PromoTheRobot Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 I am reading post after post about Ralph being cheap, Ralph looking for a handout, Ralph wanting a new stadium, blah, blah, blah... Do you people understand English?? 1) Ralph is only looking for political pressure to force the NFL from installing the rule where a new owner of the Buffalo Bills would not get revenue sharing. That rule was written just make it impossible for the Bills to stay in Buffalo after Ralph passes on, and it's totally unfair! 2) While raising prices on tickets, parking, etc. helps a little, it doesn't solve the problem. 3) Ralph does not want a new stadium. He says a new stadium would not incrase revenue. Besides RWS is fine. Those are his words. 4) Ralph has no interest in selling, or moving the Bills. 5) This is not about Ralph not making enough money. It's about keeping the Bills out of the red, in business, and competitive IN BUFFALO!!! Anyone who posts otherwise is misinformed, or simply has their head jammed up their colons. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 You can cry and B word about it all you want, it's not going to do any good. I don't know why Ralph is doing what he's doing...it's not going to change a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Case in point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACKMARINO Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 great post. now we understand why Ralph voted against the new CBA. its totally screwing us over, and screwing us the hardest out of any team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Well on Tuesday in Brussels there will be a vote. Majority rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richNjoisy Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 PTR: could you clarify point #1? Are you saying that ANY new owner of the Bills would not get the extra moneys put aside for lower revenue teams? You are NOT, I assume, talking about the sharing of TV revenue and the like, correct? Do you , or does anyone at TBD, have any sense of how the majority of owners feel about the importance (or lack thereof) of the current makeup of the 32 team cities? I bring this up because Cleveland and Baltimore both lost teams and then got them back. I know that I LIKE the NFL to have no team s move and that the makeup of the curretn cities is "as it should be" or, in other words, makes the NFL what it is and should remain (rivalrys the big reason for this). I chimed in in a thread yesterday (started by Hammer) where I mentioned the need for STATE (NY) support for the Bills. Question: Do either the Jets or Giants pay any NYS tax and how does their presence in NJ impact NY? Correspondingly, what do the Bills give NYS? There was some differing of opinion on what the Bills mean to NYS outside of WNY. THAT is a huge issue IMO. Ralph is, is he not, appealing to those in power outside of WNY to enlist support for the Buffalo Bills remaining in Buffalo. I plan to retire near Buffalo in 12 years or so. Will my Bills still exist?? -RnJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Yeah, but Gene Upshaw is a genius and he did great by his members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 8, 2006 Author Share Posted April 8, 2006 PTR: could you clarify point #1? Are you saying that ANY new owner of the Bills would not get the extra moneys put aside for lower revenue teams? You are NOT, I assume, talking about the sharing of TV revenue and the like, correct? 656524[/snapback] The rule that Ralph is railing against would eliminate any revenue sharing from wealthy teams to poorer teams if a team like the Bills is sold. This does not effect the shared pool of TV and ticket revenues. But that's what is unfair about this rule. It almost as if the rule was designed to eliminate the Bills, making them a franchise available to move to L.A. Right now Ralph would get, say, $30mil in extra revenue from the richer teams. When the Bills would be sold, that $30 would go away (and go back into the pockets of the rich owners!) So any new owner would be forced to move the franchise. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 The rule that Ralph is railing against would eliminate any revenue sharing from wealthy teams to poorer teams if a team like the Bills is sold. This does not effect the shared pool of TV and ticket revenues. But that's what is unfair about this rule. It almost as if the rule was designed to eliminate the Bills, making them a franchise available to move to L.A. Right now Ralph would get, say, $30mil in extra revenue from the richer teams. When the Bills would be sold, that $30 would go away (and go back into the pockets of the rich owners!) So any new owner would be forced to move the franchise. PTR 656538[/snapback] I'm beginning to wish there were levees around Dallas, Boston and Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poeticlaw Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 I am reading post after post about Ralph being cheap, Ralph looking for a handout, Ralph wanting a new stadium, blah, blah, blah... Do you people understand English?? 1) Ralph is only looking for political pressure to force the NFL from installing the rule where a new owner of the Buffalo Bills would not get revenue sharing. That rule was written just make it impossible for the Bills to stay in Buffalo after Ralph passes on, and it's totally unfair! 2) While raising prices on tickets, parking, etc. helps a little, it doesn't solve the problem. 3) Ralph does not want a new stadium. He says a new stadium would not incrase revenue. Besides RWS is fine. Those are his words. 4) Ralph has no interest in selling, or moving the Bills. 5) This is not about Ralph not making enough money. It's about keeping the Bills out of the red, in business, and competitive IN BUFFALO!!! Anyone who posts otherwise is misinformed, or simply has their head jammed up their colons. PTR 656492[/snapback] Promo I think we are now starting to see these points, but political pressure is not going to change the New CBA that has been extended for the next 6 years. It appears to me the main conceren is if the team is sold there is no revenue sharing. So as I replied on another post maybe Ralph is lining up a strategy, becuase as you stated and it is quite the shocker to myself is if the team is sold no revenue sharing so its going to make very difficult whether Ralph is alive or not for the next owner of the Bills. The political push hes doing now I think has a few things in the works, 1. The city holds the stadium lease with a simple buy out plan, maybe hes working a plan with the city while he is alive to sell the team to them through the lease of the stadium or other hidden accounting means so he can distrubute the funds to his heirs and conviently leaving out of the will pertaining to the Buffalo Bills leaving the team to the State of NY. No proof of sale team belongs to NY and stays in Buffalo....ok that is a huge reach but still a minor even if miniscule possibility. 2. Maybe Ralph is informing the city that the only way the team will be able to stay in Buffalo is if he Moves the Team, Not the name BUffalo Bills to LA and they attempt to copy the succes of the Browns moving to Baltimore as the Ravens and leaving the Cleveland Browns as an expansion team of the near future. The only way it appears the Bills will stay i Buffalo is that way. The team might not be around for a few years but expansion teams are not treated the same way as a team that has been sold, Buffalo gets a fresh start team and rebuild again faster and quicker under the same guide lines as the rest of the NFL leaugue owners have now. Though I am reaching on this it seams to be logical choice. 3. Really reaching here, the leugue states only of sold no revenue sharing so if the team is inheirted does that count for this ill assume no for now. He leves the team to Jim Kelly and has some hidden accounting where Jim is actually Buying the team but the NFL will never find out because Jim gives the money to a secret charity of the heirs family or some other accounting way of Jims personal Money made form the team. Again really reaching on this but seem like 3 possiilities overall. Final possibily Ralph dies family sells team new owner realizes he he/she/they dont have revenue sharing with the nfl and looks like they will be bankrupt in 3 years, or uncompetive always because all they can do is draft and sign undrafted free agents and Moves us to a bigger market whter its LA or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Has anyone of the other smaller market teams wieghed in on this yet? Theoretically, they've had time to review the documents by now as well. And why does this seem to affect Buffalo more than anyone else? (Or am I just living with blinders on? Totally, possible since I don't read anything about any other tr]eam.) Is it just because of Ralph and the impending change of ownership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 The rule that Ralph is railing against would eliminate any revenue sharing from wealthy teams to poorer teams if a team like the Bills is sold. This does not effect the shared pool of TV and ticket revenues. But that's what is unfair about this rule. It almost as if the rule was designed to eliminate the Bills, making them a franchise available to move to L.A. Right now Ralph would get, say, $30mil in extra revenue from the richer teams. When the Bills would be sold, that $30 would go away (and go back into the pockets of the rich owners!) So any new owner would be forced to move the franchise. Do you have any articles that say exactly how MUCH extra revenue the lower revenue teams would get? And is that $30M your estimate over the next 5 years of the CBA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 The rule that Ralph is railing against would eliminate any revenue sharing from wealthy teams to poorer teams if a team like the Bills is sold. This does not effect the shared pool of TV and ticket revenues. But that's what is unfair about this rule. It almost as if the rule was designed to eliminate the Bills, making them a franchise available to move to L.A. Right now Ralph would get, say, $30mil in extra revenue from the richer teams. When the Bills would be sold, that $30 would go away (and go back into the pockets of the rich owners!) So any new owner would be forced to move the franchise. Dead on. But that's only part of it; if Giambra was correct about those nasty little 'qualifiers', there's major trouble there, as well. For example: the Bills can sell out every home game for the next fifty years, but if the ticket prices stay the lowest in the league, they still won't meet the "ticket revenue within 80% of league average" qualifier mentioned in one of the Rochester D+C articles this morning. Promo I think we are now starting to see these points, but political pressure is not going to change the New CBA that has been extended for the next 6 years. It appears to me the main concern is if the team is sold there is no revenue sharing. The CBA isn't what needs to be changed. Read this quote from Tagliabue's press conference on March 8th: "Everyone came together after these two full days of discussions and reached a consensus not only on the Collective Bargaining Agreement, but on some major new revenue-sharing features to support the ability of all teams to function well under the Collective Bargaining Agreement." The revenue-sharing is among the owners, not between the league and the NFLPA... and that's the agreement we have to find a way to change. More on revenue-sharing, from later in that PC: Q: How will those funds be redistributed among the membership?PT: The lower-revenue teams will draw from that fund. The overall concept was geared to the idea that when a team spends to the midpoint between the salary cap and cash over the cap on an average basis, to spend to that level a team should not have to spend more than a specified percentage of its own revenue. So there is an objective standard in there. Q: What number, percentage-wise, is fair or equitable? PT: The target in this concept was 65 percent maximum, as a percentage of your own revenues. Of course, the players are getting an unprecedented high level of total revenue, approaching 60 percent of the total. For those who may not understand the "cash over cap" concept: it refers to the league-wide average of each team's total player payroll, including signing bonuses. So when teams such as the Redskins or Cowboys throw huge signing bonuses at players and end up with a payroll $20 or $25 million over the 'official' cap, that average goes up... meaning the Bills would have to spend more "cash over cap" money themselves before becoming eligible to collect from the revenue-sharing fund. The Bills will likely hit the 65% maximum Tagliabue cited before reaching the salcap-"cash-over-cap" midpoint. Still means the Bills will be spending at least 65% of their total revenue on player salaries, while the big-market teams will be spending less than 50%. Now tack on the rest of the payroll, from Marv Levy and Dick Jauron all the way to the receptionist at the front desk of the administration building. Don't forget marketing/advertising costs, either -- unlike the big-market teams with huge fanbases (and season-ticket waiting lists), the Bills have to put some real effort into selling out the stadium on a regular basis. Anyone still think this is all about "Ralph being cheap"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 8, 2006 Author Share Posted April 8, 2006 The CBA can't be changed now. But the "qualifiers" are still being hammered out. THAT is what Ralph is asking for...pressure to be sure the qualifiers don't screw the Bills. He knows what is being floated (like the no-revenue-sharing-for-new-owners rule) and is trying to exert pressure. Kraft, Snyder, and Jones are a pretty sneaky bunch. Yes they agreed to share some of their largesse, but they never said exactly how much and for how long! These qualifiers are being set so they will pay nothing in a few years, by making the qualifiers impossible to meet. They won't listen to Ralph, so he is taking the fight to the public. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 I am reading post after post about Ralph being cheap, Ralph looking for a handout, Ralph wanting a new stadium, blah, blah, blah... Do you people understand English?? 1) Ralph is only looking for political pressure to force the NFL from installing the rule where a new owner of the Buffalo Bills would not get revenue sharing. That rule was written just make it impossible for the Bills to stay in Buffalo after Ralph passes on, and it's totally unfair! 2) While raising prices on tickets, parking, etc. helps a little, it doesn't solve the problem. 3) Ralph does not want a new stadium. He says a new stadium would not incrase revenue. Besides RWS is fine. Those are his words. 4) Ralph has no interest in selling, or moving the Bills. 5) This is not about Ralph not making enough money. It's about keeping the Bills out of the red, in business, and competitive IN BUFFALO!!! Anyone who posts otherwise is misinformed, or simply has their head jammed up their colons. PTR 656492[/snapback] You are correct sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Then why can't Ralph, while he is alive, sign one big ass snakes on a plane lease with the city of Buffalo making it near impossible to move the team w/o the entire league willing to hand over $100M???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Then why can't Ralph, while he is alive, sign one big ass snakes on a plane lease with the city of Buffalo making it near impossible to move the team w/o the entire league willing to hand over $100M???? 656623[/snapback] That's an interesting idea - a poison-pill lease. Anybody know anything about the legality of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 I'm beginning to wish there were levees around Dallas, Boston and Washington. 656545[/snapback] L O L !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 8, 2006 Author Share Posted April 8, 2006 Then why can't Ralph, while he is alive, sign one big ass snakes on a plane lease with the city of Buffalo making it near impossible to move the team w/o the entire league willing to hand over $100M???? 656623[/snapback] You could do that, but what do you do when the salary cap becomes 97% of the Bills revenues? That's the issue. It's not that the NFL is making the team leave (directly, anyway.) It's that they want to make it so hard for the Bills to operate under a new owner, economics forces the team to leave. Sneaky, underhanded, and completely deniable. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risin Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Great post Promo. Opened my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts