New Clayton Article Rips Ralph

[Kelly the Dog]

I think we agree it's a SMALL part of the issue.  But again, $2M in a drop in the bucket of a potentially MUCH larger loss of revenue, which is what he's arguing over.  And I agree he SHOULD sell the naming rights and believe he will.  But outside of that and jacking-up prices for Bills games, which won't go over well with the fans, there's not much else he CAN do to generate revenue.

659073[/snapback]

True. What I think he is doing is attacking several little issues, one at a time, that could become dangerous later. And I don't know this but I assume it's because the Bills lawyers didn't like the wording of the agreement when they first read it. It probably caused a ton of potential red flags to be raised. I attribute this to the helterskelter necessity of hammering out an agreement under the gun. I think the agreement was essential but probably very, very flawed in its legalese, and created unforeseen opportnities for abuse or misreading. And Ralph is bringing it to everyone's attention so that 3-5-7 years from now, the Bills are not fukked over some interpretation of a badly constructed agreement.

 

What I DON'T think happened is what most people seem to be getting out of this. That the big bad new guys are out to ruin the smaller markets and run the Bills out of town so they can make more money so they put little posion pills in the agreement in a sinister fashion.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

True. What I think he is doing is attacking several little issues, one at a time, that could become dangerous later. And I don't know this but I assume it's because the Bills lawyers didn't like the wording of the agreement when they first read it. It probably caused a ton of potential red flags to be raised. I attribute this to the helterskelter necessity of hammering out an agreement under the gun. I think the agreement was essential but probably very, very flawed in its legalese, and created unforeseen opportnities for abuse or misreading. And Ralph is bringing it to everyone's attention so that 3-5-7 years from now, the Bills are fukked over some interpretation of a badly constructed agreement.

 

What I DON'T think happened is what most people seem to be getting out of this. That the big bad new guys are out to ruin the smaller markets and run the Bills out of town so they can make more money so they put little posion pills in the agreement in a sinister fashion.

I'm not as generous as you, Kelly. I think the big boys knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they drew up the proposals, and they had months to years to think about them. The CBA as it is was cobbled-together from several proposals, not drawn-up from scratch.

 

But whether or not you believe they were out to screw the Bills, I'm glad that Ralphie fired a pre-emptive strike and got the politicos involved. Now he just needs to sell the naming rights and jack-up prices!

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm not as generous as you, Kelly.  I think the big boys knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they drew up the proposals, and they had months to years to think about them.  The CBA as it is was cobbled-together from several proposals, not drawn-up from scratch.

 

But whether or not you believe they were out to screw the Bills, I'm glad that Ralphie fired a pre-emptive strike and got the politicos involved.  Now he just needs to sell the naming rights and jack-up prices!

659179[/snapback]

If that were true, Ralph would have been publicly complaining about the qualifiers long before this. The qualifiers thing seems to have been semi-recent, and I think the agreement was pieced together with one from column A and two from column B and two from Column C of several different proposals and concepts and protectors. And the funny part is that Ralph got so much sh-- for being a doddering old fool when he said this thing doesn't make any sense (Or rather I don't understand it) when that is probably exactly what happened. It probably doesn't, or at best it is not clear and defined.

 

I am glad, too, that he fired the pre-emptive strike.

[socalfan]

If that were true, Ralph would have been publicly complaining about the qualifiers long before this. The qualifiers thing seems to have been semi-recent

659197[/snapback]

 

I think this is a misperception. Everything has happened in the last month....CBA, revenue sharing and now creation of qualifiers. And Ralph has said something about the matter at least once a week since the owner's meeting.

 

It just all seems like a lifetime ago.

[JDG]

He's complaining the small market teams don't generate enough money to compete and yet he doesn't take the 2-3 mil that is sitting there waiting to be taken for NO good reason.

659030[/snapback]

 

O.k., Ralph Wilson *should* sell the naming right to the Stadium. But let's please not blow the naming rights issue out of proportion. Naming rights would get Ralph Wilson a couple million per year. The new revenue sharing pool that the Bills are at a risk of not qualifying for, would be about $10 million per year. The gap in revenue between Buffalo and Washington approaches $100 million per year.

 

True. What I think he is doing is attacking several little issues, one at a time, that could become dangerous later. And I don't know this but I assume it's because the Bills lawyers didn't like the wording of the agreement when they first read it. It probably caused a ton of potential red flags to be raised. I attribute this to the helterskelter necessity of hammering out an agreement under the gun. I think the agreement was essential but probably very, very flawed in its legalese, and created unforeseen opportnities for abuse or misreading. And Ralph is bringing it to everyone's attention so that 3-5-7 years from now, the Bills are not fukked over some interpretation of a badly constructed agreement.

659082[/snapback]

 

This seems naiive to me. If I'm a suit in the NFL office, I'm looking at a League that is really pretty well maxed out at 32 teams. I see one of those teams sitting in a market with a tiny fraction of Los Angeles, and less popuation than some other markets, and I see that same team sitting in a market with a heck of a lot less money than a lot of other markets. And I'm thinking that while moving the Bills today would be traumatic, 10, 20, 30 years from now I know it will have produced a lot more money, and Buffalo will go the way of the Canton Bulldogs. Moreover, looking at the numbers and the trends, I'm also thinking that moving the Bills at some point is nearly inevitable as the total income of the Buffalo market continues to fall further and further behind other markets - so why not get it over with as quickly as possible?

 

One thing that could easily settle this would be for Greg Aiello, or some other NFL spokesman to say flat out - "We want the Bills to stay in Buffalo." I haven't heard it yet.

 

If that were true, Ralph would have been publicly complaining about the qualifiers long before this. The qualifiers thing seems to have been semi-recent, and I think the agreement was pieced together with one from column A and two from column B and two from Column C of several different proposals and concepts and protectors. And the funny part is that Ralph got so much sh-- for being a doddering old fool when he said this thing doesn't make any sense (Or rather I don't understand it) when that is probably exactly what happened. It probably doesn't, or at best it is not clear and defined.

 

I am glad, too, that he fired the pre-emptive strike.

659197[/snapback]

 

I presume you disagree with Clayton on that point, then?

 

While I agree that the text of the qualifyers has probably only been forwarded to the Bills recently, that certainly doesn't mean that the outline of the qualifyers wasn't becoming apparent at the time of voting. I think that the NFL suits and the rich-club owners knew exactly what they were doing, Ralph was on to them at the time, and now the lawyers have only filtered down the specific language - as bad as it is.

 

JDG

[Kelly the Dog]

O.k., Ralph Wilson *should* sell the naming right to the Stadium.  But let's please not blow the naming rights issue out of proportion.  Naming rights would get Ralph Wilson a couple million per year.    The new revenue sharing pool that the Bills are at a risk of not qualifying for, would be about $10 million per year.    The gap in revenue between Buffalo and Washington approaches $100 million per year.

This seems naiive to me.    If I'm a suit in the NFL office, I'm looking at a League that is really pretty well maxed out at 32 teams.    I see one of those teams sitting in a market with a tiny fraction of Los Angeles, and less popuation than some other markets, and I see that same team sitting in a market with a heck of a lot less money than a lot of other markets.  And I'm thinking that while moving the Bills today would be traumatic, 10, 20, 30 years from now I know it will have produced a lot more money, and Buffalo will go the way of the Canton Bulldogs.    Moreover, looking at the numbers and the trends, I'm also thinking that moving the Bills at some point is nearly inevitable as the total income of the Buffalo market continues to fall further and further behind other markets - so why not get it over with as quickly as possible?     

 

One thing that could easily settle this would be for Greg Aiello, or some other NFL spokesman to say flat out - "We want the Bills to stay in Buffalo."    I haven't heard it yet.

I presume you disagree with Clayton on that point, then?

 

While I agree that the text of the qualifyers has probably only been forwarded to the Bills recently, that certainly doesn't mean that the outline of the qualifyers wasn't becoming apparent at the time of voting.    I think that the NFL suits and the rich-club owners knew exactly what they were doing, Ralph was on to them at the time, and now the lawyers have only filtered down the specific language - as bad as it is.

 

JDG

659298[/snapback]

First off, I didn't say anything or imply anything about the stadium rights being the save all. I used it as one example to show that Ralph may not be going about this the right way. Of course, it's not a ton of money but 2-3 million a year to pay out as a bonus instead of salary, which is exactly what Ralph has been complaining about over the last year, doesn't help your case either in the real world or the perception world.

 

Second, I don't believe for a second that these qualifiers were meant to squeeze out the Bills or that they are going to remain as is IF what Ralph says is true. There is no proof to it as yet, not even anything other than Ralph's own blathering. And I am not even sure what he is arguing about is even a fact, especially with the most recent articles coming out as well as the fact that Ralph is the ONLY one on the planet that is complaining about this except for the lackeys he has recruited. If you think ALL other owners are simply stupid, or are they 31 to 1 against Ralph?

 

Third, a person has come out and said I want the Bills to stay in Buffalo. Just yesterday. Paul Tagliabue. Heard of him? Said it flat out.

 

Fourth, you are constantly complaining about the size of the market which means absolutely nothing. What matters is how many people actually watch the games and what kind of market share does it get. The Bills do well in these areas, even against cities with 2-3-4 times the size. The Bills also do surprisingly well in other people's stadiums, although I have no idea why. It's a smaller market and yet its people are SO willing to pay money for Bills games and for Bills jerseys and Bills hats. Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country and no one gives a crap about the Cardinals.

 

The Bills fans travel extremely well and you'd know that if you go to any away game in any season at any stadium. The passion for the Bills amongst their fans DOES matter to the NFL, and they are neither ignorant of it nor do they easily discount it. Yes, they want LA as a city. There will likely be a team there by 2009 the earliest. It's HIGHlY unlikely it's going to be the Bills.

[JDG]

Third, a person has come out and said I want the Bills to stay in Buffalo. Just yesterday. Paul Tagliabue. Heard of him? Said it flat out.

659340[/snapback]

 

Quote?

[Kelly the Dog]

Quote?

659345[/snapback]

I think I read a better one earlier and will look for it.

WASHINGTON - Sen. Charles E. Schumer said Monday that Commissioner Paul Tagliabue had assured him that proposed local revenue provisions in the National Football League will not harm small-market franchises as much as they fear.

 

The senator told The Buffalo News that Tagliabue did not elaborate but said the commissioner agreed to meet with him on Buffalo Bills issues soon in New York City.

 

"I spoke with Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and emphasized the importance of keeping the Bills in Buffalo and protecting small-market teams. He said he wants to do both of those things," said Schumer, D-N.Y.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060...?tbd1072939.asp

 

Here's another one with an interesting quote from a Canisius professor, which is along the lines of my thinking.

But the franchise is pulling in profits according to estimates from Forbes Magazine. Forbes believes the Bills are worth $708 million and earned an estimated $173 million in revenue.

 

The team could make a few million more a year if they decided to sell the naming rights of the stadium instead of having it named after the team owner.

 

“They're making money," said Canisius College Sports Administration Professor Shawn O’Rourke, who believes Wilson and his drive for political and public support to keep the team is here is in part public posturing.

 

“He’s getting people fired up to sell some tickets. I think he's trying to set up as much political power as he can to put pressure on the NFL to try to change or tweak the collective bargaining agreement," added O’Rourke.

http://www.wgrz.com/news/columnist/blogs/2...x?storyid=36979

[JDG]

Kelly,

 

I am glad that Tagliabue assured Chuck Schumer privately that he wants to keep the Bills in Buffalo. I wish that he would say so publicly (if he has not already said so.) Of course, Tagliabue is a lame duck at this point, so his words only carry so much weight. What has concerned me is that the person the NFL has sent out in public to go on the record on this issue is Greg Aiello, and I have definitely noticed that none of his comments have said anything about wanting to keep the Bills in Buffalo.

 

As for the Canisius professor, I think he is arguing against himself. I haven't seen anyone suggest, not Ralph, not me, not anyone, that the Bills can't compete in 2006. The whole debate here is long term.

 

JDG

[Peter]

You can't seriously believe this.    Ralph Wilson isn't worried about making *more* money *after* he's dead!!!!    That's patently absurd.

 

What Ralph Wilson is pissed-off about is that the big-money owners apparently inserted some poison pills into their paltry new revenue sharing agreement that appear on the face of them to be targeted at making the Bills unviable in Buffalo.  Its a shame that the national media, ala Peter King and John Clayton haven't recognized this.    Its a tragedy that even some Bills fans can't see it.

 

JDG

658475[/snapback]

 

Bingo.

[The Dean]

Regarding the stadium naming rights:

 

It was brought up here, recently, the County owns the naming rights to the stadium, not Ralph. Is that true?

[Lurker]

Clayton couldn't spell CBA if you spotted him the C and the A.

[Orton's Arm]

What I like about Wilson is he has the courage to take a stand, even when others may not agree. In those owners meetings, a consensus seems to have emerged that the "compromise" CBA was the way to go. Wilson showed some backbone by voting against it, and now it's becoming clear that he, unlike most small-market owners, didn't allow himself to get taken advantage of.

 

The crux of his argument is that, under the terms of the new CBA, it would be too tempting for a hypothetical Bills owner to move the team to a larger city. Say the Bills would be worth $500 million if kept in Buffalo, but $1 billion if moved to Los Angeles. Some guy could bid $900 million or more for the team with the intention of moving it to LA, as opposed to the maximum of $500 million that a loyal Buffalonian could bid. Once the team sold for $900 million, the interest expenses would force the new owner to move the team to someplace more lucrative. Wilson is evidently doing everything he can to avoid this scenario, and to ensure the Bills have their best possible chance of staying in Buffalo after his death. I for one hope he's successful.

[JDG]

Regarding the stadium naming rights:

 

It was brought up here, recently, the County owns the naming rights to the stadium, not Ralph.  Is that true?

659403[/snapback]

 

No it is not. The Buffalo Bills own the naming rights to the Stadium, and they have chosen not to sell them.

 

JDG

[dave mcbride]

Bingo.

659385[/snapback]

no. read my actual post.

[The Dean]

No it is not.  The Buffalo Bills own the naming rights to the Stadium, and they have chosen not to sell them.

 

JDG

659656[/snapback]

 

 

Thanks.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

Clayton is pretty accurate for his works, but he has no idea what he's talking about here! I almost seems like he just wrote this up in 5 ins with proof-reading it.

[JDG]

Second, I don't believe for a second that these qualifiers were meant to squeeze out the Bills or that they are going to remain as is IF what Ralph says is true. There is no proof to it as yet, not even anything other than Ralph's own blathering. And I am not even sure what he is arguing about is even a fact, especially with the most recent articles coming out as well as the fact that Ralph is the ONLY one on the planet that is complaining about this except for the lackeys he has recruited. If you think ALL other owners are simply stupid, or are they 31 to 1 against Ralph?

 

I think that the provision about not providing revenue sharing to new owners is aimed squarely at the NFL's oldest owner. Who else is gong to complain? Are there other owners who are likely to sell or die over the next six years as Ralph?

 

I think that the provision about 80% of the NFL's average ticket price is aimed squarely at the NFL franchise with the lowest average ticket price. Based on my back-of-the-envelope calculations, I expect that only Buffalo, New Orleans, and Jacksonville will be under that 80% figure for this year.

 

I think your point about the Bills being the only ones to complain about the qualifyers is actually supporting evidence for my theory. If the suits in the NFL office wanted Buffalo in a far more lucrative market, like Los Angeles, then it would make sense to include provisions that could target the Bills, without raising the ire of the other NFL Owners. The qualifyers that Ralph is talking about appear ominiously well-targeted at the Bills. What other NFL teams are going to get excited about provisions that suck for the Bills, but ultimately don't affect them?

 

Fourth, you are constantly complaining about the size of the market which means absolutely nothing.

 

A little hyperbole, eh?

 

What matters is how many people actually watch the games and what kind of market share does it get. The Bills do well in these areas, even against cities with 2-3-4 times the size. The Bills also do surprisingly well in other people's stadiums, although I have no idea why. It's a smaller market and yet its people are SO willing to pay money for Bills games and for Bills jerseys and Bills hats. Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country and no one gives a crap about the Cardinals.

 

The Bills fans travel extremely well and you'd know that if you go to any away game in any season at any stadium. The passion for the Bills amongst their fans DOES matter to the NFL, and they are neither ignorant of it nor do they easily discount it.....

659340[/snapback]

 

First off, you're providing a partial sports score. Yes, the Bills are well-represented at many "away" games - but I don't think its because fans "travel extremely well." I think its predominantly first-generation WNY expatriates providing the attendance. Moreover, you aren't comparing it to "away" ticket sales for other NFL teams like the Raiders, Cowboys, Steelers, Jets, Giants, etc. I don't know that the Bills necessarily are a major "road draw" compared to other NFL teams. Indeed, I'd expect that road games for many other NFL teams are far more likely to sell out than Bills games.

 

As for who watches the games, I think that the TV ratings tell the story. Buffalo ended up with 16 1pm games this year - not even a single 4pm contest that would have a shot at being the "national game" for a given week. If the Bills were in Los Angeles, everything else being equal (including LA being in the Eastern time zone), I guarantee you that there would be a 4pm game on the schedule, and in all likelihood a Monday night game as well. QED.

 

Moreover, it is worth noting that Fox pays almost $100 million more per year for NFC games than CBS pays for AFC games. Why? In large part because population *matters* and, the AFC has more small markets (including the two smallest if you properly consider Milwaukee to be Green Bay's market) than the NFC. Don't kid yourself that moving the Bills from the 2nd smallest to the 2nd biggest wouldn't bring the price of the AFC contract a little closer to the NFC contract.

 

You've raised the examples of the Cardinals and the previous LA teams. I think we should see how well the Cardinals do once they have a new stadium, and once they get a couple playoff appearances under the belt. I think the NFL recognizes that a winning tradition and a good stadium count for a lot - there's every reason to believe that the Cardinals could blow the Bills out of the water in terms of revenue once the gap in Stadium and tradition with the Bills is closed a little bit.

 

I think the same thing holds true for Los Angeles. Previously LA had two teams in the same market, two terrible owners, little to no winning tradition in LA, and some of the worst stadium arrangements in the League. I expect that a single team in LA, with a modern stadium, a committed owner, a few years of playoff contention would easily earn 50% more revenue than the Bills.

 

JDG

[Kelly the Dog]

I think that the provision about not providing revenue sharing to new owners is aimed squarely at the NFL's oldest owner.    Who else is gong to complain?  Are there other owners who are likely to sell or die over the next six years as Ralph?

 

I think that the provision about 80% of the NFL's average ticket price is aimed squarely at the NFL franchise with the lowest average ticket price.  Based on my back-of-the-envelope calculations, I expect that only Buffalo, New Orleans, and Jacksonville will be under that 80% figure for this year.

 

I think your point about the Bills being the only ones to complain about the qualifyers is actually supporting evidence for my theory.  If the suits in the NFL office wanted Buffalo in a far more lucrative market, like Los Angeles, then it would make sense to include provisions that could target the Bills, without raising the ire of the other NFL Owners.  The qualifyers that Ralph is talking about appear ominiously well-targeted at the Bills.  What other NFL teams are going to get excited about provisions that suck for the Bills, but ultimately don't affect them?

A little hyperbole, eh?

First off, you're providing a partial sports score.  Yes, the Bills are well-represented at many "away" games - but I don't think its because fans "travel extremely well."    I think its predominantly first-generation WNY expatriates providing the attendance.  Moreover, you aren't comparing it to "away" ticket sales for other NFL teams like the Raiders, Cowboys, Steelers, Jets, Giants, etc.  I don't know that the Bills necessarily are a major "road draw" compared to other NFL teams.  Indeed, I'd expect that road games for many other NFL teams are far more likely to sell out than Bills games.

 

As for who watches the games, I think that the TV ratings tell the story.  Buffalo ended up with 16 1pm games this year - not even a single 4pm contest that would have a shot at being the "national game" for a given week.  If the Bills were in Los Angeles, everything else being equal (including LA being in the Eastern time zone), I guarantee you that there would be a 4pm game on the schedule, and in all likelihood a Monday night game as well.  QED. 

 

Moreover, it is worth noting that Fox pays almost $100 million more per year for NFC games than CBS pays for AFC games.  Why?    In large part because population *matters* and, the AFC has more small markets (including the two smallest if you properly consider Milwaukee to be Green Bay's market) than the NFC.  Don't kid yourself that moving the Bills from the 2nd smallest to the 2nd biggest wouldn't bring the price of the AFC contract a little closer to the NFC contract.

 

You've raised the examples of the Cardinals and the previous LA teams.  I think we should see how well the Cardinals do once they have a new stadium, and once they get a couple playoff appearances under the belt.  I think the NFL recognizes that a winning tradition and a good stadium count for a lot - there's every reason to believe that the Cardinals could blow the Bills out of the water in terms of revenue once the gap in Stadium and tradition with the Bills is closed a little bit.

 

I think the same thing holds true for Los Angeles.  Previously LA had two teams in the same market, two terrible owners, little to no winning tradition in LA, and some of the worst stadium arrangements in the League.  I expect that a single team in LA, with a modern stadium, a committed owner, a few years of playoff contention would easily earn 50% more revenue than the Bills. 

 

JDG

660147[/snapback]

Well, at least we now know that besides being crazy and endlessly pessimistic, you're also a bitter, ill-informed conspiracy theorist.

[Orton's Arm]

Well, at least we now know that besides being crazy and endlessly pessimistic, you're also a bitter, ill-informed conspiracy theorist.

660171[/snapback]

Not really sure where this accusation is coming from. Suppose many owners thought they would benefit from the Bills moving to LA. They could set up a collective bargaining agreement with various poison pill arrangements to force this outcome, while leaving most small market teams unaffected. The eligibility requirements I've been hearing about for revenue sharing--and not just from JDG--sound exactly like such a poison pill. The way the negotiations were conducted also strikes me as suspicious. The owners all knew these problems were coming, but apparently some of them waited until the 11th, 12th, or 13th hour to begin seriously negotiating about them. As a result, the agreement that passed did so in a hurried atmosphere with lots of pressure, and without people having time to read it. What was portrayed as mere disorganization or incompetence on the owners' part may actually have been a negotiating ploy on the part of some owners to use the stress and chaos of the situation to insert poison pill provisions. But if you want to go on believing Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, and Dan Snyder were as innocent as the media portrayed them, go ahead.