Please Stop

[Casey D]

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp

 

This should enlighten you on the FACT that the salary cap IS a revenue sharing Program equally distributed to all the teams!!!!

 

As for the rest, do i present what i wrote as facts not neccessarily I am not an investigative reporter However this is an opionated forumn in whch we all have our opions and back it up with what ever facts we have which is journalism, sorry but that is the fact.

 

No proof of MM being forced out yes truly speculation but, you have to so that the whole thing looks rather conspicuos. MM was put into a failing postion. Marv said that he and rapl and MM were all going to sit down evaluate and hire MM staff togehter. THAT is a fact based on Press conferences. Raplh stated he is not repsonsible for who MM hires or fires for his staff that his MM decision.RALPH flat out lied that IS a Fact see the press conference.

 

DO i know waht Jauron is making for a fact no I am specualation. However, we should learn that in time and if it is whats stated what does that prove to you???

 

The fact is that coaches have a budget setup by the president of the orginaztion and that makes it Ralph call on how much can be spent on the caoching staff.

 

Howevr, you have the right tp your opinion that you dont have any facts to base it on either.

584464[/snapback]

 

As long as you understand have an opinion based purely on speculation, that's cool. It is just not persuasive to me.

 

On a conciliatory note, the salary cap is not a revenue sharing device, and based on a quick look nothing in the article you linked suggests differently. Revenue sharing is done by a formula among the teams that throws all sorts of revenue from various sources, e.g., TV rights, radio rights, and portions of ticket sales to name the major ones, into a common pot that is then divided equally among all the teams. That is revenue sharing.

 

A major issue facing the league right now is non-shared revenue, that is increasingly creating financially have and have-not teams. These revenues include, most significantly, PLCs and stadium advertising, that is kept by each team and not shared. From these non-shared sources, teams like Washington and Dallas earn far more than teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh and Buffalo. This gives them more cash to pay coaches and signing bonuses. The prime obstacle to a new CBA, as the current one expires in 2006, is a new revenue sharing formula. The big market teams like the current disparity--guys like Snyder and Jones--because it gives them a competitive advantage. The small market teams want more of the current non-shared revenue to be put in the shared pot, so competitive balance is maintained. Until the owners get this settled amongst themselves, it is nearly impossible to negotiate a new CBA with the players, because the amount of money available to each team is unclear.

 

The salary cap, however, is a mechanism to minimize each team's disparate revenues from creating an unfair advantage in fielding a team, like it does in baseball. The cap limits how much money a team can spend on players, no matter how much money they have. So while Danny Snyder can spend millions on coaches--because there is no cap on coaches--he can't do the same thing on players and become the New York Yankees of baseball. The cap(and revenue sharing) are the main reasons why a team from Pittsburgh can win the SB, but not the World Series. Small market teams have a chance in football, but not really in baseball, because baseball has neither a cap nor revenue sharing.

 

So while revenue sharing and a salary cap both are designed to make small market teams competitive, they are different things.

 

But you are also implicitly correct that Buffalo is at a financial disadvantage in the amount of money it has on hand to spend on coaches. But that is not a product of cheapness, it is the reality that the Bills are a relatively "poor" team financially compared to almost every other team as a result of low ticket prices and relatively small non-shared revenue... regards, CD.

[Poeticlaw]

True, we all have a right to our opinions, but I always wonder why so many people think that having an unfounded opinion that is negative is automatically better than having a positive or hopeful view.... And yes, I know all of the "because life sucks and it makes sense to expect the worst" arguments. But does that really make sense in dealing with something as fun but meaningless as sports? I mean, I get as worked up as the next fan about the games, but I know enough to step away and not actually encourage myself (and others) to have agida.

 

It's like the difference between people who watch Soap Operas because they enjoy the stories and people who actually talk about the characters as if they are real people and get angry at them....

