RochesterRob Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 8 hours ago, SoTier said: Wilson was already wealthy when he purchased the Bills franchise in 1960. I believe he inherited a business from his father that was associated with the auto industry and expanded that. Keep in mind that $25000 *which is what Wilson paid for the just the franchise -- he would have had to invest more in actually getting the team up and running and supporting it until fans started paying enough admissions to show a profit) was a lot of money in 1960 when the average salary was maybe $5000/a year, the minimum wage was around $1/hour, and you could buy a livable if modest house for $10-20K. My observation based on those old enough to support families back then (early 1960's) the average annual salary was more along the lines of 2,500-3,500 dollars. 10,000 dollars would have bought a very nice 3,500 plus square foot home. The wacky inflation in homes started during the 1970's in a generally inflationary period. I remember my FIL telling about looking at a sizable home during the early 1960's in Greece that needed a few things for 5,000 dollars. It would have cost another couple of thousand dollars to put it in good shape. I agree with your observation about the Bills in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prissythecat Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 9 hours ago, BakersBills said: He was broke af because his buisness was the bills. unlike other owners who bought teams and already had billions. it helps when you sell fake cheese and noodles on the side. Ralph may have been tight with spending . But he was never broke . He was a successful businessman (transportation?) . The Bills were not a core business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 27 minutes ago, cba fan said: The others explained it pretty well. Basically he worked outside the cap. Holding the Bills to not spending any more "actual cash" then the salary cap number. Even though he could have spent a lot more as they never spent what would have been allowed on a per year basis in regards to salary cap. An amount that can be mega millions over the cap in actual cash outlay if they would have signed premium FA's and issued big sign bonuses like other teams routinely did. They still did contracts the same as always like other teams. Sign bonuses amortized forward and properly loading yearly salaries per the rules. Just up to yearly cap cash outlay. So Bills would show they had mega cap space per league salary cap calculations per year, but since Ralph was paying out "in real cash" at the salary cap level already, he would not spend(effectively borrowing on future years) to sign players with expiring contracts and for FA's. This effectively made the Bills a team that could not compete and led to them being the NFL farmteam like MLB KC Royals and Miami Marlins use to be back in the day. Miami still is now again. Take a look at actual cash outlays for 2017. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cash/2017/ NFL recent years not a great example as in past years, as many teams horde salary cap now since they can carry surplus forward if desired and do not lose it. Lions spent way over cap last year. Cap was 167 mill. With Ralphs cash to cap accounting method he would never bring unused salary cap money forward and just keep the profit. He could never spend money brought forward anyway in his cash to cap method as he refused to spend anymore actual cash then the salary cap number. I do not recall any other teams agreeing to do this except possibly the Bengals. Ralph was hoping it would catch on and became league wide. It failed. What it was successful at was making Bills non competitive for over a decade and keeping Ralphs net worth from dipping below a Billion dollars. Thanks Ralph. If you look at it from Ralph's point of view then you can understand what his motive was. The guy was used to living in high society and as the other businesses became insignificant compared to the Bills he needed to tap the Bills to maintain what he was accustomed to. The Bengals were a similar situation as they were 100 percent of the Brown family's income. Art Modell was pretty much in the same boat when his Browns were still in Cleveland. Most of the other old line owners succumbed to financial erosion before the modern NFL era of Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft. Some such as the Rooney's brought in minor partners so they could cash out small portions of the team. If you had a strong non NFL business such as oil as it was with Bud Adams you could have the best of everything but you still needed to have good people working for you which Adams never got figured out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, kdiggz said: The new philosophy is the "Dead Cap Cash." Basically, you wait for a new regime to come in every few years and trade away all of the previous players and absorb the dead cap costs. Frighteningly accurate . . . And it got pretty annoying reading all of the speculation on what ralph's businesses were: After the war ended, he took over his father's insurance business and invested in Michigan area mines and factories. He eventually purchased several manufacturing outlets, construction firms, television and radio stations, and founded Ralph Wilson Industries. Edited February 21, 2018 by Philly McButterpants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat68 Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, BuffaloRush said: Over the past years or so I’ve read articles about Ralph Wilson. In doing so, one phrase keeps coming up - “cash to the cap.” However I can’t find an actual definition anywhere. Can someone clarify what “cash to the cap” means, specifically as it relates to Ralph? My best guess is that it means you don’t spend the entire salary cap, and keep the money you didn’t spend. Am I far off? My understanding it was in terms of signing bonus and cap implication. Say cousins gets 50 mil signing bonus. instead of prorating that amount over the years of the contract they would use most if not all of that 50 mil towards the 2018 cap. Edited February 21, 2018 by Mat68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 As always..its not about the free agents it is about how well you draft We had some real clunker 1st round picks along the way....Aaron Maybin? Eric Flowers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Mat68 said: My understanding it was in terms of signing bonus and cap implication. Say cousins gets 50 mil signing bonus. instead of prorating that amount over the years of the contract they would use most if not all of that 50 mil towards the 2018 cap. They still pro-rated the bonus for salary cap purposes, but for cash purposes only spent what was left on the cap. So let's say this year the Bills are $30m under cap. Bills would've only doled out $30m in cash bonuses this year to sign players even though they might've had $40m in amortized bonuses in the cap number. It made no sense other than for cheap teams to invent a term to avoid telling their fans they were being cheap. Right up there with the Bills in Toronto series. The dark days of the franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColoradoBills Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 1 hour ago, BuffaloRebound said: They still pro-rated the bonus for salary cap purposes, but for cash purposes only spent what was left on the cap. So let's say this year the Bills are $30m under cap. Bills would've only doled out $30m in cash bonuses this year to sign players even though they might've had $40m in amortized bonuses in the cap number. It made no sense other than for cheap teams to invent a term to avoid telling their fans they were being cheap. Right up there with the Bills in Toronto series. The dark days of the franchise. What you are saying is true but there are measures in place by the owners themselves to "define" the limits of cheap. Teams can play with cap hits and cash spent all they want but the bottom line is over time no team can spend more than the cap ceilings. At the same time no team can spend less than 90% of the cap ceilings. The NFL cap floor is a little different than say the NHL floor but it is still a floor. Philadelphia has been spending money and signing more "back loaded" contract for a number of years and they will pay the price this and next year. The Cap Hit $'s force them not to spend, over time, more than the cap. Cleveland has not been spending money but their rolled over cap dollars along with the floor will force them to spend money to achieve at least the floor. Truthfully the Buffalo Bills over the last number of years have been in the middle. One thing the Bills are high on over the last handful of years is Dead Cap. High Dead Cap is OK for a year or two but over the long run a high Dead Cap takes $'s away that can be used to sign better players. The Bills with all it's coaching/scheme changes has caused this and I am sure it is something that Beane and McDermott will get a handle on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 6 hours ago, GunnerBill said: Cash to cap is not a gimmick it is a well established cap management method and the Bills are not the only team to have ever employed it. It is a limiting philosophy to some extent and it has generally been employed by poorer, smaller market teams. But it isn't just some flashy name Russ Brandon thought up. I think you gave a great explanation of the concept. But the way Wilson and Littman did it, it was a gimmick. It was used as an excuse to work within the parameters of Ralph's mercurial nature and Littman's desire to stack cheese for Ralph's potential inheritance tax issues. They were basically stacking about $30M per year in real profits for about a decade to deal with the latter. I understand the accounting side better than some so it irked me......but of course the numbers for public consumption were always a fraction of the reality........the Bills were barely making ends meet on the tax return........ but when the team came up for sale the real profits came out because it was a selling point. The drought was more cash-to-the-cow than the-cap. And as it turned out the pinching was for naught. The team value jumped exponentially at the end of Ralphs life and the inheritance issue was kinda' inconsequential..........which was great for chariites.........but not so great for Bills fans who had to endure the water treading on the personnel side for close to a decade. Ralph wasn't always like that. When he felt he could win he would spend and take very little out of the till. When he did not, he would pocket the cash. He liked bragging rights at the owners meetings and if he couldn't earn it on the field he was going to on the balance sheet.........which irked the young "spend money to make money" owners. Going thru preseason, realizing the team sucked and then salary dumping were a hallmark of the 21st century version of RW. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 21 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: I think you gave a great explanation of the concept. But the way Wilson and Littman did it, it was a gimmick. It was used as an excuse to work within the parameters of Ralph's mercurial nature and Littman's desire to stack cheese for Ralph's potential inheritance tax issues. They were basically stacking about $30M per year in real profits for about a decade to deal with the latter. I understand the accounting side better than some so it irked me......but of course the numbers for public consumption were always a fraction of the reality........the Bills were barely making ends meet on the tax return........ but when the team came up for sale the real profits came out because it was a selling point. The drought was more cash-to-the-cow than the-cap. And as it turned out the pinching was for naught. The team value jumped exponentially at the end of Ralphs life and the inheritance issue was kinda' inconsequential..........which was great for chariites.........but not so great for Bills fans who had to endure the water treading on the personnel side for close to a decade. Ralph wasn't always like that. When he felt he could win he would spend and take very little out of the till. When he did not, he would pocket the cash. He liked bragging rights at the owners meetings and if he couldn't earn it on the field he was going to on the balance sheet.........which irked the young "spend money to make money" owners. Going thru preseason, realizing the team sucked and then salary dumping were a hallmark of the 21st century version of RW. ....have to give some "credit (COUGH") to Littmann....he was the common denominator CFO in all of RW's businesses as well as his charitable entities........also, he was a silent 1% owner of the Bills, gratis from Ralph, so he was protecting his own (FREE) interest by calling the financial shots from under his desk while others took the public heat for the grandiose mess...Pegula buys the club for $1.4 billion and Littmann sails off into the sunset with a check for $14 mil in hand...... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socal-805 Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 Ralph's management of this team, with the EXCEPTION of the BILL POLLIAN era, has been a debacle. IMO. o His inner circle o Cronyism. o Horrible front office. o etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 8 hours ago, JohnC said: Excellent insight. The crushing weakness of the organization was not in its frugality but in its staffing. I do not see it being any better and I wish more sports news organizations would focus on the "dead" money for the staff no longer employed but getting paid regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishRifle Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 As we are discussing money I think it’s important to point out that Ralph kept the AFL afloat with a loan to the Raiders. I find it hard to criticize the guy overall considering what he did to save the AFL and consequently form the basis of the NFL as we know it. In hindsight, they should’ve adjusted their business model as times changed but I believe the history of the league and his own actions skewed his perspective in the later years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 17 hours ago, SoTier said: Wilson was already wealthy when he purchased the Bills franchise in 1960. I believe he inherited a business from his father that was associated with the auto industry and expanded that. Keep in mind that $25000 *which is what Wilson paid for the just the franchise -- he would have had to invest more in actually getting the team up and running and supporting it until fans started paying enough admissions to show a profit) was a lot of money in 1960 when the average salary was maybe $5000/a year, the minimum wage was around $1/hour, and you could buy a livable if modest house for $10-20K. Wealthy is a relative term Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 23 minutes ago, Limeaid said: I do not see it being any better and I wish more sports news organizations would focus on the "dead" money for the staff no longer employed but getting paid regardless. Your response is perplexing to me. This staff is a dramatic improvement. Much of the dead money that has accumulated and weighed down this franchise was from the prior regime. There is now more of an emphasis on a cost/benefit analysis compared to what previously went on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, JohnC said: Your response is perplexing to me. This staff is a dramatic improvement. Much of the dead money that has accumulated and weighed down this franchise was from the prior regime. There is now more of an emphasis on a cost/benefit analysis compared to what previously went on here. There were a number of staff released (DB Coach, OL coach, WR coach) who were better at their jobs than hires and two of new coaches are gone already. Coach McD dumped the baby with bath water IMO. He did same thing with scouts. If he had to be more responsible with money maybe he would make better decisions. These actions are what caused me to change name to Limeaid. I much prefer what Reich is doing evaluating coaches and not just keeping coaches he had connection with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankoElTanko Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 18 hours ago, kdiggz said: The new philosophy is the "Dead Cap Cash." Basically, you wait for a new regime to come in every few years and trade away all of the previous players and absorb the dead cap costs. Im weak... This is unfortunately so so so true, especially with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BakersBills Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 On 2/21/2018 at 7:34 AM, prissythecat said: Ralph may have been tight with spending . But he was never broke . He was a successful businessman (transportation?) . The Bills were not a core business. his networth was well below most owners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prissythecat Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 27 minutes ago, BakersBills said: his networth was well below most owners I don't doubt it was . Still doesn't equate with being broke lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BakersBills Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 4 hours ago, prissythecat said: I don't doubt it was . Still doesn't equate with being broke lol I wasn't comparing his income to the average joe, I'm comparing it to other nfl owners. compared to other owners he was broke. his main source of income WAS the bills. Not oil, not tech, not mac and cheese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts