K-9 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Team A = 40% of revenues to meet player payroll Team B = 70% of revenues to meet player payroll Yeah, Ralph's an idiot all right. But how can we expect the igmos around here to grasp that basic concept when they can be SO embarassed by ESPN? Turn off your friggin TVs long enough to study the true essence of the issue. And, oh yeah, GROW A THICKER SKIN! GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mile High Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Free agency starts today? No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Free agency starts today? No? 623383[/snapback] That's the rumor...but considering how much they've pushed it back, I'mnot holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Team A = 40% of revenues to meet player payroll Team B = 70% of revenues to meet player payroll Yeah, Ralph's an idiot all right. But how can we expect the igmos around here to grasp that basic concept when they can be SO embarassed by ESPN? Turn off your friggin TVs long enough to study the true essence of the issue. And, oh yeah, GROW A THICKER SKIN! GO BILLS!!! 623379[/snapback] Correctomundo! PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Team A = 40% of revenues to meet player payroll Team B = 70% of revenues to meet player payroll Yeah, Ralph's an idiot all right. But how can we expect the igmos around here to grasp that basic concept when they can be SO embarassed by ESPN? Turn off your friggin TVs long enough to study the true essence of the issue. And, oh yeah, GROW A THICKER SKIN! GO BILLS!!! 623379[/snapback] Agree however Ralph needs to rename the stadium to help generate some of that local revenue to reduce that number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Agree however Ralph needs to rename the stadium to help generate some of that local revenue to reduce that number. 623640[/snapback] Right, earning $5,000,000 over the next 5 years for naming rights would really reduce that percentage. Hell, even if it were $5,000,000/year, it still wouldn't move the percentage number very much. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Team A = 40% of revenues to meet player payroll Team B = 70% of revenues to meet player payroll Yeah, Ralph's an idiot all right. But how can we expect the igmos around here to grasp that basic concept when they can be SO embarassed by ESPN? Turn off your friggin TVs long enough to study the true essence of the issue. And, oh yeah, GROW A THICKER SKIN! GO BILLS!!! 623379[/snapback] Just for the record, I'm not sure who you are referring to as "pinheads" and being "embarrassed". I've stated that he's embarrassed himself, which he has, but he hasn't embarrassed me. Bottom line, I want to win like everyone else, I just think RW needs help so we can move forward. That's it. No dissrepect. No bashing. I don't understand why you had to start ANOTHER thread on this subject. There are a few going out there. I guess you just needed to get your "ever-so-valid" points out there in such a bullying fashion. You added virtually nothing to the conversation. Hey K-9......a little less bark and a little more bite next time, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleTheWagons Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Team A = 40% of revenues to meet player payroll Team B = 70% of revenues to meet player payroll Yeah, Ralph's an idiot all right. 623379[/snapback] I still don't see Ralph's problem. He seems to be under the impression that the NFL has turned into the SFL (Socialist Football League). The league has agreed to help guys like Mr. Wilson by preventing the larger teams from pricing the free agents out of reach with a salary cap. If the revenues (and expenses) are going to be shared evenly around the league, what's the point of trying to be successful? If Ralph can't live with the agreement because his other 30% won't cover his remaining costs and provide enough profit, he needs to find other sources of revenue or sell the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 if you guys are happy ralph voted no, I'd love to see how happy you'd be in 5 years if 8 others voted no as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I still don't see Ralph's problem. He seems to be under the impression that the NFL has turned into the SFL (Socialist Football League). The league has agreed to help guys like Mr. Wilson by preventing the larger teams from pricing the free agents out of reach with a salary cap. If the revenues (and expenses) are going to be shared evenly around the league, what's the point of trying to be successful? If Ralph can't live with the agreement because his other 30% won't cover his remaining costs and provide enough profit, he needs to find other sources of revenue or sell the team. So it's okay for owners to take NFL-funded money, what's been called "almost free money," to pay for new stadiums that help bring in "local" revenue, but when it comes time to SHARE that money, it should be all that owner's money? Wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 if you guys are happy ralph voted no, I'd love to see how happy you'd be in 5 years if 8 others voted no as well... So a bad deal is better than no deal at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I still don't see Ralph's problem. He seems to be under the impression that the NFL has turned into the SFL (Socialist Football League). The league has agreed to help guys like Mr. Wilson by preventing the larger teams from pricing the free agents out of reach with a salary cap. If the revenues (and expenses) are going to be shared evenly around the league, what's the point of trying to be successful? If Ralph can't live with the agreement because his other 30% won't cover his remaining costs and provide enough profit, he needs to find other sources of revenue or sell the team. 623788[/snapback] It's all about cash flow. If Danny Snyder can offer a $10 million FA signing bonus funded from his operating revenue and Ralph has to dip into his personal wealth to compete with that offer, who do you think is coming out ahead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Just for the record, I'm not sure who you are referring to as "pinheads" and being "embarrassed". I've stated that he's embarrassed himself, which he has, but he hasn't embarrassed me. 623780[/snapback] If Ralph isn't embarrassed then how is he embarrassing himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 Just for the record, I'm not sure who you are referring to as "pinheads" and being "embarrassed". I've stated that he's embarrassed himself, which he has, but he hasn't embarrassed me. Bottom line, I want to win like everyone else, I just think RW needs help so we can move forward. That's it. No dissrepect. No bashing. I don't understand why you had to start ANOTHER thread on this subject. There are a few going out there. I guess you just needed to get your "ever-so-valid" points out there in such a bullying fashion. You added virtually nothing to the conversation. Hey K-9......a little less bark and a little more bite next time, eh? 623780[/snapback] Sorry, I forgot you were the almighty Thread Lord, oh great defensive one. You should thank me for providing you another opportunity to add another of your "ever-so-valid" points in yet another thread. As for more bite, you would bring some if you understood the realities of the deal and the ramifications it has for lower revenue-generating teams, especially in the long term. Ralph will prove to be more right than wrong about this. And if he wasn't as articulate after a couple long days of grueling and contentious negotiations as we would like him to be when ESPN got in his face, then I feel he certainly availed himself quite well with his comments defending his decision after a little rest. Maybe I should start another thread about it. Would that be OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Team A = 40% of revenues to meet player payroll Team B = 70% of revenues to meet player payroll Yeah, Ralph's an idiot all right. But how can we expect the igmos around here to grasp that basic concept when they can be SO embarassed by ESPN? Turn off your friggin TVs long enough to study the true essence of the issue. And, oh yeah, GROW A THICKER SKIN! GO BILLS!!! 623379[/snapback] Please, you expect football fans to understand basic arithmetic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Correctomundo! PTR 623566[/snapback] My opinion amounts to J. Squat, but I think K-9 is right on this, too. It may have looked ugly in it's delivery, but Ralph stood up for pragmatism over panic and agreeing to sh-- without reading the fine print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 It's all about cash flow. If Danny Snyder can offer a $10 million FA signing bonus funded from his operating revenue and Ralph has to dip into his personal wealth to compete with that offer, who do you think is coming out ahead? 623876[/snapback] He's 87. When does winning at all costs come into play here? You can't take it with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 If Ralph isn't embarrassed then how is he embarrassing himself? 623886[/snapback] Exactly. He doesn't even realize it. Shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Maybe I should start another thread about it. Would that be OK? 623893[/snapback] I'll look for it in paperback. Will you autograph it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Exactly. He doesn't even realize it. Shame. 624102[/snapback] He doesn't realize what? At 87, he doesn't have to be embarassed about anything. What the hell does he care? He doesn't need to realize anything. Especially since he's being honest about his opinion of the deal, when the other owners couldn't or wouldn't admit that they didn't understand it either. I can't imagine having just 45 minutes to read and digest a complicated legal document that might affect the future of my business, and then be able to make an informed decision. The other owners didn't comment because they were concerned with their image. Ralph's an old man and he doesn't have to be. I'm also sure that Ralph is especially unconcerned with the opinions of sports reporters and talk show hosts, who don't know any more about the inner workings of the NFL than we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts