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