So Should Ralph be happy?

[plenzmd1]

So, the special master rules for the union, and says the $220 million still needs to be distributed to the lower revenue clubs..two questions?

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750

 

1) Are the Bills one of the lower revenue clubs who received money from this program? I am not so sure they are. I know not only we, but the rest of the nation would think so..but if John or Tim could clarify that would be great.

 

2) If we are..is Ralph happy about it? This is a union win, and the thought is the money will go to players salaries, keeping some of the lower revenue teams spending even without a floor. But from what I can tell those clubs have zero obligation to spend on players salaries, so prolly just going into the pockets of the owners anyway...so Ralph getting money from Jerry, Danny and Kraft to pay for Dicks salary ..he should be happy no??

[Doc]

So, the special master rules for the union, and says the $220 million still needs to be distributed to the lower revenue clubs..two questions?

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750

 

1) Are the Bills one of the lower revenue clubs who received money from this program? I am not so sure they are. I know not only we, but the rest of the nation would think so..but if John or Tim could clarify that would be great.

 

2) If we are..is Ralph happy about it? This is a union win, and the thought is the money will go to players salaries, keeping some of the lower revenue teams spending even without a floor. But from what I can tell those clubs have zero obligation to spend on players salaries, so prolly just going into the pockets of the owners anyway...so Ralph getting money from Jerry, Danny and Kraft to pay for Dicks salary ..he should be happy no??

Why not? Those chuckheads were all to willing to give the players a 5% raise back in 2006.

[GrudginglyPessimistic]

So, the special master rules for the union, and says the $220 million still needs to be distributed to the lower revenue clubs..two questions?

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750

 

1) Are the Bills one of the lower revenue clubs who received money from this program? I am not so sure they are. I know not only we, but the rest of the nation would think so..but if John or Tim could clarify that would be great.

 

2) If we are..is Ralph happy about it? This is a union win, and the thought is the money will go to players salaries, keeping some of the lower revenue teams spending even without a floor. But from what I can tell those clubs have zero obligation to spend on players salaries, so prolly just going into the pockets of the owners anyway...so Ralph getting money from Jerry, Danny and Kraft to pay for Dicks salary ..he should be happy no??

Mr. Ralph demonstrated that with is lonely vote (he had Cincy with him) that he seems to believe in an old model of ownership where the individual owner was a pretend gunslinger pretending that the NFL was a collection of individual capitalists. The players union forced an end to this fiction by threatening to decertify itself after the 80s lockout.

 

The NFL owners ran kicking and screaming to the social compact of the CBA rather than have actual capitalistic competition, The individual owner simply made more money as a socialist so they admitted the players were in fact a partner.

 

In the latest CBA, the NFLPA dictated that the players receive 60+% of the total gross receipts and arguably was not just a partner but the majority partner.

 

Mr. Ralph voted against a deal that paid him more money and for the illusion of old ownership. My guess is that his feelings on this one will not be motivated by a simple judgment about what is the best fiscal deal. However, how he feels does not matter in the new world.

[PaattMaann]

yes the bills are certainly one of the 8-12 teams who draw from that revenue sharing...this is GREAT news for the bills, for the time being

[dogbyte]

RW voted no because he did not understand the revenue sharing rules. He said that he was confused about how the cap was created but not because he knew all this stuff now. Also the 60% now included the other revenues like the luxury boxes and concession, parking and others. But the cost of building new stadiums that was built with private funds was not exempt but the money given to teams by local city and state was now added to the revenue calculations for cap purposes. These revenues now drove the cap ceiling up to where it is now. RW felt that the cap was going up and he was getting no extra revenue to address these new costs.

[Steely Dan]

yes the bills are certainly one of the 8-12 teams who draw from that revenue sharing...this is GREAT news for the bills, for the time being

 

Yep, now we have to wait and see if the JJ's of the NFL are powerful enough to override the revenue sharing idea in the new CBA. It sounds like the players would be dead set against that and that's very cool. JMO

[billsfreak]

Replying to So Should Ralph Ralph should be happy?

 

Should Should you you take take English lessons lessons?

 

More money for Ralphie's pockets, would be surprising if he put any of it towards winning.

[plenzmd1]

Replying to So Should Ralph Ralph should be happy?

 

Should Should you you take take English lessons lessons?

 

More money for Ralphie's pockets, would be surprising if he put any of it towards winning.

 

Its fixed now

 

Still not so sure Bills get money from this. By Forbes count, looks like Bills 25th in revenue, but 12th in operation income. Boy, sure does help to have low debt service eh? So wonder if the formula is based on revenue or profit?

[ntjacks79]

Its fixed now

 

Still not so sure Bills get money from this. By Forbes count, looks like Bills 25th in revenue, but 12th in operation income. Boy, sure does help to have low debt service eh? So wonder if the formula is based on revenue or profit?

12th in Operation Income and yet we're giving away one home game per year to Toronto, and allowing the Bills to in essence play 9 road games, because Buffalo is supposedly too small a market to generate any revenue. Brilliant, as usual, Mr. Brandon.

[Mr. WEO]

Why not? Those chuckheads were all to willing to give the players a 5% raise back in 2006.

The salary cap was raised. It only matters if all teams spend to the (actual) cap. If they don't, there is no "5% raise".

 

Do you really believe every player got a 5% increase in their current contract?

 

The CBA didn't hurt Ralph at all--he simply decided not to spend the "5%"

[Doc]

The salary cap was raised. It only matters if all teams spend to the (actual) cap. If they don't, there is no "5% raise".

 

Do you really believe every player got a 5% increase in their current contract?

 

The CBA didn't hurt Ralph at all--he simply decided not to spend the "5%"

No owners truly got "hurt" by the CBA. They continued to make tens of millions in profits annually. Yet they opted-out of it. Wonder why?

[DarthICE]

LMAO are you serious? If they gave his cheap ass a dollar he would be happy. Hell yeah he is giddy, but you can bet we are one of the lowest spending teams in FA this year, count on it.

[SuperKillerRobots]

So, the special master rules for the union, and says the $220 million still needs to be distributed to the lower revenue clubs..two questions?

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750

 

1) Are the Bills one of the lower revenue clubs who received money from this program? I am not so sure they are. I know not only we, but the rest of the nation would think so..but if John or Tim could clarify that would be great.

 

2) If we are..is Ralph happy about it? This is a union win, and the thought is the money will go to players salaries, keeping some of the lower revenue teams spending even without a floor. But from what I can tell those clubs have zero obligation to spend on players salaries, so prolly just going into the pockets of the owners anyway...so Ralph getting money from Jerry, Danny and Kraft to pay for Dicks salary ..he should be happy no??

 

1. Yes they are. This is about total revenue generated, not profit.

2. Yes he is happy about it and so should the rest of us be. This is an integral part of any scenario involving the Bills not leaving Buffalo. Also, it represents a good portion of the profit margin of the team.

[Lori]

Its fixed now

 

Still not so sure Bills get money from this. By Forbes count, looks like Bills 25th in revenue, but 12th in operation income. Boy, sure does help to have low debt service eh? So wonder if the formula is based on revenue or profit?

It's based on gross revenue, and yes, the Bills are well toward the bottom of the league in that respect. Some of the boilerplate from the amended CBA:

 

Section 11. Revenue Sharing: For each season during the term of this Agreement, there shall be a program of revenue or cost sharing among the NFL Clubs which shall (a) be based on the Resolution adopted by the NFLMC on March 9, 2006 (2006 Resolution MC-1), approving this Agreement (including “qualifiers”

established under Paragraph 5 of that Resolution), (b) provide for incremental revenue sharing as compared to

the arrangements created by 1995 Resolution G-6, and © be reasonably satisfactory to the NFLPA. The

revenue sharing program described to the NFLPA by memorandum dated March 10, 2006, has been determined

by the NFLPA to be satisfactory. Any material modification to that program must also be reasonably

satisfactory to the NFLPA.

K. Revenue Sharing

The gross receipts described in clause (1) of NFL 1995 Resolution G-6 that are paid into the revenue sharing

pool established by such resolution and/or to any successor revenue sharing pool established pursuant to or in

connection with the revenue sharing plan referenced in Article XXIV, Section 11, shall, for TR accounting

purposes, be considered revenue subject to gate receipt sharing among NFL Clubs, and thus be included in TR,

subject to any applicable allocation or exclusion pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 1(a)(x)-(xi). Such revenue

shall be included only once (i.e., for the Club whose home games generate such gross receipts but not for any

Club receiving revenue sharing distributions from such pool).

 

 

the Special Master's ruling

NFL Constitution and Bylaws (1995 Resolution G-6 on p. 166, 2006 Resolution MC-1 on pp. 278-283)

 

The NFL's take: "In the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement that expires in 2011, the NFL clubs also agreed to a small percentage of additional revenue sharing because of the new CBA's significantly increased salary cap. The agreement calls for no salary cap in 2010 and that additional piece of revenue sharing to which the clubs had agreed in 2006 is therefore no longer required in our view."

 

Think about that. If they get what they want, there's no limit to what the "High Revenue Clubs" can spend on players, AND the lower-revenue clubs don't get the extra revenue sharing. As a previous caller mentioned, Ralph SHOULD be happy with the ruling, and so should fans of every team that draws money from the SRS pool.

[CountDorkula]

LMAO are you serious? If they gave his cheap ass a dollar he would be happy. Hell yeah he is giddy, but you can bet we are one of the lowest spending teams in FA this year, count on it.

 

OK Negative Nancy, Do you have a post where you are not ripping something apart, I have yet to see one.

 

1. Yes they are. This is about total revenue generated, not profit.

2. Yes he is happy about it and so should the rest of us be. This is an integral part of any scenario involving the Bills not leaving Buffalo. Also, it represents a good portion of the profit margin of the team.

 

 

IMO the day the revenue sharing goes away is the day the NFL will fall. How many cities would be able to come up with the money to sustain a succesful franchise.

[TheLynchTrain]

Not to sound stupid but why is Goodell not in favor of this? He represents the whole league, not just "the Big Three" as I've heard it on here? Aren't most owners (by a simple majority) in favor of this?

[Mr. WEO]

Not to sound stupid but why is Goodell not in favor of this? He represents the whole league, not just "the Big Three" as I've heard it on here? Aren't most owners (by a simple majority) in favor of this?

The overwhelming majority majority of the owners are not getting this money, they are giving this money away to lower revenue teams. Perhaps they are irritated a guy like Ralph can pretend he is in the poor house, yet they see him socking away $30+ into his mattress in Michigan. In fact

 

The revenue sharing deal 2006 was brokered by a group lead by Kraft, Johnson and Jones.

 

Think about that. If they get what they want, there's no limit to what the "High Revenue Clubs" can spend on players, AND the lower-revenue clubs don't get the extra revenue sharing. As a previous caller mentioned, Ralph SHOULD be happy with the ruling, and so should fans of every team that draws money from the SRS pool.

 

There is not an unlimited supply of top tier talent at any position, so there is naturally a limit on the impact on squandering money in an uncapped league.

 

Remember, Ralph has said that he does not fear an uncapped year--and why should he? He knows that no cap means no minimum salary expenditure.

 

In fact, given the $120 million he gets per year from the TV income, plus the 40% of the away gate (and the seats eslewhere in the AFCE sell at a sweet premium), plus the "supplimental shared revenue" (League welfare), plus the cash from "Owens" jerseys and the like---the Bills could easily play to an empty Ralph Wilson stadium every single home game and Ralph would not lose a penny.

[TheLynchTrain]

The overwhelming majority majority of the owners are not getting this money, they are giving this money away to lower revenue teams. Perhaps they are irritated a guy like Ralph can pretend he is in the poor house, yet they see him socking away $30+ into his mattress in Michigan. In fact

 

 

I understand how teams with cheap owners like Chicago that has a big market but wont spend so they get their welfare every year. But just for the sake of argument: if its 10-12 teams a year and my guess is the middle 4-5 times are interchangeable depending on various factors year to year, doesnt that leave about 16-17 owners in favor of this and 15-16 not in favor?

 

I guess its good to add that we all know Tagliabue (and by extension Goodell) got voted by the New Guard owners, not the Old Guard Ralphs, Browns, McCaskeys, ect. He knows where his support is.

 

 

 

CORRECTION: I guess its 8-12 not 10-12...so the fact is their is a majority of teams giving money away rather than receiving it, even if it is a slim majority

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750

[GrudginglyPessimistic]

In fact, given the $120 million he gets per year from the TV income, plus the 40% of the away gate (and the seats eslewhere in the AFCE sell at a sweet premium), plus the "supplimental shared revenue" (League welfare), plus the cash from "Owens" jerseys and the like---the Bills could easily play to an empty Ralph Wilson stadium every single home game and Ralph would not lose a penny.

It is the failure of most people to understand this that leads in part to them not understanding that the market which Ralph and the NFL needs to satisfy is not the specific audience of ticket buyers but the market which provides the most money which is the eyeballs watching the networks.

 

The arena market is significant as a source of income but plays a poor second fiddle in terms of $ delivered to an owner which is the TV market. The Bills have far higher value to the league as an original AFL team than they do as a source of any transfer fee paid split 31 ways by a new owner if he chose to move the team.

 

In the end, the NFL goes where the money is. Between the bird in the hand of the existing Bills ticket base, the potential threat to the antitrust exemption Schumer and others can mount, and the ability to sell membership in the old NFL to new franchises which is where the real money is for the networks and thus the owners, keeping the Bills in Buffalo looks like the deal that brings the individual owner the most money.

[a player to be named later]

A plan like this is good for the overall league. At the end of the day the big teams benefit from having teams like the Bills, Colts, etc. It makes the league more popular and relevant in areas that might not be able to support a team with a new stadium, and debt.