Ralph's not the only cheap owner...

[eball]

I hate the fact that Ralph is cutting staff salaries and suspending pension plan payments during the lockout, but I guess I'm somewhat "relieved" he's not alone:

 

Cheap Owners

 

I wonder what (other than his conscience) led the Baltimore owner to change his mind?

[Scrappy]

These are businesses that are currently not really running right now, so I'd expect people without contracts to suffer & those with contracts to get paid. There isn't a state in the union that wouldn't uphold an employment contract based on the employee doing nothing wrong to breach the contract, so I'd consider this temporary.

[KOKBILLS]

I hate the fact that Ralph is cutting staff salaries and suspending pension plan payments during the lockout, but I guess I'm somewhat "relieved" he's not alone:

 

Cheap Owners

 

I wonder what (other than his conscience) led the Baltimore owner to change his mind?

 

That was an interesting read...Regardless of what anyone's opinion is about the Owners side of this stand-off, this type of publicity will do them NO good at all...It makes them looks REAL bad...

 

I think Bisciotti realized this was not looking too good and made the adjustment...I'd advise the rest of the cheap bastards to follow suit...

[birdog1960]

I hate the fact that Ralph is cutting staff salaries and suspending pension plan payments during the lockout, but I guess I'm somewhat "relieved" he's not alone:

 

Cheap Owners

 

I wonder what (other than his conscience) led the Baltimore owner to change his mind?

well written article. there are few good guys in any of this. what amazes me is how many ordinary people defend the owners in all this. "nice guys finish last" and "the ends justify the means" seem the prevailing mantras of the last couple of generations. anyone questioning these sentiments is regarded as naive, stupid or both. i think that bodes poorly for our future.

Edited June 3, 2011 by birdog1960

[billsfreak]

I hate the fact that Ralph is cutting staff salaries and suspending pension plan payments during the lockout, but I guess I'm somewhat "relieved" he's not alone:

 

Cheap Owners

 

I wonder what (other than his conscience) led the Baltimore owner to change his mind?

Ralphie and Mike Brown of the Bengals stand alone as the NFL's Cheapies, head and shoulders above anyone else. But in their favor though, they were the only two owners that voted against the CBA that expired, of which a few years later just about every owner agreed that it wasn't a good agreement for them and opted to take the out clause on it. I guess the moral of the story is, if you want to make money take advice from the cheapest people on the block, since that is what they are all about.

[Doc]

Ralphie and Mike Brown of the Bengals stand alone as the NFL's Cheapies, head and shoulders above anyone else. But in their favor though, they were the only two owners that voted against the CBA that expired, of which a few years later just about every owner agreed that it wasn't a good agreement for them and opted to take the out clause on it. I guess the moral of the story is, if you want to make money take advice from the cheapest people on the block, since that is what they are all about.

 

[reddogblitz]

Ralph is cheap.

[Dopey]

Ralphie and Mike Brown of the Bengals stand alone as the NFL's Cheapies, head and shoulders above anyone else. But in their favor though, they were the only two owners that voted against the CBA that expired, of which a few years later just about every owner agreed that it wasn't a good agreement for them and opted to take the out clause on it. I guess the moral of the story is, if you want to make money take advice from the cheapest people on the block, since that is what they are all about.

Cheapest on the block? Try taking advise from business savy people(as you said they voted against this cba) What they are really about is running a profitable business, like any other business owner.Cheez!

 

Ralph is cheap.

No, your tickets are cheap. You don't want Ralph to pony up like the rest of the owners. If he does, ticket prices will go up and then Ralph would be bad mouthed for being greedy. I know it's warmer up there but go shovel snow! Cheez!

[beerme1]

I know it's warmer up there but go shovel snow! Cheez!

 

 

Why? Is the lockout over? Do we need to clear the staduium?

[KollegeStudnet]

I still don't get why people call out Ralph on being cheap...if you had to pay an extra 30-50% more on your tickets --than I think you would change your minds!

 

the lockout is pushing into the season--this why coaches are not getting paid!

Edited June 6, 2011 by KollegeStudnet

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I still don't get why people call out Ralph on being cheap...if you had to pay an extra 30-50% more on your tickets --than I think you would change your minds!

 

the lockout is pushing into the season--this why coaches are not getting paid!

No. Unfortunately, NFL teams are actually increasing some revenues and decreasing expenses as we speak.

 

Because there was no salary cap (ceiling or floor last year) at least ten teams spent under the cap floor and several teams spent as much as $30 million below the floor… giving themselves an increased war chest as the lockout approached.

 

Also, as the NFL recently announced, league-wide, season ticket sales are ahead of last year's pace.

 

On top of this, teams are not spending money on the added costs of organized team activities and minicamps this offseason. So they are saving money in that regard as well.

 

Yet another area where the owners are saving money is in the area of workout bonuses which some players have in their contracts. While this is not typically a huge expense, it can in some cases be quite substantial. D'Brickashaw Ferguson will not be paid his $750,000 workout bonus. Vince Wilfork has weight and workout bonuses totaling $215,000.

 

At this moment, the owners have saved in expenses compared to a typical offseason and increased some revenues.

 

The fact that several owners have not reduced the compensation to coaches and other non-football staff tells you that not all owners treat their employees the same.

Edited June 6, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[RyanC883]

No. Unfortunately, NFL teams are actually increasing some revenues and decreasing expenses as we speak.

 

Because there was no salary cap (ceiling or floor last year) at least ten teams spent under the cap floor and several teams spent as much as $30 million below the floor… giving themselves an increased war chest as the lockout approached.

 

Also, as the NFL recently announced, league-wide, season ticket sales are ahead of last year's pace.

 

On top of this, teams are not spending money on the added costs of organized team activities and minicamps this offseason. So they are saving money in that regard as well.

 

Yet another area where the owners are saving money is in the area of workout bonuses which some players have in their contracts. While this is not typically a huge expense, it can in some cases be quite substantial. D'Brickashaw Ferguson will not be paid his $750,000 workout bonus. Vince Wilfork has weight and workout bonuses totaling $215,000.

 

At this moment, the owners have saved in expenses compared to a typical offseason and increased some revenues.

 

The fact that several owners have not reduced the compensation to coaches and other non-football staff tells you that not all owners treat their employees the same.

 

The article totally contridicts itself with this point:

 

"On top of this, teams are not spending money on the added costs of organized team activities and minicamps this offseason. So they are saving money in that regard as well." The article also cites "reduced operation" costs as a reason the owners are saving money. The reason they are saving this money is in part because the staff people who run these events, etc. are taking pay cuts or being furloughed. If you are not working, you should expect a pay cut or furlough. That's the way business works.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

The article totally contridicts itself with this point:

 

"On top of this, teams are not spending money on the added costs of organized team activities and minicamps this offseason. So they are saving money in that regard as well." The article also cites "reduced operation" costs as a reason the owners are saving money. The reason they are saving this money is in part because the staff people who run these events, etc. are taking pay cuts or being furloughed. If you are not working, you should expect a pay cut or furlough. That's the way business works.

Um, that quote you're using is not from the article. It's from my original post. I wrote the line that is bolded above. It's not from the article.

 

If you think that the people whose pay and benefits are being cut are working less, you should talk to some of the NFL coaches. From the stories I've been reading, I bet they'd tell you a different story.

 

And btw, this is a different issue than simply players versus owners. We're talking about team employees who are taking cuts because ownership has decided to lock the players out.

 

It's interesting that regardless of the fact that some media favors the owners and some media favors the players, I have yet to find ANY MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA defending the owners cost-cutting measures.

Why do you think that is?

 

 

[RuffMuff]

Um, that quote you're using is not from the article. It's from my original post. I wrote the line that is bolded above. It's not from the article.

 

If you think that the people whose pay and benefits are being cut are working less, you should talk to some of the NFL coaches. From the stories I've been reading, I bet they'd tell you a different story.

 

And btw, this is a different issue than simply players versus owners. We're talking about team employees who are taking cuts because ownership has decided to lock the players out.

 

It's interesting that regardless of the fact that some media favors the owners and some media favors the players, I have yet to find ANY MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA defending the owners cost-cutting measures.

Why do you think that is?

+1 And all this BS like this is a real company or something. Its not like the "company" is going bankrupt and is on the verge of collapse. This work stoppage is TEMPORARY, at the most one season, maybe, doubtfully. And we havent even got to that point yet. These owners are disgraceful and are screwing the employees no matter how you slice it. If Ralph needs that money so badly why doesnt he take his name off the staduim and get some money for it and pay these employees. Disgradeful,money hungry scrooge.

[billsfreak]

Cheapest on the block? Try taking advise from business savy people(as you said they voted against this cba) What they are really about is running a profitable business, like any other business owner.Cheez!

 

 

No, your tickets are cheap. You don't want Ralph to pony up like the rest of the owners. If he does, ticket prices will go up and then Ralph would be bad mouthed for being greedy. I know it's warmer up there but go shovel snow! Cheez!

I am quite sure that Robert Kraft in New England runs a profitable business, but puts a winner on the field. Same with the Rooneys in Pittsburgh, the Mara's in NY and several other teams do. You can still run a profitable business and give at least a little attention and a small share of your profits to put a winner on the field. Cheap is when you take all the profits and put them in your pockets and don't reinvest any of it to make your company better-like Ralph does. And who was talking about Cheez? Aren't those little crackers?

[thebandit27]

Let's remember, as we all debate this topic, the almost-universally overlooked fact that the NFL (vis-a-vis Ownership) is still shouldering nearly $10 billion in debt.

 

A business can be profitable on a year-to-year basis, but still be on the hook for huge amounts of debt. For example, in 2010, the Jets and Giants carried a debt load of $750 million and $650 million, respectively. That was despite the fact that their revenues approached $100 million per team. (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2010/08/25/2010-08-25_forbes_debt_a_concern_for_giants_jets.html)

 

Looking at it from that perspective, the cost cutting really doesn't seem that crazy in my opinion.

 

+1 And all this BS like this is a real company or something. Its not like the "company" is going bankrupt and is on the verge of collapse. This work stoppage is TEMPORARY, at the most one season, maybe, doubtfully. And we havent even got to that point yet. These owners are disgraceful and are screwing the employees no matter how you slice it. If Ralph needs that money so badly why doesnt he take his name off the staduim and get some money for it and pay these employees. Disgradeful,money hungry scrooge.

 

In addition to the information I posted above, there is also nothing preventing those team employees whose pay is being cut from seeking other forms of employment to supplement their income. It's not as though their completely helpless.

 

I am quite sure that Robert Kraft in New England runs a profitable business, but puts a winner on the field. Same with the Rooneys in Pittsburgh, the Mara's in NY and several other teams do. You can still run a profitable business and give at least a little attention and a small share of your profits to put a winner on the field. Cheap is when you take all the profits and put them in your pockets and don't reinvest any of it to make your company better-like Ralph does. And who was talking about Cheez? Aren't those little crackers?

 

As has been pointed out to you countless times, that's not the case. I wouldn't call doling out $150 million in contracts to Derrick Dockery, Langston Walker, Chris Kelsay, and Aaron Schobel--all in the same off-season--refusing to re-invest to make your company better. Poor use of the money? Sure, but refusal to spend? Completely incorrect.

 

Ditto for the 2002 off-season, tossing $30M+ at Takeo Spikes, $15M at Sam Adams, etc.

 

Would a guy that won't re-invest line the pockets of Lee Evans with $9M every year? How about another $7M for Chris Kelsay? How about firing Dick Jauron half a season into a brand new $3M/year contract?

 

The teams spends money on players, they just haven't done it well. And if you can show me one team that invested heavily in the free agent market and ended up being markedly improved, I'd be interested to see it (seriously).

 

I will throw you a bone and say that Ralph hasn't exactly gone out and thrown huge money at a coach, but then again, we have no idea what he offered Mike Shanahan or Jon Gruden when they wouldn't come here. And I'll also say that most of the successful highly-paid coaches got their mega-deals after winning (or at least reaching) superbowls with their current teams.

[billsfreak]

Let's remember, as we all debate this topic, the almost-universally overlooked fact that the NFL (vis-a-vis Ownership) is still shouldering nearly $10 billion in debt.

 

A business can be profitable on a year-to-year basis, but still be on the hook for huge amounts of debt. For example, in 2010, the Jets and Giants carried a debt load of $750 million and $650 million, respectively. That was despite the fact that their revenues approached $100 million per team. (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2010/08/25/2010-08-25_forbes_debt_a_concern_for_giants_jets.html)

 

Looking at it from that perspective, the cost cutting really doesn't seem that crazy in my opinion.

 

 

 

In addition to the information I posted above, there is also nothing preventing those team employees whose pay is being cut from seeking other forms of employment to supplement their income. It's not as though their completely helpless.

 

 

 

As has been pointed out to you countless times, that's not the case. I wouldn't call doling out $150 million in contracts to Derrick Dockery, Langston Walker, Chris Kelsay, and Aaron Schobel--all in the same off-season--refusing to re-invest to make your company better. Poor use of the money? Sure, but refusal to spend? Completely incorrect.

 

Ditto for the 2002 off-season, tossing $30M+ at Takeo Spikes, $15M at Sam Adams, etc.

 

Would a guy that won't re-invest line the pockets of Lee Evans with $9M every year? How about another $7M for Chris Kelsay? How about firing Dick Jauron half a season into a brand new $3M/year contract?

 

The teams spends money on players, they just haven't done it well. And if you can show me one team that invested heavily in the free agent market and ended up being markedly improved, I'd be interested to see it (seriously).

 

I will throw you a bone and say that Ralph hasn't exactly gone out and thrown huge money at a coach, but then again, we have no idea what he offered Mike Shanahan or Jon Gruden when they wouldn't come here. And I'll also say that most of the successful highly-paid coaches got their mega-deals after winning (or at least reaching) superbowls with their current teams.

Ralph has thrown some money at some players, in large part because there was a salary minimum that he has to spend. The biggest problem his cheapness creates, is when he goes Dollar Store cheap for coaches and front office personnel. Not to mention selling out 12% of his regular season games to another country, and puts those extra millions in his pockets. All the while holding the threat of moving the Bills out of Buffalo over the most loyal of fans heads as an excuse for having the worst run franchise in the NFL-hands down.

Edited June 8, 2011 by billsfreak

[thebandit27]

Ralph has thrown some money at some players, in large part because there was a salary minimum that he has to spend. The biggest problem his cheapness creates, is when he goes Dollar Store cheap for coaches and front office personnel. Not to mention selling out 12% of his regular season games to another country, and puts those extra millions in his pockets. All the while holding the threat of moving the Bills out of Buffalo over the most loyal of fans heads as an excuse for having the worst run franchise in the NFL-hands down.

 

So here's the question: how do you know what Ralph did or didn't offer Shanahan? Gruden? Cowher? From what was reported, it wasn't a money issue, so I think your point goes south a bit there.

 

As for his cheapness in front office personnel...exactly what do you mean there? He paid Tom Donahoe a pretty penny, and it didn't work out. Then he made a poor choice with Marv. Then he brough in both Nix and his heir-apparent in Whaley, a guy that many sources around the league considered to be an up-and-coming GM. I'd bet a serious amount of money that Whaley's contract includes a clause giving him the GM job when Nix retires.

 

As for the worst-run NFL franchise, well, they've been pretty poor, but teams like Detroit, Cleveland, and Oakland would give them a run for their money.

[K-9]

Ralph has thrown some money at some players, in large part because there was a salary minimum that he has to spend. The biggest problem his cheapness creates, is when he goes Dollar Store cheap for coaches and front office personnel. Not to mention selling out 12% of his regular season games to another country, and puts those extra millions in his pockets. All the while holding the threat of moving the Bills out of Buffalo over the most loyal of fans heads as an excuse for having the worst run franchise in the NFL-hands down.

 

This idea that RW doesn't spend money on talent is a myth. He's done it often over the years.

 

Rauch, Saban II, Knox, Levy are all examples of RW paying at the top end of the scale for HCs. Polian and Donahoe are examples of high-end front office execs. Do we really need to go into all the players RW has made among the highest paid at their positions throughout the years? You'll notice a common theme: RW has ALWAYS been willing to pay top dollar for PROVEN GMs, coaches, and players. Doesn't always work out but paying top dollar doesn't mean wins.

 

It's ironic that when he paid at the low end of the scale after Knox, it set the table for the best years of the franchise.

 

RW threatened to leave in the late 60s/early 70s in order to get his new stadium. He has done nothing but remain adamant that the Bills aren't going ANYWHERE as long as he lives. Look at all the franchise movement over the years and be happy you're not a fan of those teams.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[nucci]

No. Unfortunately, NFL teams are actually increasing some revenues and decreasing expenses as we speak.

 

Because there was no salary cap (ceiling or floor last year) at least ten teams spent under the cap floor and several teams spent as much as $30 million below the floor… giving themselves an increased war chest as the lockout approached.

 

Also, as the NFL recently announced, league-wide, season ticket sales are ahead of last year's pace.

 

On top of this, teams are not spending money on the added costs of organized team activities and minicamps this offseason. So they are saving money in that regard as well.

 

Yet another area where the owners are saving money is in the area of workout bonuses which some players have in their contracts. While this is not typically a huge expense, it can in some cases be quite substantial. D'Brickashaw Ferguson will not be paid his $750,000 workout bonus. Vince Wilfork has weight and workout bonuses totaling $215,000.

 

At this moment, the owners have saved in expenses compared to a typical offseason and increased some revenues.

 

The fact that several owners have not reduced the compensation to coaches and other non-football staff tells you that not all owners treat their employees the same.

Sales may not be up.....

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/29834857