SHOUTBOX MONSTER! Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Just saw on Espnews... Ralph said no because it was too complex of a deal for him to understand in 45 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Said he voted no because he didn't understand it and the way it was persented they should have had more than forty five minutes to vote on it. Hate to say it, but he seemed to kind of show his age in response to his no vote. Said it was just to complicated for him to understand in the short amount of time . I'm sure they will replay it over and over again on ESPNNEWS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 know vote. . 621790[/snapback] Freudian slip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frez Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Said he voted no because he didn't understand it and the way it was persented they should have had more than forty five minutes to vote on it. Hate to say it, but he seemed to kind of show his age in response to his know vote. Said it was just to complicated for him to understand in the short amount of time . I'm sure they will replay it over and over again on ESPNNEWS. 621790[/snapback] It is Wednesday right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 And folks wonder why he is not in the HOF. He'll get in posthumously cause then he can be honored without folks having to hear him accept the award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Freudian slip? 621795[/snapback] I'm an idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frez Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Just saw on Espnews... Ralph said no because it was too complex of a deal for him to understand in 45 minutes. 621789[/snapback] I bet most people could read it for 3 hours and still not grasp it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Well that makes me feel a little better than him voting "no" because it was a bad deal. It still might be a bad one, but if the lower revenue clubs voted for it, then it might not be bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambler Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Well that makes me feel a little better than him voting "no" because it was a bad deal. It still might be a bad one, but if the lower revenue clubs voted for it, then it might not be bad. 621801[/snapback] Ralph didn't understand it? After watching Ralph at the last three or four press conferences I find that hard to believe. I think it was smart for Moulds to turn down a pay cut. He can say the Bills can afford him now with a $102 million cap. Let's see if the Bills have the balls to cut him? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Ralph didn't understand it? After watching Ralph at the last three or four press conferences I find that hard to believe. I think it was smart for Moulds to turn down a pay cut. He can say the Bills can afford him now with a $102 million cap. Let's see if the Bills have the balls to cut him? I doubt it. It's not a matter of "balls." With every team getting $8M more in cap room, there won't be as many FA's as before. You cut Eric, who do you replace him with, and will he be (much) cheaper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I'd like to see anyone here understand the entire CBA in 45 minutes. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 That's why the Bills are like they are. I think it's obvious that RW is senile. At least RW looks better than Al Davis. Al looks like he died five years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Makes me think of a saying I once heard, "If you're not confused, you don't know what's going on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I'd like to see anyone here understand the entire CBA in 45 minutes. CW 621845[/snapback] i like to think i could understand it if i had been subjected to, oh, about 30 in depth explanations of how it works. seems like every other owner got it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 i like to think i could understand it if i had been subjected to, oh, about 30 in depth explanations of how it works. seems like every other owner got it ... Yes because I want things explained for me, instead of reading it myself. No one ever misrepresents things. BTW dave, I can explain to you how you can buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 It is Wednesday right? 621797[/snapback] I thought it was a Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I'd like to see anyone here understand the entire CBA in 45 minutes. CW 621845[/snapback] Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorom Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I bet most people could read it for 3 hours and still not grasp it. 621800[/snapback] I bet most people could spend a lifetime reading it and not understand it. Why did they only let them have 40 minutes ? Would another hour or so have hurt anything at this point ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Well that makes me feel a little better than him voting "no" because it was a bad deal. It still might be a bad one, but if the lower revenue clubs voted for it, then it might not be bad. 621801[/snapback] That is kind of what I thought, until I heard that there were 9 teams involved in presenting the CBA proposal to the owners. Not sure if this is the exact list, but it is close" Jets, Giants, Cowboys, Steelers, Redskins, Patriots, Eagles, Bucs and Falcons.... What do all of these teams have in common? Most are from major markets, or have had recent success, most have new stadium deals, and all (except the Bucs maybe) are teams that have a large national prescence...my insticnts tell me that Ralph voted "no" for other reasons, in addition to being a senile old man...it sounds like the major issue holding this deal up was not so much how much money the players would get, but how the leauge revenue would be split amongst the 32 clubs. Ralph may be losing it, but I think he thinks this is a bad deal for the Bills. It likely was a variation on a theme of the proposals they have been knocking around for the last few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Would YOU ever vote for something or sign something that was just "presented" to you, without reading it fully first? I know I wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts