MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 he'll have roughly a 25% profit rate over the next few years. cry me a freakin' river. You know that for a fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorom Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 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. 656495[/snapback] Wow roll over and play dead, gotta love the pride you display. If I were you I would just bury my head in the sand with you butt up in the air and a sign posted with an arrow saying "Insert Broom Handle Here". If the NFL cronnies are playing this game, then it is up to Ralph to do anything and everything possible to stop it. If the NFL wants to eliminate all small markets then its up to the fans to step away from the game and never watch it again. If the Bills move I will never watch another NFL football game. It won't be hard either because my only loyalty lies with the BIlls FIGHT ON RALPH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Can you explain what we are "guessing?" These are all facts as we know them. What alternate reality are you living in? PTR 657038[/snapback] Oops. Sorry, but I actually made a more detailed response to your posr in my reply to your theories. I repost them below: 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Good move on Ralph's part getting Chuck Schumer involved. The NFL will have a real fight on their hands if they want one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Good move on Ralph's part getting Chuck Schumer involved. The NFL will have a real fight on their hands if they want one. 657394[/snapback] Absolutely....Ralph seems to be trying to force the issue, so it is resolved in his life time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Anyone who posts otherwise is misinformed, or simply has their head jammed up their colons.656492[/snapback] Colon's? Like Powell? Didn't we go to war in Iraq after some guy named Colon told the UN we should? Gawd, if we can't even stick our trust in our own colon, where can we stick it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Colon's? Like Powell?Didn't we go to war in Iraq after some guy named Colon told the UN we should? Gawd, if we can't even stick our trust in our own colon, where can we stick it? 657431[/snapback] Bartolo? When did that fat arse talk to the UN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLuca1967 Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 That's the completely wrong attitude, in my opinion. The Bills are not a luxury at all. The Bills are an integral part of WNY as well as being integral to WNY's economic revocery. I agree, you can't tax people like mad to keep the team there. But, I also thing that's what underlies alot of Ralph's concerns. He's more than knowledgeable about what it takes to run and maintain a franchise in Buffalo, and the last thing he needs is for the league to pass policies that hinder his efforts and make it harder to keep the team there. 657273[/snapback] For the Bills to be here long term one of two things have to happen. 1) The NFL will have to redo a CBA that 30 of 32 teams agreed upon. That's not going to happen. 2) Local tax payers will have to pony up yet more cash to keep the Bills competetive. That's not gong to happen either. The Bills are a luxury. When we don't have enough teachers, policemen and fire fighters not mention having to close public parks becuase there isn't enough money to maintain them? The fact that Erie County is spending millions this off season to fix the Ralph is a crime against WNY tax payers. We have overcrowded schools and unemployement is high but don't worry all the toilets in the Ralph flush correctly. When you can't cover the costs of the basic services provided to the citizens of the region then we have no right to spend a dollar or the millions that go to the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 It's designed to move the Bills out of Buffalo. Ralph is the one owner most likely to change do to his age. PTR 656917[/snapback] I think that's a wee bit paranoid, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 You know that for a fact? 657357[/snapback] Does Promo know what he's saying for a fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 However much you or I object, getting a team in Los Angeles seems to be a priority to the NFL owners. Like I said, I think it will be Benson moving the Saints to Los Angeles, and the Bills franchise, unless somthing happens, just outright folds. A new franchise will start in Toronto, so the new owner can share in the revenue sharing plan. The NFL will be under the (mistaken?) impression that this will appease (literally) dis-enfranchised Buffalo Bills fans. If you think giving Los Angeles another crack at a team, ask yourself why Houston got a new franchise to replace the Oilers so quickly. Oilers fans were almost as apathetic as it gets. It really does not have much to do with selling out stadiums, as it does all of the outside bells and whistles that cities allow teams to make. Houston is a major television and business market. Buffalo has neither of these things in its' favor. Fan loyalty is our only trump card.... 657142[/snapback] No team will be moving to LA until all other teams that want new stadiums have used teh threat of moving to LA to extort free bpublic money in their current home town. The plan to nothball makes sense because then the league can add an expansion team and collect about $1 bil in entrance fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 You know that for a fact? 657357[/snapback] yeah - he and deBennedeti went over the books with Ralph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 You know that for a fact? 657357[/snapback] the bills had a 21% profit rate in 04. i suspect it was about the same or a tiny bit higher in 05 given national revenue sharing going up slightly and the bills payroll remaining about the same. the bills payroll in real dollars (i.e., factoring in bonuses paid for 06; not the official salary cap number) has declined since last year, and the new tv deal will shower a ton of money on the bills over the next few years. if the bills want to maintain a high profit rate, it should be quite easy for them to do - run the team like the bengals of the late 90s (low overhead costs and low player salaries, relatively speaking). from the looks of things, this looks to be exactly what the bills are now doing - not getting into bidding wars for marquee players, shedding big contracts, and paying very little to the coaches and gms (relatively speaking). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckeyeBill Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I am not opposed to changing the name of the stadium. Wouldn't changing it to Ralph Wilson's Pepsi Stadium bring in a lot of revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Monkey Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 the bills had a 21% profit rate in 04. i suspect it was about the same or a tiny bit higher in 05 given national revenue sharing going up slightly and the bills payroll remaining about the same. the bills payroll in real dollars (i.e., factoring in bonuses paid for 06; not the official salary cap number) has declined since last year, and the new tv deal will shower a ton of money on the bills over the next few years. if the bills want to maintain a high profit rate, it should be quite easy for them to do - run the team like the bengals of the late 90s (low overhead costs and low player salaries, relatively speaking). from the looks of things, this looks to be exactly what the bills are now doing - not getting into bidding wars for marquee players, shedding big contracts, and paying very little to the coaches and gms (relatively speaking). 657548[/snapback] The Bills sold out every game in '05 based on the false hope that the team was good -- most games were vurtally sold out before the season even started. I can guarantee that will not happen in '06 based on the fact that most people know that the team will suck. So factor in a large drop in Bills ticket revenue into your flawed margin equation above... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 The Bills sold out every game in '05 based on the false hope that the team was good -- most games were vurtally sold out before the season even started. I can guarantee that will not happen in '06 based on the fact that most people know that the team will suck. So factor in a large drop in Bills ticket revenue into your flawed margin equation above... 657583[/snapback] i'll believe that when i see it. most knew the bills would suck in 01, and most thought they'd be terrible in 04 (and they did start out terribly). yet they always sold out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleTheWagons Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 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! 657392[/snapback] Obviously I want the Bills in Buffalo but don't blindly accept that the rule was made to move the Bills. When a new owner buys the Bills, he will make a valuation of the team. Part of that valuation would be the present value of an $8-10 million revenue stream every year. The current value of that stream would go into Ralph's pocket (or estate) at the time of the sale and the other owners would be on the hook to continue paying the money. The other owners are simply saying that any new owner of the team should not pay for that revenue because it won't be there. Instead of being a $770 million sale price it's now $600 million, since the new owner will need that extra $$$ to generate the revenue the other teams are unwilling to pay. Ralph gets less money but the economics of the Bills stay the same WITHOUT extra handouts from the other owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 The rules aren't there to stick it to the Bills - the rules are there to stick it to Ralph and the other old school owners. The new owners want to get rid of all the "share the wealth" owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I am not opposed to changing the name of the stadium. Wouldn't changing it to Ralph Wilson's Pepsi Stadium bring in a lot of revenue? 657551[/snapback] Of course 60% of that revenue goes to the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 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] I think its complicated. Basically, there are two features of any given lease that could tie the Bills to Buffalo - either Ralph could sign a lease for a very long time, or Ralph could sign a lease with a very high "buy-out" clause for breaking the lease, or some combination of the two. The problem is, the longer the length of the lease, the more willing the new owner of the Bills would be willing to step up and pay the "buy-out" clause. I am sure, however, that there are League rules against "poison pill" leases, just in the same way that the League gets to approve ownership sales. There may also be laws against "poison pill" leases - as any lease of a sufficiently long term becomes tantamount to ownership. Ultimately, Ralph Wilson may be able to finnagle the sale of the Bills to a local owner like Golisano over the League's objections... but the true *long-term* future of the Bills is absolutely contingent upon the political leaders of WNY arresting Buffalo's slide down the list of the nation's top metro areas. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts