LabattBlue Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 What about the option for the Seneca Nation buying the team and building a combo domed stadium/casino/convention center downtown. Who cares if the NFL doesn't want an NFL team owned by a company that operates casinos. What's the big deal...they don't have sportsbooks in them....yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PacificCoastBillsFan Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 What was the cap back then? $35 million??? 864163[/snapback] No cap or FA as we know it now until the early 90's. The cap was put in place when FA was introduced. In hopes to let the small market teams to be able to compete. At that time, it was instituted that all revenue for the most part was shared. What Ralph is complaining about is all the loop holes that the big market teams get to avoid thier share of revenue sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 wouldn't putting a hard limit on all signing bonuses solve the problem? 864244[/snapback] Yes it would. And Art Shell, Jerry Jones & Danny Boy would never let that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 okay...the bills are going...where should they go and who should own them? 864246[/snapback] Hope, AR. Soros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 This seems like the perfect thread to start a good hearted "Ralph is so cheap ..." All in good fun like a "Your mama is so ......" I'll start of Ralph is so cheap that he sneaks around high school equipment shed's to steal their helmets and footballs so he doesn't have to buy them from the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Suburb of Roch. Wegmans hometown. 864249[/snapback] I'm from Pittsford (Southeast of Roch-cha-cha). The Wegmans actually lived just over the line in Brighton when I was growing up.... To be clear, Rochester is Wegmans' home town, not Pittsford, though that is where one of the first super-stores went in (Pittford Plaza). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I'm from Pittsford (Southeast of Roch-cha-cha). The Wegmans actually lived just over the line in Brighton when I was growing up.... To be clear, Rochester is Wegmans' home town, not Pittsford, though that is where one of the first super-stores went in (Pittford Plaza). 864266[/snapback] My bad. I guess I just assume that Wegmans is Pittsford-based because of that super-store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Yeah, reading comprehension's a lost art around here. Ralph's talking about the small market teams being forced to help pay for a new stadium in NYC without getting anything in return from the the large market teams. But, hey, don't let that stop the scare mongering about next year's roster... 864073[/snapback] Well, no. I guess yours is on the fritz, too. Ralph was talking about the same thing he has been talking about since the bargaining agreement was signed. The qualifiers. The owners have spoke about it but they haven't yet agreed on it. That is what the "concrete" part was about. The loan for the stadium is a separate issue that the NFL set up, and Ralph isn't complaining about that, nor does it (directly) hurt the small market teams. Ralph's no vote was a protest vote to try to get a better result for the small market teams when the owners DO decide on the concrete rules for the qualifiers. Ralph is saying here, as he has been saying all along, that Buffalo may be exempt from some of the profit sharing because they will be shut out by a qualifier or two on certain issues. And that when the new NY stadium gets the luxury box monies and the cap goes up that the Bills may not benefit from the revenue sharing because the qualifiers prevented them from getting the full share, which means less aid and money, when the NY teams will be getting more cash. Tags and Goodell verbally assured that this won't ultimately be true but it hasn't been voted on yet. So Ralph is still fighting. Again, IMO, two things are going on here simultaneously. Ralph is crying poor when he is not poor, and is being disingenuous about the cash flow. BUT, and this is a big but, he is doing the right thing by complaining, and it will ultimately serve the Bills and Buffalo very well because they will qualify for all the revenue sharing monies available partly because of the stink he is raising now. If he doesn't do this, they may not get all the qualifiers they wish. His first stink got Shumer and Higgins involved and the NFL ultimately responded by putting Ralph and other smaller market owners on that committee that votes on the qualifiers. Goodell may have to be the tie-breaker, but so far he seems to favor the side of the smaller owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I would definately root for the Toronto Bills. I went to college in Toronto and it is a fabulous city. Go Bill's ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Again, IMO, two things are going on here simultaneously. Ralph is crying poor when he is not poor, and is being disingenuous about the cash flow. Ralph is "poor" in relation to the other owners. He simply cannot afford to pay-out signing bonuses like other owners can. That means that a guy like Nate Clements, a key player on the Bills' defense and who the Bills have enough cap room to keep, will likely bolt for a team like the Redskins who can pay him a $17M signing bonus upfront. The same goes for other big-ticket FA's. Ralph is not being disingenuous and I agree that the NFL basically giving away free money so that big market teams can pocket the "local" revenue from a new stadium is bull sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Brady Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Um...for that, you'll have to go back to Boys' Town. 864158[/snapback] If I was that kinda guy I would already be there....... Prediction: In a very short time, say 10-15 years from now, small market teams will not even be able to afford to pay the signing bonus's of the top 10 picks in the draft.... Teams will actually trade away those picks to the likes of Dallas and Washington, NY, ect. ect. just to avoid paying some unproven talent 50mil plus 20mil per season to see if they have IT. Ralph IMO is actually warning the fans of ALL TEAMS such as the Bills, that their days are numbered if things continue on the coarse that has recently been laid out by the latest CBA.... IMO it is a shame that ONLY Buffalo and Cincinnati voted no on this latest issue......It makes one wonder what the heck their thinking about in other cities like Cleveland, Baltimore, Jacksonville, KC, Indy,Tampa, ect ect........... The NFL has reached the height of its popularity......There isn't any money left to be squeezed out of the fans in many of these cities, greed is a bad thing.......... Its time for the return of the old AFL............ There is a difference between being cheap and being fiscally responsible.......... I support Mr. Wilson........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The qualifiers. The owners have spoke about it but they haven't yet agreed on it. That is what the "concrete" part was about. The loan for the stadium is a separate issue that the NFL set up, and Ralph isn't complaining about that, nor does it (directly) hurt the small market teams. Ralph's no vote was a protest vote to try to get a better result for the small market teams when the owners DO decide on the concrete rules for the qualifiers. 864271[/snapback] Again, IMO, two things are going on here simultaneously. Ralph is crying poor when he is not poor, and is being disingenuous about the cash flow. 864271[/snapback] I don't see them as seperate. Ralph wants the qualifier issue settled to help the small market teams. Yet the loan for the stadium does nothing but compound the problem, with the Bills and Cincy and other small market franchises giving money to the NYC teams that will allow them to generate higher revenue that won't be shared equally with all 32 teams. If the Bills are going to help the large market teams, what do they get in return? (I suspect the dirty end of the stick). How is RW being disingenous about cash flow, BTW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Ralph is "poor" in relation to the other owners. He simply cannot afford to pay-out signing bonuses like other owners can. That means that a guy like Nate Clements, a key player on the Bills' defense and who the Bills have enough cap room to keep, will likely bolt for a team like the Redskins who can pay him a $17M signing bonus upfront. The same goes for other big-ticket FA's. Ralph is not being disingenuous and I agree that the NFL basically giving away free money so that big market teams can pocket the "local" revenue from a new stadium is bull sh--. 864295[/snapback] Yes he can. He just won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 People would rather spend their money on tickets to see a winning team that is what 22-5 compared to a team who probably won't make the playoffs. I don't know if Buffalo can support 2 winning sports franchises. Not being in the playoffs since 1999 doesn't help either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Word earlier in the season was that the "opt-out" clause (I believe it's applicable before the 2008 season) in the new CBA would be exercised by the owners. Let's hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Yes he can. He just won't. Sure he can. He can dig into his own pockets and take a loss. Next thing you know, he'll be buying out all the tickets and donating them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Yes he can. He just won't. 864304[/snapback] When Ralph pays out $17 million in signing bonuses, it comes out of his pocket. When Jerry Jones does it, it comes out of his luxury box or corporate sponsorship cash flow. Who's the big winner there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I don't see them as seperate. Ralph wants the qualifier issue settled to help the small market teams. Yet the loan for the stadium does nothing but compound the problem, with the Bills and Cincy and other small market franchises giving money to the NYC teams that will allow them to generate higher revenue that won't be shared equally with all 32 teams. If the Bills are going to help the large market teams, what do they get in return? (I suspect the dirty end of the stick). How is RW being disengenous about cash flow, BTW? 864303[/snapback] Because he says that he can't pay out large bonuses when he surely can. As much as he wishes. He doesn't have the same amount of cash, he doesn't gross or net nearly the same amount, the other owners can throw around cash like at a tittie bar because they have more of it. But Ralph gets a lot of cash, grosses and nets a lot of cash, and can pay 15 million dollar bonuses to Nate Clements if he wishes and have no problems financially. Just not as easily. And without the assurances of the qualifiers, the gap will grow down the line. With the qualifiers, the Bills should easily be able compete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Yes it would. And Art Shell, Jerry Jones & Danny Boy would never let that happen. 864259[/snapback] What in the world does Art Shell have to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20061...?tbd1055598.aspVery disturbing article on many levels. The possibility of the Bills leaving buffalo is no longer a possibility in my mind anymore. It is going to happen. I do not like the quotes from Wilson in that article. Especially this one: "People in Buffalo should enjoy this team, because they're pushing us out" We need some good news on this front very soon. Does anyone on this board have any? Am I painting to bleak of a picture? That Ralph Wilson quote is very telling to me and it's causing me to start thinking of which team I will support when this does happen. (hint: it won't be the LA Bills!). My friend who lives in buffalo and works in the Buffalo media has been telling me this for the last couple years and now I'm really starting to beleive him. 864086[/snapback] As long as Wilson is publicly worrying about how hard it is to keep the team in Buffalo, I won't worry. It just shows how hard he's working to keep the team in Bufflalo. It's when I stop hearing things like this that I'll be concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts