Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Who are the new owners buying from? The old ones! They're the ones who came into an equitable business situation and are creating an inequitable one for they're own personal gain. Why do you blame guys from buying their franchises? If they could buy them for less, don't you think they would? When the Wilson estate sells the Buffalo franchise to new ownership for say, $500M, without a modified revenue sharing plan in place, the Bills new owner will be forced to bring more money in elsewhere. Even if New York State and Erie County continue to offer tax breaks and help subsidise the franchise, that will not be enough to keep across the board price increases from taking place. That may not even be enough to keep the franchise solvent. Unless the new owner has sentimental ties to WNY, if what's coming in is less than what's going out, he's gone. Any hopes of keeping the Bills in Buffalo hinge on a restructuring of the league's wealth. It will cost Wilson money now, but when his kids hang the 'for sale' sign on the club, at least prospective buyers know they're walking into a managable economic situation with no immediate need to move the team to another location. 596377[/snapback] The new breed of owner is unlike the Wilsons, Rooneys and Hunts of old. New owners are tupically BILLIONAIRES rather than multi-millionaires and their NFL franchises are toys rather than vital cogs in their business portfolios. Wilson NEEDS revenue from the Bills. Snyder doesn't NEED revenue from the Skins. Big difference. Hopefully the next owner (Jacobs or Golisano) will be wealthy enough to treat the franchise like Jones or Snyder does. Because THAT is what brings success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Who are the new owners buying from? The old ones! They're the ones who came into an equitable business situation and are creating an inequitable one for they're own personal gain. Why do you blame guys from buying their franchises? If they could buy them for less, don't you think they would? When the Wilson estate sells the Buffalo franchise to new ownership for say, $500M, without a modified revenue sharing plan in place, the Bills new owner will be forced to bring more money in elsewhere. Even if New York State and Erie County continue to offer tax breaks and help subsidise the franchise, that will not be enough to keep across the board price increases from taking place. That may not even be enough to keep the franchise solvent. Unless the new owner has sentimental ties to WNY, if what's coming in is less than what's going out, he's gone. Any hopes of keeping the Bills in Buffalo hinge on a restructuring of the league's wealth. It will cost Wilson money now, but when his kids hang the 'for sale' sign on the club, at least prospective buyers know they're walking into a managable economic situation with no immediate need to move the team to another location. 596377[/snapback] Not necessarily, it's virtually impossible to lose money with an NFL franchise. The only bitching that could be done is you're not making as much money as one of the other owners. First, with the new TV contract, you're almost guaranteed a profit before you spend a dime on your team. Second, even if you screw up or are the worst businessman ever, the OLD policies of revenue sharing guarantee you will not lose money. Third, the value of the franchises is not going down. You could very likely buy a team for a billion dollars and the next day sell it for 1.1 billion. The new owners want to disregard the old, fabulous, NFL only style that made it the best sports league in the history of the world, and spit on the one thing that made it that way, revenue sharing. All so they can make tens of more millions than the hundreds of millions they are making. And again, the key here is that they made all those hundreds of millions ONLY because the NFL's old policies in place, before they got there, were golden. And not because they are so shrewd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 The new breed of owner is unlike the Wilsons, Rooneys and Hunts of old. New owners are tupically BILLIONAIRES rather than multi-millionaires and their NFL franchises are toys rather than vital cogs in their business portfolios. Wilson NEEDS revenue from the Bills. Snyder doesn't NEED revenue from the Skins. Big difference. Hopefully the next owner (Jacobs or Golisano) will be wealthy enough to treat the franchise like Jones or Snyder does. Because THAT is what brings success. 596383[/snapback] I don't agree about Wilson. I may be wrong, but I think Ralph came from money (father had insurance and trucking businesses in Detroit I believe) and wanted in on professional football. Being a shareholder (along with his dad) of the Detroit Lions wasn't enough. His opportunity came with the 'Foolish Club' and their creation of football league to rival the NFL. He loves football, had money, and wanted to own a team. Nothing wrong with that. How are these new guys different? Egos? Sure. Walking around the sidelines during games is obvious. But in a league where a head coach can no longer wear a suit on the sideline, what do you expect? Times change. Not always for the better, but they change and you've got to adapt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Not necessarily, it's virtually impossible to lose money with an NFL franchise. The only bitching that could be done is you're not making as much money as one of the other owners. First, with the new TV contract, you're almost guaranteed a profit before you spend a dime on your team. Second, even if you screw up or are the worst businessman ever, the OLD policies of revenue sharing guarantee you will not lose money. Third, the value of the franchises is not going down. You could very likely buy a team for a billion dollars and the next day sell it for 1.1 billion. All three of these statements are making the same point. If you're an owner who has to raise the capital to purchase the team, you're cash flow better be as great as your debt. Otherwise you're losing money. The old policies promise a guaranteed slice of a lucrative pie, no doubt. This alone could be enough to convince investors to get on board with the sale. But franchises are on their own operations-wise. Small market clubs have less costs but a finite price margin. Large market clubs have higher costs with a flexible price margin. Both have to spend money to make money. There's no guarantee your franchise will generate enough return on the initial investment to warrant it's sale at such an inflated price. Maybe in another 50 years. Not overnight. The new owners want to disregard the old, fabulous, NFL only style that made it the best sports league in the history of the world, and spit on the one thing that made it that way, revenue sharing. All so they can make tens of more millions than the hundreds of millions they are making. And again, the key here is that they made all those hundreds of millions ONLY because the NFL's old policies in place, before they got there, were golden. And not because they are so shrewd. Understand the shift that has taken place. Yes, revenue sharing is at the heart of the NFL's success in fielding competitive products. It was an equitable means to come to an equitable end. Now it's an inequitable means to reach an equitable end. The 'end' being the ability to turn a profit after covering your nut. You can't have it both ways. The same guys who got rich from the 'old, fabulous' NFL are not going to sell their franchises for what they paid for them. The sky-high asking prices are their doing. They're the ones who could kill the golden goose by altering the landscape that enabled the league to flourish. And again, be careful where you side on this because it's in the best interest of Bills fans (not Wilson fans) to see the league restructure their franchising policies which include revenue sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 And again, be careful where you side on this because it's in the best interest of Bills fans (not Wilson fans) to see the league restructure their franchising policies which include revenue sharing. 596482[/snapback] How's that? Because you think it'll be cheaper for a new owner to purchase them? News flash...if there's no revenue sharing or salary cap, there is NO WAY the Bills will be able to field a team to compete with Dallas, New York, Washington, Miami and other large-fanbase teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 How's that? Because you think it'll be cheaper for a new owner to purchase them? No, the opposite. The Wilson estate will get a very good price for their franchise. News flash...if there's no revenue sharing or salary cap, there is NO WAY the Bills will be able to field a team to compete with Dallas, New York, Washington, Miami and other large-fanbase teams. I'm not taliking about removing revenue sharing, I'm talking about restructuring the payouts to consider the amount of debt taken to get into the game. If the NFL puts a plan in place which considers the financial burden of purchasing a franchise in 2006 and addresses debt relief within the scope of their revenue sharing architecture, a local investor may be able to form an investment group to raise enough capital to purchase the Bills. Otherwise, how could the Bills be purchased without the intent to relocate them into a more formidible market? How much can the new Bills owners raise ticket prices to recover their initial investment costs? Concessions? Parking? If the new ownership has to pay the Wilsons $500M for the franchise, how long will they operate in the red? Who's going to invest in that? You may as well buy $500M of US Savings Bonds. The idea is to keep the team in Buffalo by helping to transform the NFL's business plan. The league has never been this old before. It's never seen this many franchises change hands and ownership in such a short time. As the original pioneer owners age, pass away, and will their franchises to uninterested parties, we'll see even more need for this type of restructuring. If not we'll be back to an eight team NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts