jarthur31 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're a good man, PTR! It is about keeping the team in Buffalo for the next century or two. However, some "fans" here would be just fine and dandy if it moved out West (or elsewhere). How sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInDaDay Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 I guess the idea is, if you can afford to purchase a NFL franchise ($650M-$750M), you don't need league subsidies. Small market owners hanging onto their teams should remain entitled to some relief. Ralph can compete for a few more years, but a new Bills' owner can't unless (as Mark VI's post points out) the NFL is forced to the drawing table. Now one can afford to buy the Bills and keep them in Buffalo. The price will be high, and there'll be no way to recover the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 9, 2006 Author Share Posted April 9, 2006 http://www.wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=36830 Even politicians don't get it. Wonder why Erie County is in the shape it's in? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 http://www.wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=36830 Even politicians don't get it. Wonder why Erie County is in the shape it's in? PTR 656877[/snapback] DeBenedetti is loony to begin with. His reaction doesn't surprise me one bit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Ralphs's words were "I just want to break even". So what it boils down to is 'how much do you trust Ralph'? Personally, I believe him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 9, 2006 Author Share Posted April 9, 2006 Ralphs's words were "I just want to break even". So what it boils down to is 'how much do you trust Ralph'? Personally, I believe him. 656894[/snapback] If Ralph wanted to make money, he could sell the team or move them himself. I have to laugh at people who think he's just trying to squeeze the locals. If he's staying in Buffalo, it's not for the riches. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Does anybody know what the rationale behind this clause that if the team is sold they can't share that revenue. That is such an absurd idea to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanInSouthBuffalo Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 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?? 656492[/snapback] Nope! And neither does the national media. I'm beginning to think that only Ralph read the new CBA agreement. DOH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Anyone who thinks Ralph is greedy is a fukkin' moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 9, 2006 Author Share Posted April 9, 2006 Does anybody know what the rationale behind this clause that if the team is sold they can't share that revenue. That is such an absurd idea to me. 656904[/snapback] It's designed to move the Bills out of Buffalo. Ralph is the one owner most likely to change do to his age. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jahnyc Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Yes, the agreement among owners to share revenue is critical, but what happens when RW passes? Assuming there is no provision that would result in his wife becoming owner of the team, will the trustee/executor for the estate be required (i.e., a fiduciary duty) to sell the team to the highest bidder? If this is the case, I am not sure any potential local purchaser, including Golisano, would have success in purchasing the Bills. I remember RW stating that he could not include a provison in his will that would require the Bills be sold to a purchaser who would keep the Bills in Buffalo. Would there be a different result if RW sold an interest (likely a majority interest or an option to purchase a majority interest) now? If so, I would hope that RW would consider selling an interest to Golisano or Jacobs now, to at least give one or both the first option to purchase the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Yes, the agreement among owners to share revenue is critical, but what happens when RW passes? Assuming there is no provision that would result in his wife becoming owner of the team, will the trustee/executor for the estate be required (i.e., a fiduciary duty) to sell the team to the highest bidder? If this is the case, I am not sure any potential local purchaser, including Golisano, would have success in purchasing the Bills. I remember RW stating that he could not include a provison in his will that would require the Bills be sold to a purchaser who would keep the Bills in Buffalo. I think the provision could not FORCE the new owner to keep the Bills in Buffalo against his wishes. However if Golisano wanted to buy the team, the NFL would be hard-pressed denying him the right given his money, political influence, and most of all, his successful ownership of another major pro sports team. And Golisano has a vested interest in WNY so he wouldn't move the team. And IF the NFL decided to go with an owner who didn't want to keep the team in Buffalo, they'd have a PR and legal nightmare on their hands. Hence this new BS provision. Would there be a different result if RW sold an interest (likely a majority interest or an option to purchase a majority interest) now? If so, I would hope that RW would consider selling an interest to Golisano or Jacobs now, to at least give one or both the first option to purchase the Bills. It's probably too late. I think that if this provision isn't removed, the best we can hope for is that the team passes to his wife, who won't be hit with estate taxes, and that she rides-out the new CBA for the next one, that will likely have that provision removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 If I understand the logic correctly, the end result is Snyder's Skins versus the Dallas Jones's will be the last two teams standing ! What will they do then ? 4 out of 7 for the super bowl consists of the season and playoffs ? Something is missing here ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 While everyone is guessing here, your guesses strike me as less likely than other guesses as to how this stuation stacks up. 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! I think you are simply wrong to say that RWS is ONLY doing one thing here. In fact, he would be foolish not to choose a course which will serve him well in multiple scenarios. He cannot know how the parties which oppose his views (the other team owners who voted overwhelmingly for this deal, Tags and the NFL professional leadership which strongly advocated for this deal, the NFLPA which really played this situation beautifully for their interest though many loudly accused Upshaw of being clueless- they were wrong) will react and he would simply be dumb to pursue a strategy only geated toward one outcome when multiple players likely will make multiple outcomes and situations quite possible. I think you should flat out admit you are wrong to say RWS is ONLT doing one thing here. 2) While raising prices on tickets, parking, etc. helps a little, it doesn't solve the problem. I aggree that raising prices in these areas or selling stadium naming rights is chump change compared to 10+ million he would leverage from increasing revenue sharing through negotiation. however, even this increase is chump change compared to the Bills cut of the 40.1 % of the well over a billion dollars the Bills will get at their part of the enhanced revenues the CBA brings to the Bills due to the labor peace it brings. 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. Ralph's words are that he did not ask Pataki for anything and I hope he did not because our soon to be ex-Gov. cannot deliver a stadium or anything to Ralph and the Bills. It simply appears he is setting up a bidding situation between Spitzer and the GOp nominee for governor. They will not be answering a call from Ralph or doing him a favor when the situation is set up for them that the cost of getting WNY votes is going to be bellying up and offering corporate welfare to the Bills to keep them in WNY. Getting this in the form of a stadium where taxpayers bear the costs but the Bills get in the income is actually similar to the current deal with the former Rich Stadium except that it will be even better. RWS will not turn down money when NTS moves the truck to his door. 4) Ralph has no interest in selling, or moving the Bills. This is great news. However, why should he move when the cash cow makes tons of bucks at little risk here and likely will do so while the CBA is in effect. 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!!! Why do you think the Bills will be in the red in Buffalo under the CBA. Thet clearly will be at an ecnomic disadvantage to the larger revenue teams, but they will make money hand over fist anyway. The CBA is set-up for the Bills to get their 40.5 % cut of well over a billion dollars in revenue. Even better costs are capped essentially at 59.5 as worker costs are by far their highest. I can think if no other bsinesses which have these same advantages of virutally guaranteed income and virtually guaranteed control of costs. Again the even rich folks like the Bills will have less than the richer folks (welcome to the real world) of the larger revenue teams. However, the salary cap means that as far as field of play investments essentially each NFL team operates under the same cost/benefit set-up. Rven the cash flow advantage that larger revenue teams have reflected in the cash over cap numbers is actually only a marginal advantage compared to the much larger total cap number. In reality, when one looks at the sorry record of the high revenue Deadskins and the general sense that the Bills failures have not been from lack of cash to attract TKO, Fletcher, Milloy, Bledsoe, Adams, Triplett or whomever here, the marginal advantage of the large revenue teams has not converted into on field dominance. Do you disagree? Anyone who posts otherwise is misinformed, or simply has their head jammed up their colons. If you think the above is misinformed or colonmesque please enlighten us with your brilliance in similar detail beyond simpleaccpetance of what RWS sats. PTR 656492[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Obviously Fake Fat Sunny has never seen a steel mill close. They're big business. They've got to be making money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 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] Thanks for explaining it. But, here is a wild thought (you know I have had my share... ). Maybe the rule was in place to DISCOURAGE selling a team? Say RW passes on to the great beyond... Who is gonna want to buy it if they can't get the $30 mil? Even a big market owner, I think, would be taking a hit. Would his daughter be more apt to keep the team (even know she says she doesn't want it) in this situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Obviously Fake Fat Sunny has never seen a steel mill close.They're big business. They've got to be making money. 656990[/snapback] If you are talking about Beth... At the time, Beth had the more modern Burns Harbor... Hence closing Lackawanna. But, then again... If this was the situation with this case... We'd all be blaming the players... The union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 If you are talking about Beth... At the time, Beth had the more modern Burns Harbor... Hence closing Lackawanna. But, then again... If this was the situation with this case... We'd all be blaming the players... The union. 656995[/snapback] Nope. Not particularly. It was a general statement. And in this case it's more the other owners that are squeezing the pimple, not so much the players. Although, they are stupid enough to contract themselves out of jobs. No company has a guarantee to remain economically viable forever and to suggest so deserves ridicule. IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Nope. Not particularly. It was a general statement.And in this case it's more the other owners that are squeezing the pimple, not so much the players. Although, they are stupid enough to contract themselves out of jobs. No company has a guarantee to remain economically viable forever and to suggest so deserves ridicule. IMHO 656999[/snapback] So true, so true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 9, 2006 Author Share Posted April 9, 2006 While everyone is guessing here, your guesses strike me as less likely than other guesses as to how this stuation stacks up. 656986[/snapback] Can you explain what we are "guessing?" These are all facts as we know them. What alternate reality are you living in? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts