Rooneys Pittsburgh vs Ralph

[Mr. WEO]

Agree with your point and will add that you also have to take into account the cost of tickets… the Bills have the lowest ticket prices in the NFL… and that hasn't been mentioned yet in this topic but is a big part of the issue (market strength).

 

No they don't. And they are also within about 10 bucks of a dozen other teams. The "cheapest tickets" isn't much of an argument anyway. The buying public is responding with "so what?"

 

It appears Ralph can't lower his prices enough to sell out every game every year, like several teams do (at a much higer price, in some cases). If the product is considered inferior, its price is irrelvant and so is the relative wealth of potential buyers.

[JohnC]

No they don't. And they are also within about 10 bucks of a dozen other teams. The "cheapest tickets" isn't much of an argument anyway. The buying public is responding with "so what?"

 

It appears Ralph can't lower his prices enough to sell out every game every year, like several teams do (at a much higer price, in some cases). If the product is considered inferior, its price is irrelvant and so is the relative wealth of potential buyers.

 

I just don't get the blame the market argument. The owner has put out a bad product for almost a generation in a system designed for parity. Yet the apologists respond with their criticism of the worn out fan base. It makes absolutely no sense, at least to me it doesn't.

[Buffaloed in Pa]

I just don't get the blame the market argument. The owner has put out a bad product for almost a generation in a system designed for parity. Yet the apologists respond with their criticism of the worn out fan base. It makes absolutely no sense, at least to me it doesn't.

I`m with ya John.

[Lurker]

The primary point that I am making in these numerous posts is that I believe that an NFL franchise is very viable in the region after the departure of the current owner. You apparently don't accept that position.

You're right, I don't unless the debt service obligation of the future owner is much like Ralph's (i.e., nothing).

 

If the bulk of the funds used to purchase the Bills are borrowed, it becomes more tenuous, even with Rochester and southern Ontario support. Unlike the Jerry Jones' and Little Danny Snyder's of the world (and even the Rooney family)--who can repeatedly screw up and still come up smelling like roses because of their market dynamics--the future owner of the Bills will need to generate so much ticket demand from WNY/Rochester/PA/Ontario that he can raise ticket prices/suite lease renevue to cover his debt service nut (which averages about $20 million annually for all 32 teams--and is likely much, much higher for teams that have changed hands in recent years. Considering the Bills had an operating income of just $41 million in 2011, that debt service obligation would be huge).

 

I don't think we're that far apart in our thinking. We both agree it will be a whole new ball game when the team is sold. However, I don't agree that the region's ability to support the team in the past (with cheap ticket prices and marginal corporate support) will be enough to ensure the future unless they knock it out of the park in terms of generating demand from the 150 mile ring outside WNY.

 

We've beat this horse enough, I think...

Edited May 26, 2012 by Lurker

[NoSaint]

Excellent post.

 

Some people believe that a post Ralph Wilson team in western NY is not viable. I strenuously don't accept that premise.

 

its much more challenging. the other dynamic that comes into play post-ralph is debt. wont be easy, but isnt impossible. winning will need to happen quickly and be maintained for a decent stretch when the day does come if we stand any chance.

 

You're right, I don't unless the debt service obligation of the future owner is much like Ralph's (i.e., nothing).

 

If the bulk of the funds used to purchase the Bills are borrowed, it becomes more tenuous, even with Rochester and southern Ontario support. Unlike the Jerry Jones' and Little Danny Snyder's of the world (and even the Rooney family)--who can repeatedly screw up and still come up smelling like roses because their market dynamics--the future owner of the Bills will need to generate so much ticket demand from WNY/Rochester/PA/Ontario that he can raise ticket prices/suite lease renevue to cover his debt service nut.

 

I don't think we're that far apart in our thinking. We both agree it will be a whole new ball game when the team is sold. However, I don't agree that the region's ability to support the team in the past (with cheap ticket prices and marginal corporate support) will be enough to ensure the future unless they knock it out of the park in terms of generating demand from the 150 mile ring outside WNY.