584468[/snapback]

 

Im not angry with anyone-I preferred Sherman I thoght he was the best hire for the poistion and the situation given his experience with Farve and as a gm would be both beneficial to Marv and JP. Howver, speculating once again maybe Raplh was willing to pay for Sherman but in Jeopardy of losing his trusted freind Marv in the Process. Again on Specualation all the newspapers stated immeadately after MM quit and before any names were mentioned for HC candiates that Marv would mostlikey hire Jauron because of their freindship/acqauintance whatever. They were specualting in the end it was true Dick jauron was the hire.

 

Again im not sure if we are going in the right direction or not I can only hope as we all can that this losing skid will end soon. The only other thing I am sure to specualte on is JP WILL NOT be starting next year again I am only speculating but what I can infer by the comments and their noncommittal to anything is leading me to the speculation. Do I want to win as much as the next YES do I think we are a few pieces away from doing this NO. So I think that JP should get all his bumps and bruises next year as a starter and see where this kid is going especially in a new system.

 

Outside of all that I respect you opinion and applaud you for holding it throuh all the signs that point the other way.

 

Hopefully Dick will be good rember Wade came with a losing record and brought us to 2 playoffs but with a much more talented team. Maybe flutie will come back???

[Buftex]

 

People have to get over their obsession with money.  It's not yours to begin with--if you want to spend millions on coaches then go get a job, earn a lot of money and buy a football team and overpay for names.  But it does not mean that the Bills--Levy in particular-- don't have plan.  And Levy, like Churchill, is going to stick to that plan, whiny critics who really know nothing about football be damned.

584257[/snapback]

 

You are losing track of your own argument here...first saying that Ralph isn't cheap, and then telling people to go buy their own teams, and pay their own coaches if they don't like it...

 

I will not claim that Ralph Wilson is cheap, when it comes to runing the Bills. Over the last 15 years, he has put a lot of money into building a strong franchise. That was not always the case. It is not a case of Ralph being cheap by nature, but a philisophical thing that he seems to have, about not paying his coaches very well.

 

When Mike Mularkey was hired, he was the highest paid head coach in Bills history, but was still amongst the very lowest paid in the leauge. Do you know that when Marv Levy (he of unprecedented success in Buffalo, and future HOF'er) retired as the Billls coach, he was one of the lowest paid coaches in the NFL? Did you know that Mike Mularkey, the highest paid coach in Bills history, is being paid more this upcoming season, to be the offensive coordiantor of the Miami Dolphins, than he was as HC of the Bills?

 

I appreciate your devotion, but you are livning in a vaccum if you don't think Ralph Wilson is cheap, when it comes to paying coaches. I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, but, it does limit your coaching choices to up and comers (Milk Mularkey, Gregg Williams) and re-treads (Marv Levy, Dick Jauron). Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Im not angry with anyone-I preferred Sherman I thoght he was the best hire for the poistion and the situation given his experience with Farve and as a gm would be both beneficial to Marv and JP. Howver, speculating once again maybe Raplh was willing to pay for Sherman but in Jeopardy of losing his trusted freind Marv in the Process. Again on Specualation all the newspapers stated immeadately after MM quit and before any names were mentioned for HC candiates that Marv would mostlikey hire Jauron because of their freindship/acqauintance whatever. They were specualting in the end it was true Dick jauron was the hire.

 

Again im not sure if we are going in the right direction or not I can only hope as we all can that this losing skid will end soon. The only other thing I am sure to specualte on is JP WILL NOT be starting next year again I am only speculating but what I can infer by the comments and their noncommittal to anything is leading me to the speculation. Do I want to win as much as the next YES do I think we are a few pieces away from doing this NO. So I think that JP should get all his bumps and bruises next year as a starter and see where this kid is going especially in a new system.

 

Outside of all that I respect you opinion and applaud you for holding it throuh all the signs that point the other way.

 

Hopefully Dick will be good rember Wade came with a losing record and brought us to 2 playoffs but with a much more talented team. Maybe flutie will come back???

584545[/snapback]

 

 

 

Huh?

 

Thanks for the kind words; I know we are all Bills fans, and hope we will celebrate victories soon, but your message confused the heck out of me. Basically, you say that you wanted Sherman (fair enough, so did I), but then you go into a series of admittedly unfounded speculations on JP's future, drawing all sorts of negative conclusions out of thin air, then have the nerve to condescend and say that I am holding to my opinion "throuh [sic] all the signs that point the other way." What signs? Which way?

 

If you want to be gloomy, be my guest. But please, please drop the implication that you are the only one who sees things clearly.

[Casey D]

True, we all have a right to our opinions, but I always wonder why so many people think that having an unfounded opinion that is negative is automatically better than having a positive or hopeful view.... And yes, I know all of the "because life sucks and it makes sense to expect the worst" arguments. But does that really make sense in dealing with something as fun but meaningless as sports? I mean, I get as worked up as the next fan about the games, but I know enough to step away and not actually encourage myself (and others) to have agida.

 

It's like the difference between people who watch Soap Operas because they enjoy the stories and people who actually talk about the characters as if they are real people and get angry at them....

584468[/snapback]

 

Being negative or positive on a subject should have a basis in fact, in my opinion. If you know enough to think that Kollar or Fairchild will be a bad coach, that's fine. To be negative and assume they must be bad because they must have come cheap because RW is cheap, seems irrational to me.

 

Bob Matthews says in today's Rochester paper that, in substance, the Bills hired Fairchild instead of Martz because although Martz is obviously better, Fairchild was cheaper. There is so much that is logically and factually wrong with that opinion, that it is essentially worthless--although he is entitled to his opinion. I mean, given his personality and history, would we want Martz at any price; what would be the difference in price in any event; maybe Fairchild and an approach to coaching that fits with ML/DJ but Martz does not;Martz might be unhappy as a coordinator again, etc, etc. You get the point. The notion

that we would have hired Martz except for the money is simply playing to a soft bigotry--RW is cheap--and is the kind of lazy journalism(and thinking) that offends me.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

it is the reality that the Bills are a relatively "poor" team financially compared to almost every other team as a result of low ticket prices and relatively small non-shared revenue... regards, CD.

584499[/snapback]

 

Hence the importance of winning the division to be guaranteed at least one home playoff game.

 

Remember what the AFC East looked like by week 5 of last season. Up for grabs.

 

It's been my opinion that it was the chance of reaping those playoff gate receipts that drove our owner and GM to push Mularkey into abandoning his off-season plans and strive to back into the East crown. It's a business, after all, but the effect this had on young head coach's credibility crippled the team. All of the goals set for 2005 were dismissed for a bag of cash.

 

No. Ralph's not cheap. He's just short-sighted. Always has been.

[Casey D]

You are losing track of your own argument here...first saying that Ralph isn't cheap, and then telling people to go buy their own teams, and pay their own coaches if they don't like it...

 

I will not claim that Ralph Wilson is cheap, when it comes to runing the Bills.  Over the last 15 years, he has put a lot of money into building a strong franchise.  That was not always the case.  It is not a case of Ralph being cheap by nature, but a philisophical thing that he seems to have, about not paying his coaches very well.

 

When Mike Mularkey was hired, he was the highest paid head coach in Bills history, but was still amongst the very lowest paid in the leauge.  Do you know that when Marv Levy (he of unprecedented success in Buffalo, and future HOF'er) retired as the Billls coach, he was one of the lowest paid coaches in the NFL?  Did you know that Mike Mularkey, the highest paid coach in Bills history, is being paid more this upcoming season, to be the offensive coordiantor of the Miami Dolphins, than he was as HC of the Bills? 

 

I appreciate your devotion, but you are livning in a vaccum if you don't think Ralph Wilson is cheap, when it comes to paying coaches.  I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, but, it does limit your coaching choices to up and comers (Milk Mularkey, Gregg Williams) and re-treads (Marv Levy, Dick Jauron).  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

584556[/snapback]

 

Again, you are buying into media conveyed talking points--RW is not cheap generally, but his won't pay for coaches. That may or may not be true, but think how unlikely that is. This is a multi- multi- million dollar team in both revenues, expenditures and expenses. Ralph gives millions of dollars away each year to charity. But you expect me to believe that when it comes down to two coaches, coach A who RW thinks is great but costs $3M a year, and Coach B who he thinks is inferior but only wants $2m per, RW says let's go with B because he's just a coach and I'm cheap. That to me is so unlikely upon analysis as to be absurd. The chances of the President expressing a clear and articulate thought are much higher, in my opinion.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Being negative or positive on a subject should have a basis in fact, in my opinion.  If you know enough to think that Kollar or Fairchild will be a bad coach, that's fine.  To be negative and assume they must be bad because they must have come cheap because RW is cheap, seems irrational to me.

 

Bob Matthews says in today's Rochester paper that, in substance, the Bills hired Fairchild instead of Martz because although Martz is obviously better, Fairchild was cheaper.  There is so much that is logically and factually wrong with that opinion, that it is essentially worthless--although he is entitled to his opinion.  I mean, given his personality and history, would we want Martz at any price; what would be the difference in price in any event; maybe Fairchild  and an approach to coaching that fits with ML/DJ but Martz does not;Martz might be unhappy as a coordinator again, etc, etc.  You get the point.  The notion

that we would have hired Martz except for the money is simply playing to a soft bigotry--RW is cheap--and is the kind of lazy journalism(and thinking) that offends me.

584563[/snapback]

 

 

Amen!

[Dennis in NC]

Fans can choose to live in fear or live in hope. I invite all of you to join me in hope--at least until bad things happen again.

 

Go Bills!

584333[/snapback]

Beautiful words, RJ!

 

Most of us piss and moan that Joe Smith should have been hired/signed instead of Joe Blow. But the guys running the show at OBD generally have a better idea than we do about what the f&^% is going on football-wise.

 

So, yeah, I like to live in hope. There is too much genuinely bad stuff in our world to get worked up over football matters.

 

To quote the Festrunk brothers (2 wild and crazy guys):

"Why don't you buy yourself a drink - and EN-JOY IT!!!"

[Buftex]

Again, you are buying into media conveyed talking points--RW is not cheap generally, but his won't pay for coaches.  That may or may not be true, but think how unlikely that is.  This is a multi- multi- million dollar team in both revenues, expenditures and expenses.  Ralph gives millions of dollars away each year to charity.  But you expect me to believe that when it comes down to two coaches, coach A who RW thinks is great but costs $3M a year, and Coach B who he thinks is inferior but only wants $2m per, RW says let's go with B because he's just a coach and I'm cheap.  That to me is so unlikely upon analysis as to be absurd.  The chances of the President expressing a clear and articulate thought are much higher, in my opinion.

584574[/snapback]

 

 

Whatever you would like to believe is fine, but they do release player and coach salaries every year, and whoever the Bills HC is, is always near the bottom, along with the Raiders HC.

[PromoTheRobot]

The "cheap" argument doesn't wash for player salaries since each team has to spend most if not all of it's cap.

 

As far as coaches, scouting and front office go, is Ralph cheap or just spending what the Bills bring in? Teams like Washington, Dallas, and New England, through loopholes in the NFL revenue sharing rules, bring in $100 million more a year than the Bills do.

 

They can spend an extra $10-$20 mil and not care. A couple extra mil spent by the Bills could put the Bills in the red. Oh sure, Ralph could subsidize the team, after all that's his money, not yours. You're all for Ralph spending his own money to make you happy!

 

Maybe the next owner of the Bills will spend more on coaches. Of course, he will also have to double ticket prices, increase parking to $45, double concession prices, and start forcing people to pay for PSL's for the privialge of buying season tickets, just like the rest of the NFL does. Would that make you happy?

 

PTR

[CoachChuckDickerson]

Bob Matthews says in today's Rochester paper that, in substance, the Bills hired Fairchild instead of Martz because although Martz is obviously better, Fairchild was cheaper.

 

I honestly think that Jauron is trying a qualtiy staff which will not rock the boat and work well together. Martz is a prick, that is why he wasn't hired as our OC, or anybody elses OC for that matter.

[KRT88]

Bates might turn down the DC job because he doesn't like the $$ the Bills have offered.

 

Yet, again, Buffalo trying to pay on the CHEAP!!!

[scribo]

The Bills are pissing me off right now more than ever before. There is no doubt in my simple mind that Ralph Wilson Jr. is a cheap jerk.

[Coach Tuesday]

I'm almost certain Bates wants more than they're paying Jauron... that is a dicey situation that doesn't have anything to do with frugality.

[scribo]

I'm almost certain Bates wants more than they're paying Jauron... that is a dicey situation that doesn't have anything to do with frugality.

585323[/snapback]

Then maybe the team shuld have paid DJ more. Or hired a coach worth more.

[Coach Tuesday]

Then maybe the team shuld have paid DJ more. Or hired a coach worth more. 

585325[/snapback]

 

Dude move on. The Bills are in one of the smallest markets in the NFL. There is no salary cap for coaches. THEY ARE NOT A PUBLIC ENTITLEMENT. What do you expect Ralph to do? The market will dictate that the big-market teams will push coaching salaries up to and past the point that the small market teams can rationally afford. The only way the small market teams are unaffected is if they have a filthy rich, irrational owner who cares more about winning than being solvent. I'm sorry, if that's your expectation of Ralph, it is unreasonable. That's not how the business world does or should operate. I've heard little to suggest that Sherman was that much more qualified than Jauron that he definitely should have been hired, and I'm not going to fault the Bills for not insisting on paying Jauron more even though he was willing to settle for less. Get real.

 

Also, Bates also turned down Houston, IMO for similar reasons - and Bob McNair is even wealthier than Ralph.

[Campy]

Also, Bates also turned down Houston, IMO for similar reasons - and Bob McNair is even wealthier than Ralph.

585328[/snapback]

I didn't know about Houston, but I read several published reports that he turned down over $1 million per year to DC the Rams.

[scribo]

Dude move on.  The Bills are in one of the smallest markets in the NFL.  There is no salary cap for coaches.  THEY ARE NOT A PUBLIC ENTITLEMENT.  What do you expect Ralph to do?  The market will dictate that the big-market teams will push coaching salaries up to and past the point that the small market teams can rationally afford.  The only way the small market teams are unaffected is if they have a filthy rich, irrational owner who cares more about winning than being solvent.  I'm sorry, if that's your expectation of Ralph, it is unreasonable.  That's not how the business world does or should operate.  I've heard little to suggest that Sherman was that much more qualified than Jauron that he definitely should have been hired, and I'm not going to fault the Bills for not insisting on paying Jauron more even though he was willing to settle for less.  Get real.

 

Also, Bates also turned down Houston, IMO for similar reasons - and Bob McNair is even wealthier than Ralph.

585328[/snapback]

Apparently you don't mind being lied to then. Wilson clearly said money wasn't going to be an obstacle in bringing the best coaches to Buffalo.

 

No, the Bills are not a public entitlment -- but buying tickets, jerseys, hats, etc. is not something I must do -- they aren't taxes.

 

By the way, I know the Bills rank among the top half of NFL teams in income.

[RJ (not THAT RJ)]

Apparently you don't mind being lied to then. Wilson clearly said money wasn't going to be an obstacle in bringing the best coaches to Buffalo.

 

No, the Bills are not a public entitlment -- but buying tickets, jerseys, hats, etc. is not something I must do -- they aren't taxes.

 

By the way, I know the Bills rank among the top half of NFL teams in income.

585405[/snapback]

 

 

Good God man, chill out. Lying? James Frey lied--claiming to have had a root canal without novocaine and all that, statements that can be contradicted with actual facts. Ralph Wilson said money was not an obstacle to hiring the best coaches, and we do not know that to be false. People here are assuming, based on other assumptions which are themselves based on rumors, that the Sherman/Jauron choice was about money, but there is no hard evidence of that. Nor is there (to coin a phrase) incontrovertible evidence of who is the better coach (is Sherman a Seifert? is Jauron a Belichek? who the heck knows?) With Bates, the situation is even more murky. Rumors are he turned down the Jets and Saints already; does that mean they are all cheap too? Not necessarily. There are many factors involved, and I have no idea why people would choose to cling to the one explanation guaranteed to make them unhappy when there are others available that are at least as convincing.

 

Go Bills!