Read today's article in the Buffalo News

[JÂy RÛßeÒ]

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060...?tbd1027103.asp

By MARK GAUGHAN

News Sports Reporter

3/10/2006 

 

Buffalo Bills owner Ralph C. Wilson Jr. thinks the National Football League's owners got ripped off in their new collective bargaining agreement with the players union, and he stands by his vote to reject the deal.

"This is a bad deal for the NFL for the next six years," Wilson said Thursday from his home in Michigan. "It's a bad deal. It's too much money; 59.5 percent [of revenue for the players] is far too much. It's a bad deal. And it's particularly a bad deal for medium- and small-market clubs."

 

Wilson cast one of only two votes against ratification of the deal, which extended the league's contract with the players through 2011. Cincinnati also voted negative in a 30-2 decision.

 

The Bills' 87-year-old owner says that in addition to the fact the players got too big a share of the league's $6 billion in annual revenue, the extension does not come close to adequately addressing the disparity in revenue between the big-market teams and the small-market teams.

 

"The new plan doesn't address the real structural defect in the whole sharing of revenue," Wilson said.

 

Big-market teams like Washington, New England and Dallas have tapped into revenue streams - from sales of stadium naming rights, luxury boxes, local sponsorships and other areas - that do not have to be shared with the other clubs. The result is Washington took in $287 million in revenue in 2004, according to Forbes Magazine, while the bottom-earning team (Arizona) took in $153 million. The Bills ranked 22nd at $173 million, Forbes estimated. That local revenue drives up the costs to all teams because it increases the salary cap. When Washington sells a luxury box for $200,000, the cap for every team gets bumped up an incremental amount.

 

The owners did approve a new mechanism for sharing local revenue. The plan will transfer an average of about $150 million a year in league earnings to low-revenue clubs. That seems like a lot, perhaps an average of $10 million a year to the bottom 15 clubs, depending on how the formula works. However, Wilson says it's not nearly enough because player costs overall go up so much.

 

Under the terms of the CBA extension, the players' share of the total revenue is going up from 54.5 percent (in 2005) to 59.5 percent for the next six years. Wilson says the new local revenue sharing, in effect, will allow the low-revenue teams to make up that increase. It's not designed exactly to cover those costs, but that in reality is what it does, Wilson said. However, he says the disparity in local revenue remains as great as it was in the past.

 

"Nothing's changed," Wilson said. "Basically, without going into all the details, the deal is just about the same. Maybe the high revenue clubs are picking up a slight increase in money. But it's still not good."

 

That being said, Wilson said he believes the Bills still will be able to compete on the field with the big-revenue clubs.

 

"Yeah, we'll compete," he said. "We have to watch our costs in all directions and run a very cost-effective operation. We will be active in free agency. And we'll try to make prudent decisions on players. But we're not going to be able to throw money away like these high revenue clubs. That hasn't changed."

 

When Wilson came out of the owners' meeting Wednesday night, he said he voted against the deal because the "didn't understand" the terms of the revenue-sharing plan. That quote got widespread national attention.

 

Wilson said Thursday many owners didn't understand it.

 

"With less than an hour left before the union's deadline, the owners were presented with a hastily drafted and complex term sheet for a revenue sharing pool put forth by the league," Wilson said.

 

"Several critical elements of the term sheet had not been previously discussed or reviewed by team executives. Examples included the funding of payments by as of yet unidentified revenue sources, the use of bank financing of the league to fund annual pool shortfalls and qualifiers based on club efforts."

 

"Most of the owners didn't understand any of this stuff, including me," Wilson said.

 

Wilson said the owners and their chief aides barely had time to read the proposal before it was time to vote.

 

Asked why the other small-market teams, such as Jacksonville, Oakland and Kansas City, voted in favor of the plan, Wilson said:

 

"I got a sense in the room that these fellows were just afraid of any work stoppage. They were afraid of the union. They were going to accept anything. The union should have asked for a heckuva lot more. They're happy with what they got, I'm sure."

 

Wilson said the NFL's general managers got a dose of the tough terms of the deal from a league perspective on a conference call Thursday morning.

 

"The general managers of each club had a conference call this morning with the staff of the league," he said. "And when it was through, one of the general managers asked, "Did we get anything out of this [meaning the league, as opposed to the players]? And the reply from the league staff member was, "If you've got a blank piece of paper in front of you, that's what you got.' "

 

Wilson said it is going to be up to the Bills organization to work as hard as ever to maximize its local revenue capabilities.

 

"We have no pricing power," he said. "Some of our seats are half the price of seats in other stadiums. Our suites are maybe a third of what other franchises get in their brand new stadiums that we helped pay for in the last 10 years."

 

"We'll just do our best," Wilson said. "We've got such great fans in Western New York. This deal is not a good one for the league, and it's certainly not a good one for the small-market teams. It's not good for Buffalo. I ask the fans, the businesses and the media to continue their wonderful support, because this is going to be a tough deal for Buffalo over the years. It's not going to get any better."

 

"We'll make it," Wilson said. "All we've got to do now is win a few games."

 

I think he gets flustered when there are so many cameras and reporters around him. But I only hope I can be that sharp at 87 (if I even make it that far).

[GG]

Is he complaining that he additional 5% paid to the players will hurt his ability to compete or that it's 5% that won't line his pockets?

[BADOLBILZ]

Is he complaining that he additional 5% paid to the players will hurt his ability to compete or that it's 5% that won't line his pockets?

624115[/snapback]

 

If half the league averages a billion in annual total revenue, and the other half averages 250K, then the cap figure would be over 300K. Let's see, revenue = 250, cap limit = 300. The salary cap isn't going to be 59% of the Bills revenue, GG, it's going to be 59% of the leagues revenue. That could be ALL of the Bills revenue by the time this cba is up. Good luck getting the large market owners and NFLPA to give any of that back.

 

The 5% raise hurts in the short term, but only because disparities between small and large market teams haven't gotten completely out of control yet. It's very conceivable that teams like the Skins and Giants could have quadruple the revenue stream the Bills have. If that happens, the 5% won't make a difference because the small market teams won't be able to spend anywhere near the limit.

[SnakeOiler]

Sounds to me like old Ralphie still has a clue about what's going on. Fact I didn't understand some of what HE was describing makes me a little worries...i'm > 50 years younger!

[GG]

If half the league averages a billion in annual total revenue, and the other half averages 250K, then the cap figure would be over 300K.  Let's see, revenue = 250,  cap limit = 300.  The salary cap isn't going to be 59% of the Bills revenue, GG, it's going to be 59% of the leagues revenue.  That could be ALL of the Bills revenue by the time this cba is up.  Good luck getting the large market owners and NFLPA to give any of that back.

 

  The 5% raise hurts in the short term, but only because disparities between small and large market teams haven't gotten completely out of control yet.  It's very conceivable that teams like the Skins and Giants could have quadruple the revenue stream the Bills have.  If that happens, the 5% won't make a difference because the small market teams won't be able to spend anywhere near the limit.

624151[/snapback]

 

You're also assuming that the cost of running an operation in NYC, DC is the same as running one in Buffalo. I venture to guess you get at least the 5% bump right there. Anyone here take a look at the operating income on the Forbes list that Buff News referenced?

 

I haven't seen the terms of new CBA, but it looks like they're also redefining Total Revenue to Total Football Revenue, and that will have an impact on how thecap is claculated. Plus, even if DC & NYC local revenues quadruple, they'll be forced to contribute to the revenue sharing pool. Don't forget that there's still a cap, and rich teams won't be able to continue stockpiling rich contracts indefinitely. Every 4 yrs they'll have to go through roster purges.

[Lurker]

The extra $10 million per year is chump change and will do nothing to address the growing disparity in cash flow between the have and have not teams. I agree with Ralph that in a few years, teams like Buffalo and Green Bay are going to be uncompetitive in signing FAs who will increasingly demand large up-front signing bonuses.

 

So how's that make RW out of touch?

[IndyMark]

So how's that make RW out of touch?

624333[/snapback]

 

 

It makes RW out of touch for the 'experts' and 'fans' on this board because they have a hard-on for bloviating, pontificating, and confabulating. You know the WNY way. Challenge everything, never trust 'the man', shout to be heard, and what ever you do, never, absolutely never be 'embarrased'.....cuz that shows weakness or something.

 

Oh, I forgot that they like to react and say something quickly in response to something. There is no real need to reflect and think something through. Nope. Charge ahead and spew something, but never, never, sit back and actually consume information and try to understand an alternate response. Nope, go with your first blush reaction, cuz that is the best way to respond to any situation. Instinct.

 

The last few days on this board have been really enlightening. Some of the 'fans' here have take ignorance to a whole new level.

 

The irony of blasting 'the man' is so profound, they do not even see it. RW at 87 is more astute than the naysayers here whom are probably 55 years younger.

 

Let me predict their position on this -"I am a fan of RW, so I have rose colored glasses on and am trying to stifle their 'right' as a fan to voice their informed disagreement". Yep, their extensive knowledge of logic is super impressive - for a third grader.

 

[MadBuffaloDisease]

My bet is that anyone who thinks that Ralph should have had enough time to read, understand, and sign-off on the CBA in 45 minutes never sat through a closing for a home, much less from a shady lender.

[Orton's Arm]

Of the many good points Ralph made, one of the strongest was that the increase in revenues going to the players really hurts the league. Why should the players' pay go from 54.5% to 59.5%? Why not have it go down to 49.5% instead? This, as Ralph pointed out, was a terrible deal for the league. Maybe the reason for the increase in what the players are taking is that the owners spoke with 32 voices, while the players spoke with only one.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Of the many good points Ralph made, one of the strongest was that the increase in revenues going to the players really hurts the league. Why should the players' pay go from 54.5% to 59.5%? Why not have it go down to 49.5% instead?

Well that would be a decrease and they'd never agree to it. Instead it should have been 56.2%, like the owners were demanding. Instead they caved and saw them giving 3.3% more than they wanted, while the players got 0.5% less than they wanted.

[Orton's Arm]

Well that would be a decrease and they'd never agree to it.  Instead it should have been 56.2%, like the owners were demanding.  Instead they caved and saw them giving 3.3% more than they wanted, while the players got 0.5% less than they wanted.

624409[/snapback]

Fair enough. But just as the players wanted an increase, the owners certainly wanted a decrease. Why should the negotiations have been about how big an increase the players would get? Why not make it about whether it would be an increase or a decrease?

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Fair enough. But just as the players wanted an increase, the owners certainly wanted a decrease. Why should the negotiations have been about how big an increase the players would get? Why not make it about whether it would be an increase or a decrease?

The NFLPA/Upshaw said that with the new CBA, they wanted ALL revenue to be subject to the cap. The owners caved on that issue IMMEDIATELY. They should have fought that to the end, using the percentage of total revenues as the bargaining chip, and starting with LESS than 54.5%, but settling somewhere slightly above that, and WELL below 59.5%.

 

And next time around, where do they go? Yep, 60% or higher of DGR (which now equals total revenue). Great move, NFL owners!

[Lv-Bills]

It makes RW out of touch for the 'experts' and 'fans' on this board because they have a hard-on for bloviating, pontificating, and confabulating.  You know the WNY way.  Challenge everything, never trust 'the man', shout to be heard, and what ever you do, never, absolutely never be 'embarrased'.....cuz that shows weakness or something.

 

Oh, I forgot that they like to react and say something quickly in response to something.  There is no real need to reflect and think something through.  Nope.  Charge ahead and spew something, but never, never, sit back and actually consume information and try to understand an alternate response.  Nope, go with your first blush reaction, cuz that is the best way to respond to any situation. Instinct. 

 

The last few days on this board have been really enlightening.  Some of the 'fans' here have take ignorance to a whole new level.

 

The irony of blasting 'the man' is so profound, they do not even see it.  RW at 87 is more astute than the naysayers here whom are probably 55 years younger.

 

Let me predict their position on this -"I am a fan of RW, so I have rose colored glasses on and am trying to stifle their 'right' as a fan to voice their informed disagreement".  Yep, their extensive knowledge of logic is super impressive - for a third grader.

 

624338[/snapback]

LOL, awesome post. I had to register just to back you up on this and make sure this made it back to the top of the board. Are you sure you don't live in the south? Oh wait, you live in Indiana, the only state up there that acts like it is in the booming south.

 

Right on bro!!! Awesome post!

[Fan in San Diego]

Sounds as sharp as ever to me. Maybe you just dont like him for whatever reason.

[The Dean]

Fair enough. But just as the players wanted an increase, the owners certainly wanted a decrease. Why should the negotiations have been about how big an increase the players would get? Why not make it about whether it would be an increase or a decrease?

624450[/snapback]

 

 

Maybe THIS explains it:

 

"I got a sense in the room that these fellows were just afraid of any work stoppage. They were afraid of the union. They were going to accept anything. The union should have asked for a heckuva lot more. They're happy with what they got, I'm sure."

[Orton's Arm]

The NFLPA/Upshaw said that with the new CBA, they wanted ALL revenue to be subject to the cap.  The owners caved on that issue IMMEDIATELY.  They should have fought that to the end, using the percentage of total revenues as the bargaining chip, and starting with LESS than 54.5%, but settling somewhere slightly above that, and WELL below 59.5%. 

 

And next time around, where do they go?  Yep, 60% or higher of DGR (which now equals total revenue).  Great move, NFL owners!

624460[/snapback]

Good post.