lets_go_bills Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 There is revenue sharing. Ralph makes good money and the Toronto deal added a boat load of cash to his account. He's definately on the frugal side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preston Ridlehuber Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Yeah, the Toronto games are a financial sweetheart arrangement for the Bills. However, if the Bills continue to suck on the field I wonder if ticket sales up north of the border drop like a stone in water. While the on the field product leaves much to be desired, old Ralph and crew know how to make the best of their small market from a business perspective. From this standpoint other teams could learn much from the Bills. Bills' are guaranteed all their money from Toronto if not one ticket is sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preston Ridlehuber Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 One other thing, Wilson has no debt service on team. Its like one guy owns a million dollar home with no mortgage and another guy owns a two million dollar home with a $1.5 million mortgage. The guy with the million dollar home has a job were he makes $100K per year. The guy with the two million dollar home makes $ 150 K per year. Which guy has more disposable income? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 One other thing, Wilson has no debt service on team. Its like one guy owns a million dollar home with no mortgage and another guy owns a two million dollar home with a $1.5 million mortgage. The guy with the million dollar home has a job were he makes $100K per year. The guy with the two million dollar home makes $ 150 K per year. Which guy has more disposable income? Assuming they pay equivalent taxes ... the guy with the $150K income has more disposible income. Where you are trying to go is that he elects or has to pay more of it towards his house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Assuming they pay equivalent taxes ... the guy with the $150K income has more disposible income. Where you are trying to go is that he elects or has to pay more of it towards his house. The guy with no mortgage retains more of his income because his expenses are lower. Assuming the other guy has a 30 year mortgage at prevailing rates he spends roughly $108k per year servicing his mortgage. The guy making $100k is better off because of a much higher cash flow. Like a friend of mine says 'its not how much you make its how much you keep that counts'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 The guy with no mortgage retains more of his income because his expenses are lower. Assuming the other guy has a 30 year mortgage at prevailing rates he spends roughly $108k per year servicing his mortgage. The guy making $100k is better off because of a much higher cash flow. Like a friend of mine says 'its not how much you make its how much you keep that counts'. Remember the question asked was "which guy has more disposable income?" While not universally agreed upon, the generally accepted definition of disposable income is the income left after taxes are taken out. Disposable income, according to any definition outside the generally accepted one, is not influenced by how much an individual spends on their mortgage. That would be a use of disposable income. You now assume the individual most likely to have the lower disposable income has the higher savings rate based on mortgage expense or the lack thereof. He may save more if he spends less elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I'll gladly take all your emotional responses! Go ahead and fire away. But in a quieter time, when the anger and frustration we all feel subsides, when we dare to let logic enter the conversation, the bottom line is that the Buffalo Bills do not bring in enough money to fund a Super Bowl winner. We are unhappy when Winfield, Williams, Clements and others are due for a big contract and our team let's them leave. We hate it when top free agents are never signed by the Bills, especially when they end up as opponents in our division. The top GMs and coaches are never hired by Mr. Wilson and that often means we cannnot win games where coaching is the deciding factor. So each year we hope and dream that the planets will line up and we will be one of those one year wonder teams who win games they shouldn't, get more than their share of lucky calls and bounces, and overachieves in their play. When it doesn't happen. we start blaming owners, staff and players. Yes, they fail to realize the success we hope for, but the culprit is the bottom line. How can we be so deluded to think that we can spend the bucks that the Patriots, Cowboys and other rich organizations do, when Ralph doesn't have anything close to their revenue coming in? Of course, it's easy to be a fan and say he should do it for the community and people who support his team. But while it is easy to say, there are very few business people who would actually spend more than what is financially expedient of the money received from their (cash cow) NFL franchise. I'll bet I have accused Mr. Wilson of being cheap a hundred times over the years. But deep down, I know he is not the problem. The decline of major corporations, population and economic prosperity in Buffalo is the reason behind it all. I have spent thousands on season and game tickets, team gear, etc. but the Bills don't "owe me" anything. Each year I get to decide whether I want to pay for the product or not. Whether I want to be frustrated or not. I am still going to be a fan of the Bills next year, even though I'll hate it if they have a bad season. But when I think it through logically, there are no villains involved; just the economics in my beloved city. Don't buy it at all. Baseball is a far, far, far more unlevel playing field than football, and just look how plenty of lower to middle revenue teams are able to win and compete year after year by having good front offices(A's, Twins, Marlins, Diamondbacks, etc) I know the Marlins and Diamondbacks are not that good anymore, but they did win 3 world series combined. There is no cap in baseball so when the Yankees decide to spend 250 million and they can only spend 60-70 million, that is a disparity of proportions that doesn't exist in football. Also consider that contracts in the NFL can be dumped much easier than in baseball and making a bad decision in football doesn't have near the impact that it could in baseball for a smaller revenue team. The bottom line is that lower revenue teams just have to have good scouting departments and know when to let players go and replace them with lower priced rookies and 2nd year players through the draft. They don't have the room for error that bigger revenue teams have. Obviously lower revenue teams that have poor scouting departments end up like the Royals or Pirates---doormats year after year with no chance of winning because their young talent isn't good enough to make up for their lack of higher priced veterans, or players they had to let go due to their price tag. Let's be realistic here as well---the NFL is basically handing each team a huge check every year from their TV deal which more or less virtually pays for the players salaries. Team owners are not coming out of pocket THAT much compared to other sports... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Ralph can't compete because he doesn't spend money where he should, not because he doesn't have enough. If he would stop playing GM and putting or retaining people in positions they have no business being in, he'd find success. Forbes NFL Revenue 2007 According to this list 10 of the top 16 teams failed to make the playoffs. Arguably the best team in the NFL, the NYG, were 17th. Three teams below Buffalo made the playoffs, so overall revenue isn't that much of a hinderance to being a good team. The difference between winners and losers is having personnel executives who know what they're doing. Buffalo doesn't have a GM, and their owner is trying to be the GM. That's why this team isn't successful. Period. This data shows the fallacy of the cries of "poverty". The Bills are neck and neck in terms of revenue with the New York Giants and Jets (and those teams just took on big debt). It's by design as the NFL shares revenue across all members. The Cardinals, Colts, Chargers, and Falcons all made the playoffs on similar revenue streams. The biggest inequity comes with 3 franchises: Washington, Dallas, and New England. Only one of those teams has had success in spite of this disparity - indeed, in the Patriots case their success on the field has lead to success on the business side. From the owner's perspective, the Bills are on the low end of operating income, so the franchise isn't as profitable as other franchises. And, to a seller, the franchise is on the lower end in terms of value. The Bills problems are many, but they've placed many financial barriers upon themselves, such as "cash to cap", not selling the naming rights to the stadium, pocketing the Toronto deal money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 From the owner's perspective, the Bills are on the low end of operating income, so the franchise isn't as profitable as other franchises. And, to a seller, the franchise is on the lower end in terms of value. Actually the lack of debt positions the Bills well with regards to operating income (as compared to other NFL teams not a business you would invest in). B-t-w cash to the cap can help a team avoid boom and bust cycles because of dead cap money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Actually the lack of debt positions the Bills well with regards to operating income (as compared to other NFL teams not a business you would invest in). B-t-w cash to the cap can help a team avoid boom and bust cycles because of dead cap money. You should look at the data as it is clearly laid out. I'm referencing this data; I think you're looking at something else -- no big deal. The Bills are 28th overall in operating income (just behind the Colts and Steelers, two small market teams that have very strong personnel departments and win). $12.4M is a nice profit but not as nice as Dan Snyder's $58.1M. The cash-to-cap is a bean counter device to restrict the "football guys" from running amok like John Butler did. The device neuters the football operations ability to offer high dollar signing bonus type contracts and pro-rate those bonuses. If you actually have confidence in your personnel people, then having to eat numerous contracts constantly shouldn't really be a problem -- not that the Bills personnel decision makers have done such a great job to warrant that confidence but the sword cuts both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 They're ranked 7th in profitability and ranked 27th as a value. There's some John Belushi-worthy comedy in there somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 bull sh-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 You can ask ANY Doctor. The FACT is that at age 90, the brain does not function as it did at 50 or 60. People at age 90 have short term memory loss at the VERY LEAST, & most have diminished mental capacity. This is a SAD reality of life. That's BS. As I've stated before my parents lived to 86 & 87 and had plenty of mental capacity at the time of their deaths. My mother's sister is 95 with plenty of mental capacity. I'll put Marv Levy, at 83 against just about anybody on this board in a debate & Marv would win. You said Ralph is senile-he's not. Quit being an ageist who probably has never known anyone in their 80s & 90s or knew one or two who were diminished and has decided everyone their age is diminished. Also, everyone is different. Unless you have medically evaluated Ralph at age 50 & age 90, you have no basis to declare him mentally diminished. The really SAD fact is you don't know spit about Ralph's mental capacity, yet you have no problem declaring him senile. When Ralph speaks in public there is nothing to indicate he has anything aproaching senility. He walks & talks a little slower, but once again, there is nothing to indicate anything near senility. Ralph has, what to some, is a weird sense of humor. He's always done things like laugh out of frustration at the team like he did after the Toronto game. I've been listening to the guy since he was my current age & the content of his words haven't changed very much. It's one thing to not like what he does, it's quite another to question his mental capacity when you don't agree with him. You really need to meet some older people with sound minds, it would be a good lesson for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preston Ridlehuber Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Remember the question asked was "which guy has more disposable income?" While not universally agreed upon, the generally accepted definition of disposable income is the income left after taxes are taken out. Disposable income, according to any definition outside the generally accepted one, is not influenced by how much an individual spends on their mortgage. That would be a use of disposable income. You now assume the individual most likely to have the lower disposable income has the higher savings rate based on mortgage expense or the lack thereof. He may save more if he spends less elsewhere. OK, so after the first chunk is taken out of the $2 million homeowner, who has more cash left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaGimp Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I'll gladly take all your emotional responses! Go ahead and fire away. But in a quieter time, when the anger and frustration we all feel subsides, when we dare to let logic enter the conversation, the bottom line is that the Buffalo Bills do not bring in enough money to fund a Super Bowl winner. We are unhappy when Winfield, Williams, Clements and others are due for a big contract and our team let's them leave. We hate it when top free agents are never signed by the Bills, especially when they end up as opponents in our division. The top GMs and coaches are never hired by Mr. Wilson and that often means we cannnot win games where coaching is the deciding factor. So each year we hope and dream that the planets will line up and we will be one of those one year wonder teams who win games they shouldn't, get more than their share of lucky calls and bounces, and overachieves in their play. When it doesn't happen. we start blaming owners, staff and players. Yes, they fail to realize the success we hope for, but the culprit is the bottom line. How can we be so deluded to think that we can spend the bucks that the Patriots, Cowboys and other rich organizations do, when Ralph doesn't have anything close to their revenue coming in? Of course, it's easy to be a fan and say he should do it for the community and people who support his team. But while it is easy to say, there are very few business people who would actually spend more than what is financially expedient of the money received from their (cash cow) NFL franchise. I'll bet I have accused Mr. Wilson of being cheap a hundred times over the years. But deep down, I know he is not the problem. The decline of major corporations, population and economic prosperity in Buffalo is the reason behind it all. I have spent thousands on season and game tickets, team gear, etc. but the Bills don't "owe me" anything. Each year I get to decide whether I want to pay for the product or not. Whether I want to be frustrated or not. I am still going to be a fan of the Bills next year, even though I'll hate it if they have a bad season. But when I think it through logically, there are no villains involved; just the economics in my beloved city. Don't be a Gimp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostsOfTheRockpile Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Ralph has money. The team makes money. More could be spent. Ralph continually compares the Bills to the Cowboys or the New York teams or the Patriots. Stupid, stupid, stupid. He should be looking to Cleveland, Cincy, Pittsburgh, etc. And don't just have the knee-jerk "those cities are larger and have bigger corporations." I understand they do, but consider... the Cardinals have 88 suites (they call them lofts) running from the $65k range up through the $125k range. Some of the worst suites at the Ralph - the Dugout level, in the tunnel end-visiting team corner - cost $80k a year. And many (most?) are sold. I can only imagine what the club level "executive" suites (that are also much larger) cost. I'm not saying Ralph doesn't face challenges. He does. My point is merely DO NOT TAKE IT AT FACE VALUE THE BILLS ARE AT A MONSTROUS COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE WHEN IT COMES TO SUITE SALES. It simply isn't true. Yes, much of that comes from the fact there is little-to-no debt on the team or the stadium/facilities... but Ralph makes copious amounts of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 OK, so after the first chunk is taken out of the $2 million homeowner, who has more cash left? Just to have some fun - why do you assume the mortgage is the first chunk taken out? Maybe the first chunk is rounds of beer shared with all his Bills buddies at their favorite establishment. He could get drunk and might forget that he bought a round and add a few more leaving himself short of money to pay his mortgage. I need to hang out with the dude. However, returning to the point of the post that prompted all of this discussion. The individual with no mortgage has, by default, the opportunity to spend or save his disposable income on something other than a mortgage. This might include savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 That's BS. As I've stated before my parents lived to 86 & 87 and had plenty of mental capacity at the time of their deaths. My mother's sister is 95 with plenty of mental capacity. I'll put Marv Levy, at 83 against just about anybody on this board in a debate & Marv would win. You said Ralph is senile-he's not. Quit being an ageist who probably has never known anyone in their 80s & 90s or knew one or two who were diminished and has decided everyone their age is diminished. Also, everyone is different. Unless you have medically evaluated Ralph at age 50 & age 90, you have no basis to declare him mentally diminished. The really SAD fact is you don't know spit about Ralph's mental capacity, yet you have no problem declaring him senile. When Ralph speaks in public there is nothing to indicate he has anything aproaching senility. He walks & talks a little slower, but once again, there is nothing to indicate anything near senility. Ralph has, what to some, is a weird sense of humor. He's always done things like laugh out of frustration at the team like he did after the Toronto game. I've been listening to the guy since he was my current age & the content of his words haven't changed very much. It's one thing to not like what he does, it's quite another to question his mental capacity when you don't agree with him. You really need to meet some older people with sound minds, it would be a good lesson for you. So what you are saying is that ralph has had diminished mental capacity and symptoms of senility for 30 years now? Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyal2dagame Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I dont know about all your theories in your post...but the one thing you did get right is that Wilson is no where near as cheap as posters want to say he his. Need proof? Look at the contracts of Kelsay, Denney, Walker, Dockery, Evans, Stroud, Parrish, Mitchell, etc. You can question what players the money is spent on (again, not Ralphs call) but you can not question his willingness to spend money. funny thing is that it is in the scheme of things, indirectly its not ralph's money that is being spent, it's tv money that the nfl earns and the teams get as "dividend" so to speak. so what does ralph actually spend on his baby to make it better? next to nothing. he spends little to nothing in nfl terms on coaching. we dont have a gm thats worth anything. we pay the stadium upkeep. the guy could hire a good coach if he'd sell naming rights to the stadium. i'd say he's not scrooge, but his isnt generous george either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Just some random thoughts... 1. In a way, Ralph is fighting a battle on two fronts. The first is against the NFLPA and their intent on maximizing player payroll -- and the second is against the large market owners in the NFL and their intent on not having to share revenue. The previous CBA only guaranteed the players a percentage of the shared revenue (TV contract, ticket sales, NFL merchandise), which didn't hamper the smaller market teams. The new CBA guarantees the players a roughly 60% share of TOTAL revenue. That is no big deal for the larger market teams that command a bigger percentage of the total league revenue. In fact, that percentage is estimated to be less than 40% of the total operating income of a team like Dallas or Washington. Meanwhile, it figures to be more like 70-80% of a smaller market team like Buffalo. Any small business owner knows that you are not going to stay in business long if you spend that much on primary labor, which doesn't even count other forms of labor (coaching staff, front office, admins, etc.) That's why ol' Ralph was one of only two owners smart enough to vote against this horrid CBA that Tagliabu shoved down their throats on his way out the door. 2. To help qualm this imbalance, that CBA allowed for additional revenue sharing -- but the smaller market teams had to promise to do more of their part to help generate more of their own revenue. I am sure that the Jerry Joneses, Dan Snyders and Robert Krafts of the world are very upset with Ralph for NOT selling naming rights to the stadium. Some of these owners probably are doing what they can to try to force the team to move to a larger market. I believe whole heartedly that Toronto deal had NOTHING whatsoever to do with a potential move there -- and much more to do with Ralph's attempt to abide by the new CBA and generate additional revenue. In a way, it was somewhat of a genius move because -- not only did it generate a sizable amount of additional revenue, but it also proved that our Northern neighbors wouldn't be as supportive of an NFL franchise as some thought. No one is seriously talking about the Bills moving to Toronto, since the Miami "home" game. 3. Yes, Ralph does have an agenda. Ralph has shown that he is willing to spend money, when the ROI is worth it. Obviously after crying poverty, he can't afford to blow his cover by throwing out huge sums of cash to top notch free agents or in-demand coaches/front office personnel. That is also why Dick Jauron will be with us for another year. Firing him after he signed a (purported) 3-year extension would have cost Ralph probably $6-9 M, plus the cost of hiring a new head coach (and staff). We may not like that decision, but it was probably a no-brain business decision. It is hard to suggest that a good business decision is a "cheap" one. There probably would not have been much upside to bringing in a new coach this year, either. 2008 was disappointing, but with what looks to be a difficult 2009 schedule on the horizon, it really is hard to imagine any new coach leading the team to a record much better than 7-9. Thus, if the team struggles again in 2009 -- it would make more sense to fire Jauron then. 4. I think that the league is filled with different types of owners. There are those that are great money men, have a passion for winning -- and know a thing or two about the game of football. Jerry Jones falls into that category. So did Al Davis before he went plum loco. Then there are owners like Dan Snyder that are great with money, have a passion for winning -- but don't know the first thing about football. The problem for Snyder is that he THINKS he knows about football. There are, of course, the owners like Kraft who know that they don't know, which is why they hire the best front office people around. I think Ralph somewhat falls into this category as well -- although he has a tendency to meddle. I fear, also, that his commitment to making money also supersedes his passion for winning. He is, after all, a businessman first -- and a football fan second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts