LabattBlue Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) I'd love to know who at OBD pulled the plug on this. I can't believe it was a huge amount of money... http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/high-schools/article590464.ece The sponsor that left was the Buffalo Bills. Kozak assumed the team was in for its usual portion this season, which amounted to a sixth of the budget, but they weren't. He found out a week or two ago. You and I would certainly think that an NFL team could afford to stay involved with these kind of broadcasts -- it kind of falls into the "are you kidding me?" category -- but Kozak, even in his disappointment, said he understood and thanked the Bills for having been on board. Great to know the Bills are willing to help out in the community, when it comes to football no less. Edited October 12, 2011 by LabattBlue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r00tabaga Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I'm from Rochester so "........Ho Hum" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 This article leaves something out... "The sponsor that left was the Buffalo Bills. Kozak assumed the team was in for its usual portion this season, which amounted to a sixth of the budget, but they weren't. He found out a week or two ago." They did not reporting on this. No reason why the Bills are out...no one from the Bills commenting. I assume there is more to the story that the reporter didn't report on for some reason. I guess the Jerry Sullivan school of reporting is churning out graduates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I'd love to know who at OBD pulled the plug on this. I can't believe it was a huge amount of money... http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/high-schools/article590464.ece The sponsor that left was the Buffalo Bills. Kozak assumed the team was in for its usual portion this season, which amounted to a sixth of the budget, but they weren't. He found out a week or two ago. You and I would certainly think that an NFL team could afford to stay involved with these kind of broadcasts -- it kind of falls into the "are you kidding me?" category -- but Kozak, even in his disappointment, said he understood and thanked the Bills for having been on board. Great to know the Bills are willing to help out in the community, when it comes to football no less. Not going to defend this decision, but I bet the rationale was that there are many worthy causes and the Bills can't be a part of them all. hopefully this story gets legs and one of the bills players or former players donate money. I bet it was like 10 grand (or less). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I'd love to know who at OBD pulled the plug on this. I can't believe it was a huge amount of money... http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/high-schools/article590464.ece The sponsor that left was the Buffalo Bills. Kozak assumed the team was in for its usual portion this season, which amounted to a sixth of the budget, but they weren't. He found out a week or two ago. You and I would certainly think that an NFL team could afford to stay involved with these kind of broadcasts -- it kind of falls into the "are you kidding me?" category -- but Kozak, even in his disappointment, said he understood and thanked the Bills for having been on board. Great to know the Bills are willing to help out in the community, when it comes to football no less. What's irritating to me is the part where he says "You and I would certainly think that an NFL team could afford to stay involved with these kind of broadcasts -- it kind of falls into the "are you kidding me?" category". It's presumptuous of the guy to assume that I can't think for myself, and I certainly wouldn't spend more than half-a-second thinking "Are you kidding me?". This is classic emotional journalism, tugs at your heart strings by telling only part of the story. I certainly think this: the Bills likely have a budget for this sort of thing, and it no longer fit into their plans. Quite honestly, I would rather see them dedicate this money to, in no particular order...breast cancer...prostate cancer...american heart association...alzheimer's association...habitat for humanity...and so on. Don't drink the kool aid. It's a big world out there. Plus, you know...you could fund it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwoz Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 What's irritating to me is the part where he says "You and I would certainly think that an NFL team could afford to stay involved with these kind of broadcasts -- it kind of falls into the "are you kidding me?" category". It's presumptuous of the guy to assume that I can't think for myself, and I certainly wouldn't spend more than half-a-second thinking "Are you kidding me?". This is classic emotional journalism, tugs at your heart strings by telling only part of the story. I certainly think this: the Bills likely have a budget for this sort of thing, and it no longer fit into their plans. Quite honestly, I would rather see them dedicate this money to, in no particular order...breast cancer...prostate cancer...american heart association...alzheimer's association...habitat for humanity...and so on. Don't drink the kool aid. It's a big world out there. Plus, you know...you could fund it. Nice observation. I read the story a few times, and it comes across as lazy journalism. No facts, no perspective, no context. Only one-sided quotes without a hint of perspective from the other side (not even "the Bills were not available to comment). Sounds like a straw man argument to me. I don't know who else ponies up for these broadcasts, but aren't there other marks to hit up? I know Buffalo is not a hotbed of corporate HQs, but it does have a few good-sized companies: Rich Products, Delaware North, New Era, the Buffalo News (owned by a certain billionaire named Warren Buffett). Do any of the school districts involved kick in for the broadcasts? The writer notes that two of the people involved in the broadcasts work for UPS. Did they ever bother bother to hit up UPS? We'll never know because the writer chose not to offer any facts to let us make our own decision. The writer does say that the operation is "largely a one-man-band" situation. If that's the case, can the costs be so great? We don't know because we're never told what the budget is or what operating expenses are. Nor can I tell if the broadcasts are popular. If they were, wouldn't there be a market for advertisersto help pick up the tab? Or is listenership so low that the station's ad salesmen can't find anyone to pay for an ad. Again, we'll never know. Why are no other "sponsors" quoted lamenting the loss of a major patron? Could it be there are no other sponsors? Again, we don't know. So to pin this situation on the Bills sounds a bit disengenuous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 It just sounds like the writer was trying to cash in on the 'Ralph is cheap' lemmings. One quote from somebody involved with the Bills on the matter would have gone light years towards making this respectable journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Plenty of small towns have high school sports pbp on the radio or even online. You know who pays for it? Parents of players who own businesses. Are you saying no players parents are willing to support these broadcasts? I have a radio background and have done my share of high school games on radio. They aren't that expensive to produce. I'd like to know what this guy's budget is. They may be leaving out the part that this guy makes a living at this. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 Plenty of small towns have high school sports pbp on the radio or even online. You know who pays for it? Parents of players who own businesses. Are you saying no players parents are willing to support these broadcasts? I have a radio background and have done my share of high school games on radio. They aren't that expensive to produce. I'd like to know what this guy's budget is. They may be leaving out the part that this guy makes a living at this. PTR PTR...Read the article. He works two jobs and makes no money off this. He does it for the love of the game. This article leaves something out... "The sponsor that left was the Buffalo Bills. Kozak assumed the team was in for its usual portion this season, which amounted to a sixth of the budget, but they weren't. He found out a week or two ago." They did not reporting on this. No reason why the Bills are out...no one from the Bills commenting. I assume there is more to the story that the reporter didn't report on for some reason. I guess the Jerry Sullivan school of reporting is churning out graduates. Nothing like having an axe to grind against the News and its writers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) This is classic emotional journalism, tugs at your heart strings by telling only part of the story. I certainly think this: the Bills likely have a budget for this sort of thing, and it no longer fit into their plans. Quite honestly, I would rather see them dedicate this money to, in no particular order...breast cancer...prostate cancer...american heart association...alzheimer's association...habitat for humanity...and so on. Don't drink the kool aid. It's a big world out there. Plus, you know...you could fund it. Seriously??? Come now... realistically, what would $10,000 dollars to on an annual basis for them when one service will be lost for kids? That is like saying, "Arts in schools? who needs it when we could be funding X research?". A total BS position to take. Edited October 13, 2011 by BmoreBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRQ_BillsFan Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 There is a lot left out here perhaps the announcer was less than kind about the Bllls record the last few years, what seemed like a harmless comment may have cost them. Or their could be a thousand other reasons. Would be nice to know the other side of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 There is a lot left out here perhaps the announcer was less than kind about the Bllls record the last few years, what seemed like a harmless comment may have cost them. Or their could be a thousand other reasons. Would be nice to know the other side of the story. If he was notified, then I can understand. If he was NOT notified, there really is no excuse... you just don't suddenly NOT sponsor someone and not tell them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Ralph is cheap...seriously No? You don't say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwoz Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Seriously??? Come now... realistically, what would $10,000 dollars to on an annual basis for them when one service will be lost for kids? That is like saying, "Arts in schools? who needs it when we could be funding X research?". A total BS position to take. Except that tax dollars pay for arts in schools -- except in my affluent Washington DC suburban school district, where the high school band members go door-to-door to beg residents for money. It sounds like private funding was used for the broadcasts -- apples and oranges. And we also have one person's statement that the Bills never notified him. We never get the Bills version. Personally, I'd like a more balanced telling of the story of a guy who spent 12 years on a project and still couldn't make a go of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I'd love to know who ...actually listens to the guy. Hard to judge the value he's providing without a first hand review of his 'product.' Anybody ever heard his work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) PTR...Read the article. He works two jobs and makes no money off this. He does it for the love of the game. I did read it and this slipped my mind. But again I'd like to see what his costs are. Maybe he's buying the time on WJJL? If so I can see how that would get expensive. But producing the game in the internet age is a lot easier and cheaper than the way I used to do it lugging around remote transmitters or phone interfaces. And if his big expense is buying air time, then he can go all-internet streaming and save a bundle. For a couple hundred bucks you can even have a phone app created. In my current line of audio production work I have a number of clients who produce high school sports strictly for online streams. They target businesses owned by player's parents and they make decent money doing it. If he does it for the love of the game then I don't see why he can't keep doing it. PTR Edited October 13, 2011 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
need therapy Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Ralph just donated $1 million to UB's School of Medicine, annually donates money and supports donations to the Western New York Food Bank, contributes to other charities in the area and has kept the Bills in Buffalo when he could have made more money elsewhere. Is the guy a saint, no. But he supports charities in the area and does good deeds. He can't do everything nor should he be expected to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Ralph just donated $1 million to UB's School of Medicine, annually donates money and supports donations to the Western New York Food Bank, contributes to other charities in the area and has kept the Bills in Buffalo when he could have made more money elsewhere. Is the guy a saint, no. But he supports charities in the area and does good deeds. He can't do everything nor should he be expected to. This is not a Ralph Wilson decision, it is a managerial decision... There is no way I believe for a second that Ralph Wilson would do this to these people... and it says a lot about the way they choose to do business these days if this story is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 This is not a Ralph Wilson decision, it is a managerial decision... There is no way I believe for a second that Ralph Wilson would do this to these people... and it says a lot about the way they choose to do business these days if this story is true. I highly doubt Ralph knew anything about this decision, and that isn't a slam on his age. They wouldn't bother him with something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I agree with all those who say this is telling just part of the story and is lazy journalism. I am finding that all the time in the News lately. I know they have less staff, etc. But, I read an article and it says something that obviously needs a little explanation and there isn't any. Along with the points made above, my question was why would the Bills sponsorship be the thing that kills this. It says the Bills were one of 6 sponsors. How much money could that be? 1/6 of a small operation. It seems that this Kozak guy just might want to retire from it. Working two jobs and doing this, with three kids, seems insane to me. There is no way that because one of six sponsors, that you somehow just find out a week or two ago isn't sponsoring (how's that?) sinks the ship. And, I have to praise Ralph for the $1M to Roswell - that is awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benderbender Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 The sponsor that left was the Buffalo Bills. Kozak assumed the team was in for its usual portion this season, which amounted to a sixth of the budget, but they weren't. So long story short, they couldn't come up with 1/6 of the funding, I am the last one to defend Ralph's cheapness, but are you kidding me? They place 100% of the blame on the Bills their own financial insecurity. That just seems to be the mindset in America right now, if you're not happy with your situation, blame someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 PTR...Read the article. He works two jobs and makes no money off this. He does it for the love of the game. Nothing like having an axe to grind against the News and its writers. I have an axe to grind with bad journalism. This article should be in journalism text books as an example of awful. I know there's a lot of people with an axe to grind with the Bills and that somehow makes bad journalism acceptable to them. I'm sorry that you disagree and think this article is a good example of Journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Seriously??? Come now... realistically, what would $10,000 dollars to on an annual basis for them when one service will be lost for kids? That is like saying, "Arts in schools? who needs it when we could be funding X research?". A total BS position to take. We don't know that it's $10K, and it definitely is not a service for kids. It's not like the kids can't play the games anymore; they just won't be broadcast on radio--do the kids need their school to be on radio once every X years? After years of funding this, perhaps the Bills decided that the broadcasts haven't proven popular enough to stand on their own, so enough was enough. The Bills gave the program a chance, and the program didn't succeed. How many people here listened to the Intense Milks Game of the Week? I hadn't even heard of it until I read McShea's article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Seriously??? Come now... realistically, what would $10,000 dollars to on an annual basis for them when one service will be lost for kids? That is like saying, "Arts in schools? who needs it when we could be funding X research?". A total BS position to take. you should really think out your answers before you commit them to print. the article doesn't indicate the cost to the buffalo bills, nor is it really relevant here. your analogy to 'art in schools' also misses the point, if for no other reason than i never suggested anything about funding 'art in schools'. here is the point: the article attempts to lay out an emotional case against the buffalo bills for deciding not to fund something they have apparently funded previously. i see the set up, and the hook, because apparently buffalo bills = football = funding this endeavor because it = football. would you feel differently if you knew that the bills reallocated the money to some other cause that they felt worthy of consideration? i have to be fair to them, maybe they just thought the money was wasted on a crappy product and couldn't justify it anymore. i have no idea, and apparently neither does the journalist. that IS the point. i have a larger problem with it because this old heartstring angle is overplayed. you see it in the newspaper, on tv, in the political spectrum, and i find it manipulative. heck, you're a prime example of why it bothers me. from this article you figured out that the bills were too cheap to spend $10k on the kids. That sir, is a total BS argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 you should really think out your answers before you commit them to print. the article doesn't indicate the cost to the buffalo bills, nor is it really relevant here. your analogy to 'art in schools' also misses the point, if for no other reason than i never suggested anything about funding 'art in schools'. here is the point: the article attempts to lay out an emotional case against the buffalo bills for deciding not to fund something they have apparently funded previously. i see the set up, and the hook, because apparently buffalo bills = football = funding this endeavor because it = football. would you feel differently if you knew that the bills reallocated the money to some other cause that they felt worthy of consideration? i have to be fair to them, maybe they just thought the money was wasted on a crappy product and couldn't justify it anymore. i have no idea, and apparently neither does the journalist. that IS the point. i have a larger problem with it because this old heartstring angle is overplayed. you see it in the newspaper, on tv, in the political spectrum, and i find it manipulative. heck, you're a prime example of why it bothers me. from this article you figured out that the bills were too cheap to spend $10k on the kids. That sir, is a total BS argument. I have the same problem with the article, and I like McShea. It isn't even funding football. It's funding a radio broadcast that proved too unpopular to stand on its own. If the Bills had committed some money to youth football programs and yanked it, I might have a problem with that. This was a commercial sponsorship that was producing no return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpcolosi Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 This is such a stupid article. RW has donated a ton of money to Childrens, to Roswell, to SJFC, not to mention his giant money bomb he dropped on the HOF. RW is NOT a Billionarie guys. He is wealthy, sure, but you notice how he isn't listed in the Forbess rankings? Thats because his wealth is not liquid - its tied up in the Bills. For RW to donated $1mil is a big deal because his liquid cash is not near as high as say a guy like Jerry Jones. Keep it up Ralph. The hospitals, and us doctors, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I have the same problem with the article, and I like McShea. It isn't even funding football. It's funding a radio broadcast that proved too unpopular to stand on its own. If the Bills had committed some money to youth football programs and yanked it, I might have a problem with that. This was a commercial sponsorship that was producing no return. but even on the issue of funding youth football...i don't know why these decisions have to be an "either/or". Either the Buff Bills fund youth football or they must be cheap. Either they fund the radio broadcast or they must be tightwads. I would hazard a guess that the bills are approached by hundreds, if not thousands of vairous entities all looking for a contribution for what they perceive is a worthy cause. My son plays football, my daughter is a cheerleader. If they pull football funding because they opted to contribute to an underfunded cheerleading program, that would make the cheerleading folks happy, no? perhaps that's at the expense of the football program, but if you think about it--every time an organization funds one group, many others suffer. hmmm, instead of funding the radio show, maybe they allocate that money to spinal cord research, concussion studies, or whatever. i know with certainty that it's very easy to criticize someone when only part of the information is available. even when all the information is available, the potential is that someone will be unhappy. in the end, i'm simply not all that interested in spending someone else's money (unless it's to re-sign fred jackson!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I have the same problem with the article, and I like McShea. It isn't even funding football. It's funding a radio broadcast that proved too unpopular to stand on its own. If the Bills had committed some money to youth football programs and yanked it, I might have a problem with that. This was a commercial sponsorship that was producing no return. but even on the issue of funding youth football...i don't know why these decisions have to be an "either/or". Either the Buff Bills fund youth football or they must be cheap. Either they fund the radio broadcast or they must be tightwads. I would hazard a guess that the bills are approached by hundreds, if not thousands of vairous entities all looking for a contribution for what they perceive is a worthy cause. My son plays football, my daughter is a cheerleader. If they pull football funding because they opted to contribute to an underfunded cheerleading program, that would make the cheerleading folks happy, no? perhaps that's at the expense of the football program, but if you think about it--every time an organization funds one group, many others suffer. hmmm, instead of funding the radio show, maybe they allocate that money to spinal cord research, concussion studies, or whatever. i know with certainty that it's very easy to criticize someone when only part of the information is available. even when all the information is available, the potential is that someone will be unhappy. in the end, i'm simply not all that interested in spending someone else's money (unless it's to re-sign fred jackson!). Right there with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweatpantsjoe Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I doubt the person posting this article, or any other person on this board even listens to the broadcasts.....stop whining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 I doubt the person posting this article, or any other person on this board even listens to the broadcasts.....stop whining. Wrong. While I haven't listened this year, I have in the past, but don't let that stop you from making wild speculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 . . . notice how he isn't listed in the Forbess rankings? Thats because his wealth is not liquid - its tied up in the Bills. For RW to donated $1mil is a big deal because his liquid cash is not near as high as say a guy like Jerry Jones. Keep it up Ralph. The hospitals, and us doctors, thank you. I also think that Ralph's charitable donations are pretty admirable. And the point about donating a higher percentage of his available cash rings true. But the Forbes rankings are based on net worth - - which does not vary depending on whether Ralph's wealth is tied up in the Bills, or readily available in his checking account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Wrong. While I haven't listened this year, I have in the past, but don't let that stop you from making wild speculations. it didn't stop the reporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goblinwarren Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Isn't it kind of arrogant to assume you'd get a sponsorship? Just because someone did it last year doesn't mean they'll do it this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts