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...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 For the first 40 minutes after the newest proposal was presented, Ralphie was lost in thought... 'Were those sweet potatos for dinner, or was that really squash? It was a nice sauce. Wonder if the waiter knows? Maybe he's still here. Where the hell did he go? Dammit, I got sauce on my tie. Mmmm, that is good. Did that Jones guy just give me a dirty look? I already told him, I know people. He better watch his step. Where's that waiter? I wonder if those were sweet potatos." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay 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." 621852[/snapback] Alright Dave, now you're making things up. Or was that the same guy that said, "If you're confused, you know what's going on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Alright Dave, now you're making things up. Or was that the same guy that said, "If you're confused, you know what's going on." 621911[/snapback] Actually I was watching a movie when I read this topic, The Devil's Own, when Brad Pitts character mentioned this very saying when questioned about something. edit: It seemed appropriate though! The Devil's Own A New York policeman (Harrison Ford) learns that his Irish houseguest (Brad Pitt) is an IRA terrorist seeking U.S. weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in SC Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Despite all of the ageist comments by the 20 year old scholars on this board, Ralph is still mighty sharp. Give him a break - he was just being honest, an attribute that is rare among the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Despite all of the ageist comments by the 20 year old scholars on this board, Ralph is still mighty sharp. Give him a break - he was just being honest, an attribute that is rare among the owners. 621918[/snapback] He's was just being Ralphie! I have no problem with his honesty, but as a Bills fan I'd rather hear an explanation given on the merits of the proposal, not "I didn't understand it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Actually I was watching a movie when I read this topic, The Devil's Own, when Brad Pitts character mentioned this very saying when questioned about something. edit: It seemed appropriate though! The Devil's Own A New York policeman (Harrison Ford) learns that his Irish houseguest (Brad Pitt) is an IRA terrorist seeking U.S. weapons. 621917[/snapback] Quoting Brad Pitt, eh? I'm sorry Dave, there's just so much wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyghtewynd Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I thought it was a Tuesday. 621872[/snapback] When he was asked about the deal, he said, "Is this...is this a Monday?" Please sell the team, Ralphie. And enjoy the pudding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 It's only a multi-year, multi-billion dollar proposal that determines the fate of a business Ralph had built over 46 years. It was "Krafted" by such trustworthy men as Snyder, Kraft and Jones. Why should he need more than 45 minutes to study it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Playfair Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Under the new deal, the bottom 17 teams in revenue will not contribute to the pool, which will be funded with the top five teams contributing the most; the second five less; and the third five less than them. Still, two of the lowest-revenue teams voted "no." "I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it." http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-n...ov=ap&type=lgns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex 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. 621898[/snapback] A good thing you are not running for congress then! You are not, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 According to George Sedano, of Fox Sports Radio, Ralph Wilson was late for the late portion of the owners meeting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firstngoal Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 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? 621818[/snapback] Eric Moulds will not be in a Bills uniform this year! What are you guys missing?? Other than the last couple of games last year he had a bad year and his play has diminished as his age has gone up. He doesn't want to be a Bill anymore. He wants to go to a team that has a chance of winning the Bowl. The only reason he stuck around last year is because he thought the Bills had a chance at the dance coming off a 9-7 season the year before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 "I didn't think I was a dropout, but..... Maybe I am!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John in VA Beach Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Ralph's explanation of voting no because they only had 45 minutes to grasp a very important business proposal was acceptable and probably one of the few honest answers from the owners. Where Ralph got in trouble is that when pushed for more info, at his age, he doesn't explain things well. He didn't need to add that he didn't understand the proposal. He just needed to say there wasn't enough time in his opinion to weigh such a big decision. I also got the impression there was some other reason for his vote. He actually seemed pretty adamant when he said he voted no to the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 First of all I would like to believe the owners could have other people in the room to help them sift through the proposal(Jeff Littman??). In addition, the framework for this proposal probably hasn't changed much from a month ago. Therefore, it's very disappointing to hear RW come out and say "I don't understand this??". If this was truly was the reason why he voted no, he should have stood his ground and refused to vote at all. Yes I thank RW for all his years of owning the Bills, but once again I'll say...RW please sell the Bills to someone who will continue the committment to keep them in Buffalo and stop with the embarrassing media appearances(recent press conferences come to mind). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Maybe Ralph and the owner of the Bengals were owners who actually tried to take the time to read and understand the entire proposal, then just voting yes to end this and keep the league from repeating the mistake the NHL made. Just a possibility Finding an owner who is going to be willing to keep the bills in Buffalo is going to take a bit of a miracle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I find it hard to believe that no one in that room told Ralph that this agreement gives him exactly what he'd been asking for. I also don't blame him for wanting to 'see for himself'. The reality is, time has taking it's toll on his cognitive skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I find it hard to believe that no one in that room told Ralph that this agreement gives him exactly what he'd been asking for. Are you sure about that? I am not. Most of what I read seems to indicate that, but then I keep hearing NFL talking heads say that this will be a hardship for the "lower revenue" teams...I'm confused too! Maybe Ralph is now concerned that he has to spend another 10 million to get to the salary cap, or be criticized for not caring what kind of team he fields, because he doesn't want to go up to the cap.... Speaking of which, I know in the NBA, and now the NHL I believe, teams that are under the salary cap can only be so far under the cap, or be penalized. Anyone know if that holds true for this new NFL agreement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I find it hard to believe that no one in that room told Ralph that this agreement gives him exactly what he'd been asking for. 622179[/snapback] Bupkis. This CBA is still tilted against the small revenue teams. The revenue pool crafted to aid small revenue teams only covers the first four years of the agreement. What happens after that? Are they left high and dry? All this agreement did was buy some time. The fundamental issue between the "haves" and "have nots" remains the same. The agreement also makes it more likely than ever the Bills will have a new owner within the next four years. Better hope NYS steps up with an incentive offer to keep the team here (even though I personally hate these kind of handouts), becuase the economics of the league are increasingly going against markets like Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Are you sure about that? I am not. Most of what I read seems to indicate that, but then I keep hearing NFL talking heads say that this will be a hardship for the "lower revenue" teams...I'm confused too! Maybe Ralph is now concerned that he has to spend another 10 million to get to the salary cap, or be criticized for not caring what kind of team he fields, because he doesn't want to go up to the cap.... Speaking of which, I know in the NBA, and now the NHL I believe, teams that are under the salary cap can only be so far under the cap, or be penalized. Anyone know if that holds true for this new NFL agreement? 622353[/snapback] Yes, there's a floor. Last year it was set using the same defined gross revenue(DGR) that the cap itself was based on - TV, tckets and merchandise. The cap was based on a 64.5% (give or take a point ) of the DGR. The floor was set at 56%. So if you left out the benefit money you could estimate what last year's floor was. Somewhere around 73M? As far as your 'hardship' statement, who's saying that? Not busting chops, but if I'm missing something I'd like to know what. Every indication was that this new CBA and the revenue sharing it was built upon, worked very favorably for the low-revenue clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts