are around then new eyeballs in Mexico City, Toronto. Tokyo, Beijing or wherever are joining into the NFL tradition. The relatively small marginal benefits of setting up a new franchise in even a huge market like LA pales in comparison to the advantages of letting new eyeballs be part of the NFL tradition. New franchise fees amount to 1/31st of a few million $. Expanding into new eyeballs of consumers is billions of dollars. If folks want to do real analysis of what is going on here they need to get over this small market 20th century thinking. B. What the league is actually now making money hand over fist is telling a story. Bills fans are so rabid they help tell and exciting story. Quite frankly, when the Bills build their new stadium, it works fine for the real customers of the Bills, the TV networks if the attendance size of the new stadium is at most 60,000 and likely 50K or maybe even 40. A stadium this size would leave money on the table as we already have a 45.000 season ticket base and can sale out most games with our 70+ plus thousand seat arena. However, though a 50K arena would not even serve all the demands of the local fan base it would guarantee scarcity and sellouts in perpetuity. The rabid fans led by Elvis and post commercial shots of Niagara Falls as though it was downtown would be great storytelling for the several million NFL fans who are the real market and the real source of network income which makes local small market sales look like chump change. In fact, the smaller stadium makes the loss of the Northern ON market to the new NFL team easily dealt with and invigorates the new Buffalo/Toronto football rivalry. One need only add onto this intelligent business approach that America is based on checks and balances and democratic freedom. The current NFL structure and its long reliance on a social compact rather than a free market as a means of doing business will simply force the courts to rule in favor of the individual like the plaintiffs in Brady et al over the more socialistic current NFL proposal. Get ready for the NewFL because it is coming.

It is true for all of us that no one gets out of here alive. Are the players permanent? No. Are the owners permanent? No. Why would anyone claim they are and an argument which depends on either claim is foolish. The thing of this is that given the interest levels which a significant number of fans like you and me have that we are still willing to take time to post and read about this even during a work stoppage and the TV nets are queued up to ship billions for the product, any work stoppage starts out being stupid. The NFL amd NFLPA doing anything but reaching a cooperative agreement is stupid. On its face right now, if the NFLPA position prevails we get the product and the money is shipped to the owners and players to be split under an agreed upon CBA. If the owners prevail there is no agreement and no product. I simply see little justification for support of the owners position unless folks are less interested in seeing the product than on increasing the team owners take at the cost of providing the game to you and me. For me both sides are replaceable. However, I have yet to see anyone tell me: 1. They would pay their nickels to see the replaceable owners don shoulder pads. I will pay my nickels to see the current players and would pay fewer nickels for lesser players or if the current players formed their own league which competed with and imitated the NFL 2. That the team owners add any value to the product that cannot be reasonably replaced such as capital or management. Do you view things differently on these two points? If so what do you see as the great value team owners give the product which cannot be replaced? Would you want to watch lesser players when better players are available?

I think Warner is wrong. What do the team owners bring or add to the pro football product? It used to be that businessmen like Mr. Ralph were the only ones with either capital or the cajones to risk there money. They proved their point and were richly compensated for their original risk, In fact the last few years after the players forced the owners to essentially accept them as partners with the CBA forced upon the owners after the last lockout has brought them even more money. Warner us right that the players got a great deal in the last negotiation, they essentially not only were recognized as partners but arguably the majority partners as the deal gave them a majority of the total receipts. The owners caved rather than compete against each other in a free market. By locking out the players and being sued by Brady et al. the owners have allowed a lawsuit by individuals asserting that they be allowed to compete in the free market for personal service contracts. In general, I support free market approaches like this rather than the social compact of the team owners. I think by holding the free market line the players can force a reconfiguration of pro football which essentially cuts out the economic inefficiency and drag of the owners. Not only are their ample sources of capital from the networks, other rich investors (even lowly Buffalo has three options with the assets Pegula, Golisano, or the Jacobs family), municipal areas following the Packers model, perhaps the players themselves pooling assets or something else I have not thought of. The Packers model also demonstrates that the management of the team needed and provided by the Halas's, Mara's and Rooneys can also be replaced. I think the situation is clear, if the players were to win their lawsuit there is pro football again. If the owners win their lawsuit there is a lockout and labor struggle. How can any fan be against there being football beside some weird doctrinal beliefs which trumps their desire for the game. I think the players are moving slowly as they rather would not kill the teams writing them big checks. However, the team owners need to be replaced as they are not the product the players are the game.

No. To draw a conclusion simply based on stats whether you limit yourself to SB wins or you limit yourself to numeric comparisons like QB ratings (or some number which makes this up) are both stupid. An argument which focuses merely upon SB win success (where Brady clearly outshines Manning) or on raw offensive stats (be it OR merely on offensive numbers produced (Manning clearly outshines Brady if one attempts to reduce the comparison down to TDs throw, yardage wracked up or some other single statistical or combo like QB rating. It strikes me that a far better estimation is general QB prowess might be found in judging how the other player would be if he was at the helm of the opponents team. My guess is that Indy with Brady would still be good. NE with Manning however would likely make 1 SB at best.

This really comes off to me as a comparison of these two as to what would happen if reality were different. While theoretically considerable this approach goes off the track pretty quickly. The ultimate argument for Brady is simply one of reality that when one stacks up SB appearances and wins there is no comparison between the two that in reality Brady has been a far more successful QB than Manning. Case closed end of story for those rooted in reality. Yet, part of the fun of this game is the fantasy elements of football (which lends itself to fantasy sports which is in essence a fantasy about a fantasy). My sense of this comparison in that regard is the fantasy question of how one would guess or propose the other would do if he QB'ed the others team. My GUESS would be that Indy would be more productive with Brady as QB than the Pats would be if Manning were QB. I say this because I think Indy is a better built team than I think the Pats are. I have more confidence that Brady would do what is necessary to win and produce with whatever squad he is given while Manning would need a team built to his amazing skills. The Pats would likely need to be a whole different team (a bit more stability from the deep threats at WR for example) for Manning to do well with it. Ironically, I think the rate limiting factor here is that Manning is so talented one is forced to build the team around his skills while Brady's talent is that he is able to adapt under Belicheats direction he does whatever is necessary on each play. I think the real important factor here is Brady is just the right talent for BB's team and approach. As was the case in Indy, in order to win (or even make the SB) one needs a solid OL, WR consistency, the best defensive coach in football, the best kicker in the game, and a great GM who does magic with ST building. In the end, I think Brady could win the SB with a team built for Bledsoe and a good chunk of luck. I think Manning requires a team built for his amazing talents so if I have to pick a QB knowing that reality says several dozen things will have to happen after I get my QB and I cannot know for sure what they will be I go with Brady as my choice. He gives me a better chance to win with whatever reality allows me to have.

And it was this agreed upon difference which was huge because when the players first threatened decert after they got their butts kicked in the mid-80s lockout, this got the players led by their talented tenth and Gene Upshaw to threaten to force the NFL into a free market where they had no union partners and without these co-conspirators the courts would not allow restraints of free trade like the draft. It was the NFL team owners who begged the NFLPA to come back to the table so that the NFL would be allowed to restrain participation by individuals in free trade. This co-operation between the NFL and the NFLPA resulted in a draft still being held which unlike almost all the industries mentioned restricts an individual to negotiate with one and only one team (which drafted the player and requires him to live in a particular city without regard to what the individual prefers). Even more outrageous to my sense of principle, the NFL and NFLPAS have conspired to prevent adults from signing contracts or playing in the NFL. If you are 16 and a good baseball player you can submit yourself to the MLB draft. If you are 16 and a minor you can still sign with parental consent. If you are 18 you can sign without consent as you are an adult. However if you are 20 and even talented enough to play in the NFL the NFL and NFLPA (and the courts allow under the limited antitrust exemption) a conspiracy to restrain trade against this adult and you cannot sign a contract. One aspect of the NFLPA decertifying itself is that the restraint of trade known as the draft is going to continue on without a recognized bargaining agent for the players. The NFL is claiming the decert is a sham and by reversing the lower court ruling the courts are essentially ordering the NFLPA to represent the players (it claims not to want to represent) and even worse it is being ordered to restrain trade of potential draftees who have no say or representation even under the best conditions. The reversal is stupid in terms of forcing representation when the representing parties do not want to be recognized as a bargaining agent. It actually is completely outrageous when this forced representation is used as a figleaf to restrict the rights of individuals. Perhaps this will stand if the Supreme Court like the 8th Circuit Appeals court is willing to reject the finding of fact in the lower court and stand conservative principles on its head and force the players to have a union and also force the union to give away the rights of non-member draftees to negotiate with whom and where they want to negotiate but as best as I can tell the appeals court has come down firmly on the side of the Golden Rule, he who has the gold rules. The BFLPA is playing a dangerous game. A purely doctrinal free trade view would fully embrace the decert free trade stance Smith is talking up here. However, Smith and the NFLPA realize that in this case the free market though fair to the individual does not produce the most profit and highest economic efficiency. A socially based compact does that with greater profit and greater economic efficiency than a free market approach. However, it just seems harsh and stupid if the courts like the appeals court has done is going to insist that the NFLPA be a negotiating union even when it does not want to be. Even further, if the Supreme Court chooses to merely impose the last owner offer on the NFLPA and makes the players play under that order it would be ordering adults to live in a world of restrained trade which not only do they have no voice in the NFLPA until they sign but the NFLPA does not want to be their voice anyway. In this case siding with the owners is both anti-the game (if the players win we play if the owners win we lockout) but it also runs against free trade by restraining college players.

Yes, the NFL is an American sport but just as basketball the way it was invented and the way we play it is an American sport where now some its best players are folks named Nowitzski or Genobili from other countries so to that even though the current NFL is an American sport, American developed football is bigger than the NFL (if not simply ask the NCAA or watch the TV show Friday Night Lights. I am convinced that the best thing for American football right now is to in fact see the game grow beyond the inefficient, money grubbing and ironically social compact based NFL to see creation of an entity I call the NewFL which is actually managed by the players (and the talented tenth or lead them) on the free market principles which have made the American economy become a world leader. The NFL team owners ironically have laid out the path to actually accomplishing this task. The team owners overplayed their hand and have had the threat of a free market caused by decertification of the NFLPA to force them into accepting a CBA in the late 80s which made workers their partners and then have a renewed CBA shoved down their throats in the last negotiation. The owners have locked out the players which by rule allows them to go to the courts. It will be interesting to see if our supposedly leaning conservative courts allow the individual rights of athletes to be abridged by the draft without the figleaf of participation by the NFLPA. I think American football is an entertaining display of team sports which is good enough to be valued by humans around the world. I am amazed you have such little faith in the game of football you seem afraid to share it with others. My sense is that the owners WERE necessary to get the game off the ground when men like Mr. Ralph were willing to take a fiscal risk and even curmudgeons like Halas were also true sportsmen. However, there are ample sources of capital in today's economy and the Green Bay Packers have demonstrated that management can be famed out and administrated properly without the cult of personality utilized by Halas, the mara and the Rooneys who were essential to the founding of the game. The current team owners are an economic inefficiency who appear set on forfeiting their remaining asset through silliness like the current lockout.

There is no doubt that trying to manage an NFL team in Toronto would be a challenge and in fact would be a big one. However, the difference between the entreprenuer and the normal person is that some folks love and yearn for the risk and danger of a challenge. Though I am quite certain that you and others are correct about many of these challenges, I am also quite sure that there are individuals and businesses with a lot of capital available who would relish taking on this challenge. In particular the fact that one of these entities is Rogers cable which not only has the resources but the avowed interest and the sometimes seemingly idiotic use of capital to explore this route seems to me to make this move a pretty viable possibility. Beyond this potential into the details, I think that many of the issues you raise actually miss what is going on out there in terms of pursuing profit through this action. For example, I think you and many others place far too much attention to the stadium and crowd interest issues. I think it is a mistake that many seem to calculate that this is the market. Used to be the primary marker but not anymore. TV is the market. The money and profit is produced not by selling tickets to folks like you and me to attend the games and buy beer and programs. The real market are the eyeballs watching the game. The real money comes from advertisers looking to give the team owners cash so they can advertise to these eyeballs. My guess is a new stadium will be built. The city fathers and mothers will support this simply because it will be a chance to revitalize some brownfield area. The new stadium will likely be notable most because is is actually so small and creates new intimacy for the fans. The small size can be useful to create scarcity in the market place. The new stadium would actually be designed to serve the interests of the true cash cow and true audience, TV watchers. The actual game attendees do play an important role but in essence they are a great prop for storytelling to the true cash cow TV watchers. My guess is that Rogers is carefully looking at the metrics of the game. However, the number of attendees is a secondary metric to how many Toronto and Canadian eyeballs were pulled to watch car, beer and soap ads as part of the game. I think you also make a mistake in weighing the impact on the Buffalo vs Toronto fan base. In the soon to be next NFL the primary value that the Bills will provide is that they are an original AFL team which when eyeballs from Mexico City, Tokyo, Toronto or even Beijing get signed on they are joining the tradition of the old NFL and teams like the Buffalo Bills. My GUESS is that the Ralph gets retired as a stadium and that the new stadium may hold as few as 50,000 fans creating a scarcity which allows for higher ticket prices to fewer people allowing the same profit but needing even fewer employees. Any theory like the one you lay out is not very convincing because it does not describe what the new economic reality will be but instead dwells in shortcomings in the old market. Fans will still be important as they are now in the old market. However their importance will stem from them being extras to help tell compelling stories to the true market of TV watchers. They will be secondary as a true cash generator and ultimately you will be correct that the NFL invariably goes where the cash is.

I actually hope otherwise thar the NFLPA shows the same boldness they showed when they first played tthe decert card which led the the NFL to run kicking and screaming for the players to reunionize in order to allow the socialism of the modern NFL to work. I hope they show the same boldmess when Gene Upshaw dictated to the owners that the salary cap was going to be determined by the total receipts and the amount needed to start with a 6. The owners are simply a cost addition adding 39.5% to the cost of the product when they can easily be replaced by the true sources of capital, the TV nets and their team management can be replaced by hiring football professionals as the Packers did. If 20% of the take went to the players and 20% lowered ticket prices the product and the fans would be much better. Too bad for the owners but the original investors have been richly rewarded and they made their own choice to re-open the deal and to deny you and me the NFL right now. I simply do not understand what you think the owners bring to the gasme which cannot be replaced and make the economic product more efficient' The owners have okace their investment at risk and why you and other feel they have an entitlement to our money when they bring little to the game which cannot be replaced I simply do not see.

It depends upon my specific product as patents laws which apply differ from product to product, For example if my product was a drug and my patent held for me to be the sole producer of my product for a reasonable time until I made back my initial huge investment in development in testing I am quite happy to have made my money back and then some and understand fully that the benefit to society comes from having anybody produce cheaper generics. If my product is a work of art like a song such as Happy Birthday I am confortable with it going into general use and feel no right or need to profit everytime someone sings it at a birthday party. I do not know about the specific product of the rubber band but personally I feel no need to profit from it in perpetuity because I feel that there is a societal answer to the question of how much is too much. If I am the nFLPA I realize that we players are the product and that people are happy to pay to see us and that quite frankly no one wants to pay to see Mr. Ralph and Al Davis in shoulder pads (though this would be humorous to see once. The owners really provide little added value to the game which cannot be easily replaced. The owners had a good ride so personally I am happy to see Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder go away. I feel little moral need to protect their investment particularly after they made the stupid move of lockout the players and denying me and others football when they did not have to. On the other hand do you have some case to make for why anyone would be sympathetic to the owners?

oOPS ACCIDENTALLY SENT- CONTINUING ON: 1. I think neither the players nor the owners have us fans interests at heart. I would be happy to pay my dollars to see the best athletes compete with each other playing the game I love which would almost certainly resemble the NFL game with some health additions which compensate players more fully for wrecking their bodies or minds. I simply so not see why you have such a woody for he current NFL owners. As best as I cn see they simply add a cost as they demand 39.5% of the revenue while adding little that cannot be replaced. They were neede before when only rich guys like Mr. Ralph would put up capital. Today with a proven product the actual capitl is provided by the TV networks. Its been a nice ride with Mr. Ralph, but they have been paid back amply for their initial investments and its hard to feel bad about any losses they would take if decert forced them to negotiate in s free market with individual players as they were the ones who made the business decision to lockout and open themselves up to lawsuit, The challenge for the NFLPA right now is that we need to see an economic model created which rewards the individul and not simply the socialist compact which is today's NFL. The NFLPA benefits most from fostering a free market where new sources of capital sucn as the TV networks, municipalities raising money by selling shares to individuals or eveb through taxpayer levys, or through another set of new rich folk (Pegula, Golisano, Jacobs), the players themselves using their cash to leverage bank loans, or something else create a NewFL which creates a bidding war for the players and then increases NFLPA membership with NewFL players, the remaining BFL players and whatever else gets developed. Green Bay has shown that a municipal based capital production and management system can work. I simply do not see the current NFL team owners or the players as bein ENTITLED to some particular outcone and I think a free market system is probably the best thing to base the NewFL on. The team owners did fine way back when and unless they made bad business moves such as incurring indebtedness and then calling for renegotiation of the contract ealier than they had to created any problems they end up with. As a fam I want football. If the lower court ruling won by the players stood we fans would have football. If the owners position prevails the lockout continurs. Unless Nanker, Mr. Weo or others are the children of Mr. Ralph I see no justification for supporting the current owners as they are stopping us from having football this year. As for the future they seem to deliver little beside raising the costs. A new deal which was organized through the NFLPA which gave half the owners 40% to the players and half to the fans to reduct ticket prices would be great from my perspective.

I think wgat you say is almost on target. I think many of the views you lay out simply need to be applied more broadly and then they point to a more fair outcome. For example, I agr3ee with you that the players are NOT entitled to a specific financial outcome! The question is WHY ARE THE NFL TEAM OWNERS ENTITLED TO SOME SPECIFIC FINANCIAL OUTCOME?