 

We've beat this horse enough, I think...

 

beat me to it.

[JohnC]

You're right, I don't unless the debt service obligation of the future owner is much like Ralph's (i.e., nothing).

 

If the bulk of the funds used to purchase the Bills are borrowed, it becomes more tenuous, even with Rochester and southern Ontario support. Unlike the Jerry Jones' and Little Danny Snyder's of the world (and even the Rooney family)--who can repeatedly screw up and still come up smelling like roses because their market dynamics--the future owner of the Bills will need to generate so much ticket demand from WNY/Rochester/PA/Ontario that he can raise ticket prices/suite lease renevue to cover his debt service nut (which averages about $20 million annually for all 32 teams--and is likely much, much higher for teams that have changed hands in recent years. Considering the Bills had an operating income of just $41 million in 2011, that debt service obligation would be huge).

 

I don't think we're that far apart in our thinking. We both agree it will be a whole new ball game when the team is sold. However, I don't agree that the region's ability to support the team in the past (with cheap ticket prices and marginal corporate support) will be enough to ensure the future unless they knock it out of the park in terms of generating demand from the 150 mile ring outside WNY.

 

We've beat this horse enough, I think...

 

Mercifully, this will be my last post on this topic. One can kick a carcass over and over and still not alter the status.

 

As you noted we are probably more similar in our views than we are different. Highlighting the differences often distorts the degree of the similarities.

 

I have never doubted the financial challenges of keeping a franchise in western NY by a new owner. The person or group who eventually ends up with the franchise will not for a very long time be extracting a profit because most of the revenue will be going to pay off debt. That same vexing issue would have to be addressed by any new owner in any other market. So the problem is not location specific as it is related to the magnitude of the debt load wherever it may occur.

 

The owners recently went through a labor brawl in order to garner a larger percentage of the revenue from the players (workers). They recognized that the new growth in revenue will come from their product exhibited on the new technology gadgets i.e. iphones, pads and computers. That added revenue base would certainly be helpful in managing the debt load.

 

I have little regard for the owner. But one thing he and his marketing people (Brandon) understood is the growth potential in the Toronto market and heading south. However, he sabotaged his efforts to quickly win that market with the garbage product he put out. If he would have had a product that matched the Jim Kelly/SB years he would have hit the jackpot.

 

I'm sure I have exhausted you and others to the point of irritation. So on this topic, at least for now, I bid you adeiu.

[You herd it hear last]

its been the drafting- they draft very very well, they rarely spend in free agency because they don't have to make up for poor drafts.

In addition they play hard nosed defensive football, easier to find defensive players than offensive

Oddly enough during that winning they also have a franchise quarterback...

[Tcali]

Per the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Pittsburgh metro area has more than twice the personal income of the Buffalo area ($100.7 billion vs. $43.4 billion in 2010) and is larger than the Buffalo and Rochester areas combined ($85.5 billion).

 

The Pittsburgh metro area's 2010 population (2,357,951) was more than 167,000 larger than the Buffalo and Rochester metros combined (2,190,016).

 

Somewhat of an advantage in selling tix, wouldn't you say...

those are meaningless stats advantage-wise. 100 bil to 85 bil, and 2.36 mil to 2.2 mil? almost a statistical tie--and if you include southern ont. suburbs of buffalo its is a tie.

much larger areas than pittsburgh--like oakland-have more probs with spending and ticket sales than do Pitt or Buff/Roch.

 

And given the fact that the Bills are toward the top of league in sales in spite of the small pop and the lousy franchise....

 

The real difference in franchise is Rooney vs Ralph.Ralph is a good businessman and clueless about football--and refuses to hire top talent.perhaps ralph's advanced age is disallowing him from meddling now.....

[Buffaloed in Pa]

those are meaningless stats advantage-wise. 100 bil to 85 bil, and 2.36 mil to 2.2 mil? almost a statistical tie--and if you include southern ont. suburbs of buffalo its is a tie.

much larger areas than pittsburgh--like oakland-have more probs with spending and ticket sales than do Pitt or Buff/Roch.

 

And given the fact that the Bills are toward the top of league in sales in spite of the small pop and the lousy franchise....

 

The real difference in franchise is Rooney vs Ralph.Ralph is a good businessman and clueless about football--and refuses to hire top talent.perhaps ralph's advanced age is disallowing him from meddling now.....

another great post

[Sisyphean Bills]

How is it that market size trumps bad management again?

 

The Steelers, before Chuck Noll, used to be a laughingstock, making the playoffs 1 time in 35 years. They started making some better decisions, found a system that works, and have stuck with that formula for the most part, becoming the franchise everyone else in the NFL wishes they were.

 

On the other hand, let's say the Bills did something to raise more money or extend their market, if market size is really the more significant factor. Oh, something like selling games to the largest market in Canada for millions of dollars would help the bottom line and expand the market. Doing that should immediately translate to wins then, right? And where does that Toronto money go anyway? Not to buying better players and coaches.

 

Why buy the rhetoric that Ralph and his crew preach to defend the way he runs his team? The "woe is me, I have a poor, small market" line of crap has been thrown out there for years. Other NFL owners know the routine and shrug it off. Yes, the logical look at the Steelers and Packers success and realize that market size does not trump poor, insular decision making.

 

Want another example of parochial thinking? When the Bills were actually good, the networks tried to give them more exposure by booking them for night games. The Bills declined this national exposure because some segment of the fans complained and were inconvenienced by going to late night games. This is not to criticism of those fans at all. It is rather to point out that the Bills management made the decision to have less exposure to appease some of their fans over marketing their team nationally, since the debate in this thread was (partly) about the importance of market size.

[JohnC]

 

Why buy the rhetoric that Ralph and his crew preach to defend the way he runs his team? The "woe is me, I have a poor, small market" line of crap has been thrown out there for years. Other NFL owners know the routine and shrug it off. Yes, the logical look at the Steelers and Packers success and realize that market size does not trump poor, insular decision making.

 

Want another example of parochial thinking? When the Bills were actually good, the networks tried to give them more exposure by booking them for night games. The Bills declined this national exposure because some segment of the fans complained and were inconvenienced by going to late night games. This is not to criticism of those fans at all. It is rather to point out that the Bills management made the decision to have less exposure to appease some of their fans over marketing their team nationally, since the debate in this thread was (partly) about the importance of market size.

 

Let's not bring up the issue that the owner refuses to sell the naming rights for the stadium because it goes against his archaic sensibilities? Personal whim is not always the best basis to make decisions.

 

The irony is that the less the owner is involved in the football operation the better the chance the franchise has to succeed.

Edited May 26, 2012 by JohnC

[Lurker]

How is it that market size trumps bad management again?

Exmples A and B: Washington Redskin, and yes, America's Team. Both are among the most valuable franchises and not because of the product they put on the field.

 

Cowboys Stadium has 15,000 club seats that cost $340 for each NFL game. Yet over past decade, the 'Boys record is barely above .500 (91-85 since 2001). The 'Skins have had 2 winning seasons in the past 11 years, yet the waiting list for tickets is off the charts.

 

This thread has become sidetracked by those who interpret the OP's convoluted intertwining of "similar markets" with the difference between good and bad ownership. If the Rooney's owned the Bills, the on-field product would surely have been much better--but the market challenges (i.e. ticket prices) would be just as great for them as Ralph, putting the next owner behind the eightball in terms of generating an operating profit to cover a $400-$500 million (if not higher) debt load...

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Of the two factors, we all agree on the management aspect.

 

Good management will succeed where bad management will fail.

 

But why are people treating the market discussion like a black and white issue?

To say the market is a non-factor is just as ridiculous as saying that the market is the only factor. Both of those statements are wrong.

Edited May 26, 2012 by San Jose Bills Fan

[JohnC]

Exmples A and B: Washington Redskin, and yes, America's Team. Both are among the most valuable franchises and not because of the product they put on the field.

 

Cowboys Stadium has 15,000 club seats that cost $340 for each NFL game. Yet over past decade, the 'Boys record is barely above .500 (91-85 since 2001). The 'Skins have had 2 winning seasons in the past 11 years, yet the waiting list for tickets is off the charts.

 

This thread has become sidetracked by those who interpret the OP's convoluted intertwining of "similar markets" with the difference between good and bad ownership. If the Rooney's owned the Bills, the on-field product would surely have been much better--but the market challenges (i.e. ticket prices) would be just as great for them as Ralph, putting the next owner behind the eightball in terms of generating an operating profit to cover a $400-$500 million (if not higher) debt load...

 

I'm going back on my claim of non-involvement on this topic.

 

I live in a Maryland suburb in the DC market. The claim that the Skins have an inexhaustive waiting list is a fiction that has been exposed by the Washington Post. The waiting list has not been updated for a number of years. Many of the so called waiting list subscribers have died, moved out of the area or have little interest in getting a season ticket if offered.

 

If you have watched the Redskins for the past few years you will notice a sizeable portion of the stadium being empty. In addition, for almost all home games you can buy tickets on the secondary market for a fraction of the original price. The owner is currently (self-finacing) a reduction in the seating capacity and replacing the seats with a party section. In other words the on field performance has impacted the attendance.

 

There is no doubt that Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder have major revenue streams. But a large chunck of the revenue (as you noted) goes to servicing a staggering debt load. I understand why these two aggressive owners resent a free loader like Ralph who gets subsidized from a number of directions but still whines about his plight. RW is an embarrassment.

Edited May 26, 2012 by JohnC

[stony]

I've lived in Pittsburgh for about 7 years now. A couple of observations:

 

1) Pittsburgh has better and more loyal fans than any other area in the country. Some of it has to do with getting to root for a winning team; but a lot of it has to do with a group of people that value loyalty.

2) As OP alluded to, Pittsburgh also has a really broad regional base. We're talking about the city of Pittsburgh, and 4-5 hours around in every direction, including into Ohio and West Virginia. Buffalo is sort of similar, but perhaps not to the same degree.

3) Current economy and corporate presence dwarfs the other former rust belt cities.

 

a) very true. Steelers fans are very omnipresent throughout the nation as are Green Bay Fans. Guess why? Both small markets, both with winning traditions. Buffalo can't use the small-market argument there.

 

b) That's a bingo.

 

Pittsburgh, as opposed to Buffalo, has successfully transformed from its past-manufacturing roots into a modern/viable economic entity. Its funny because a lot of what Pittsburgh did (strong emphasis on education/medical) is what Buffalo has pushed for/committed to in recent recent years. Hopefully the results are similar.

 

Go Bills.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Exmples A and B: Washington Redskin, and yes, America's Team. Both are among the most valuable franchises and not because of the product they put on the field.

 

Cowboys Stadium has 15,000 club seats that cost $340 for each NFL game. Yet over past decade, the 'Boys record is barely above .500 (91-85 since 2001). The 'Skins have had 2 winning seasons in the past 11 years, yet the waiting list for tickets is off the charts.

 

Actually, this proves my point. How many Super Bowls have the Cowboys and Redskins won in recent years despite being a pair of teams in bigger markets and at the top of the Forbes list every year? I'm not sure who cheers for the profitability of the owner of the team they follow, but when I said bad management decisions I was referring to the resulting football product.

 

This thread has become sidetracked by those who interpret the OP's convoluted intertwining of "similar markets" with the difference between good and bad ownership. If the Rooney's owned the Bills, the on-field product would surely have been much better--but the market challenges (i.e. ticket prices) would be just as great for them as Ralph, putting the next owner behind the eightball in terms of generating an operating profit to cover a $400-$500 million (if not higher) debt load...

I don't see it. I don't think the OP was comparing Buffalo's owner the Pittsburgh's owner to discuss the relative value of the teams according to Forbes. That sort of thread would've probably been better on a board dedicated to discussion of business finance for CPAs.

[Lurker]

I don't see it.

How come I can't put you on ignore?