Jags owner admits Wilson was right about the CBA (1 Viewer)

[BlueOnion]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will say I am glad you are hear, I followed your previous thread a month ago about Ralph Wilson and found it enlightening.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

would love to hear you back up those comments calling Ralph Wilson cheap and poor. TIA.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I consider him cheap and poor by NFL standards for the following two reasons:1) He sat on a gold mine (Buffalo Bills) for 30 some odd years, but after 30 some odd years he has taken few risks to expand his business. He is still just an NFL owner. :cheap:

2) Because he has been cheap above, it makes him poor today.

I certainly expect you to have a different point of view, but those are my thoughts on Ralph Wilson.

 

[T Man]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will say I am glad you are hear, I followed your previous thread a month ago about Ralph Wilson and found it enlightening.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

would love to hear you back up those comments calling Ralph Wilson cheap and poor. TIA.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I consider him cheap and poor by NFL standards for the following two reasons:1) He sat on a gold mine (Buffalo Bills) for 30 some odd years, but after 30 some odd years he has taken few risks to expand his business. He is still just an NFL owner. :cheap:

2) Because he has been cheap above, it makes him poor today.

I certainly expect you to have a different point of view, but those are my thoughts on Ralph Wilson.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ralph Wilson is far from cheap or poor. He has taken risks. The Oakland Raiders exist only because of Wilson. In the early 60's he gave or lent the Raiders $400,000 to survive. THat was at a time when $400,000 was one heck of a lot. THat was a risk.

He helped start the AFL. THat was a risk.

His teams have won AFL championships.

THe fact that he has been loyal to Buffalo - a city which has not been particularly affluent and has a small growth (if not negative growth over that time frame) does not mean that he is cheap or poor. Yes he could have just left Buffalo and found a "richer" city to exploit, but that is not what the NFL or the prior AFL was built on.

THe looking out for the others is what it was built on - as evidenced by what he did to help the Raiders back then. Nowadays, the owners are more "me first". While I understand that its a business, I believe that this new attitude and ownership may lead to problems down the road. The NFL owners used to stick together and fight it out - for the most part. That's why they won every major battle with the players. Now I am not so sure that could ever happen.

 

[Wadsworth]

(And by the way, I'm a fan of a big market team, just in case anyone thinks this view is just homerism)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To funny. I am a fan of a small market team but continually argue pro-big market.You bring up some valid points, all of which I agree with. But the core issue is sharing revenue and sharing responsibility.

On the surface the popular expression is 'share revenue', which I think the Giants, Redskins, Cowboys, Patriots et al are willing to do. But the mantra of Wellington Mara and the old school owners was to 'share revenue and share responsibility'. Currently the smaller\poorer markets don't want to share their responsbility with other owners, they just want to hold out their hand, get their cash and be left alone.

Jones, Snyder and Kraft are taking the position, "We don't mind sharing our revenue with you, however you at least have to extend the courtesy to allow us some input on how you run your business."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's really not a fair statement. You continue to paint the small market teams as beggers at the alter of the Washington Reskins, just waiting for their NFL welfare check. The Jaguars do an excellent job of creating revenue from non-standard sources. But when the Patriots can sell their parking lot naming rights for more than the Jags can sell their stadium naming right, it's not close to a level playing field. So because of this the small market teams are suppose to turn over some operational control to the big market teams? Where I could see your argument working to a degree, would be NFL wide control of certainly revenue streams. For example the NFL could have a panel that is in charge of stadium naming rights sells for the entire NFL. So it's not just small market teams handing over control but it does centralize revenue stream controls.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will say I am glad you are hear, I followed your previous thread a month ago about Ralph Wilson and found it enlightening.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

would love to hear you back up those comments calling Ralph Wilson cheap and poor. TIA.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I consider him cheap and poor by NFL standards for the following two reasons:1) He sat on a gold mine (Buffalo Bills) for 30 some odd years, but after 30 some odd years he has taken few risks to expand his business. He is still just an NFL owner. :cheap:

2) Because he has been cheap above, it makes him poor today.

I certainly expect you to have a different point of view, but those are my thoughts on Ralph Wilson.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you really couldn't be more wrong. not really worth arguing about this though.peace.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'd just like to throw in a comment about the Bills and the naming rights to the stadium. I have a feeling that 90% of the comments that are made about "control of the business" are directed here.

One of the reasons that Ralph Wilson has kept his name on the stadium is to keep the Bills in Buffalo. When he dies it will be much more difficult to move a team from Buffalo when there's so much history there. If the stadium is named "Jolly Rancher Stadium" or some non-sense like that, the new owner has one less reason to stay in Buffalo.

I also think that it seems that most people believe that just a few small-minded owners have not sold the naming rights to their stadium. In fact, only about half of the NFL teams have actually sold the naming rights to their stadium.

 

[fatness]

Whether this was a good or bad deal for the small market teams seems that it will come down to what the committee ends up proposing for how to share the additional revenue.  At the moment, with those details not having been dealt with yet, I think it's a bad deal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It can't be a good deal or a bad deal if the details are worked out yet. Arguments that it's bad or good are kind of like arguments about the sex of an unborn baby in the days before sonograms ---- you just have to wait and see. If Dan Snyder was grandstanding regularly that it's a great deal, I'd think he was just as off-base as Ralph Wilson is for saying it's a bad deal, and was just lobbying to influence public opinion in his direction. After all, if you repeat "it's a bad deal" or "it's a great deal" often enough, people start accepting that as fact.

When the committee (which Wilson is on) works out the details, it'll likely be something boring in between the extremes of "great" and "lousy".

 

[GregR_2]

Whether this was a good or bad deal for the small market teams seems that it will come down to what the committee ends up proposing for how to share the additional revenue.  At the moment, with those details not having been dealt with yet, I think it's a bad deal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It can't be a good deal or a bad deal if the details are worked out yet. Arguments that it's bad or good are kind of like arguments about the sex of an unborn baby in the days before sonograms ---- you just have to wait and see. If Dan Snyder was grandstanding regularly that it's a great deal, I'd think he was just as off-base as Ralph Wilson is for saying it's a bad deal, and was just lobbying to influence public opinion in his direction. After all, if you repeat "it's a bad deal" or "it's a great deal" often enough, people start accepting that as fact.

When the committee (which Wilson is on) works out the details, it'll likely be something boring in between the extremes of "great" and "lousy".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a bad deal for that exact reason... because not all the details are worked out yet. The problem is that the details that are there, namely how much they have to pay the players, puts the small market teams at risk. They are contractually committed to that financial responsibility with no contractual guarantees (that I'm aware of) that revenue sharing to pay for it will actually happen.I'm not saying I don't think something will happen in the way of the additional sharing. But it's kind of like you ordering season tickets for me, Onion and Aaron. The bill is in your name, and we all tell you to pay it and we'll give you money later. Yeah, the deal might be fine if we pay a fair amount later, but you are the one who is at risk.

 

[GregR_2]

I was thinking about the analogy in that last post, and liked it enough I thought it was worth making it exactly like the NFL situation.

4 of us are going to buy something together. The price is 10% of our collective yearly income. The problem is that we make $100k a year and you make $60k. But you won't be on the hook for 10% of just YOUR income (i.e. 1/10 of $60k = $6k), you're on the hook for a full portion of 10% of our collective income ... all 4 of us will be obligated to pay $9k.

It's not fair your price gets set by what WE make, and we've tried for a few years to work out how to pay you back fairly, but in all that time we couldn't work something out. Now we're out of time and you have to commit to the purchase and you'll become liable for the $9k. We tell you we'll work it out and to go ahead and commit to it.

Does that not sound like a bad deal from your standpoint?

 

[Boston]

What I don't think is fair is the NFL rule that won't allow Buffalo to improve their O line...

 

[fatness]

But it's kind of like you ordering season tickets for me, Onion and Aaron.  The bill is in your name, and we all tell you to pay it and we'll give you money later.  Yeah, the deal might be fine if we pay a fair amount later, but you are the one who is at risk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see it more like the bill being in all 3 names. If one of us is short a few bucks, the other(s) will pitch in to cover his share assuming he's short for an understandable reason. Not because he has quit his job, spent his money on crack, is just being a tightwad, etc.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

It can't be a good deal or a bad deal if the details are worked out yet. Arguments that it's bad or good are kind of like arguments about the sex of an unborn baby in the days before sonograms ---- you just have to wait and see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True. This is all still posturing at this point. Even the 2006 CBA extension (available here) is just a term sheet right now - looks like something scratched out on a legal pad at the 11th hour.The main thing is that the CBA is extended and 2007 will be capped - surely small and big market teams alike benefit from that.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

It can't be a good deal or a bad deal if the details are worked out yet. Arguments that it's bad or good are kind of like arguments about the sex of an unborn baby in the days before sonograms ---- you just have to wait and see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True. This is all still posturing at this point. Even the 2006 CBA extension (available here) is just a term sheet right now - looks like something scratched out on a legal pad at the 11th hour.The main thing is that the CBA is extended and 2007 will be capped - surely small and big market teams alike benefit from that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think most agree with this. The deal they signed off on, while it may not be ideal, is still better for small market teams than having no deal at all.I just think Wilson is fighting for what he thinks is right and for all small market teams. Not sure why anyone would have a problem with that.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

It can't be a good deal or a bad deal if the details are worked out yet. Arguments that it's bad or good are kind of like arguments about the sex of an unborn baby in the days before sonograms ---- you just have to wait and see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True. This is all still posturing at this point. Even the 2006 CBA extension (available here) is just a term sheet right now - looks like something scratched out on a legal pad at the 11th hour.The main thing is that the CBA is extended and 2007 will be capped - surely small and big market teams alike benefit from that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think most agree with this. The deal they signed off on, while it may not be ideal, is still better for small market teams than having no deal at all.I just think Wilson is fighting for what he thinks is right and for all small market teams. Not sure why anyone would have a problem with that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honestly Aaron, it's because he's old. It's like the Michael Moore fat jokes. You can't say anything about Wilson without pointing out that he's old/senile/etc.

 

[fatness]

I just think Wilson is fighting for what he thinks is right and for all small market teams. Not sure why anyone would have a problem with that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't object to him fighting for small market teams. I object to him putting out information that's unsubstantiated or untrue as fact in doing so: "this is a bad deal", "if a new owner acquires a team they will be cut off from revenue sharing", stuff like that.

 

[BlueOnion]

The Jaguars do an excellent job of creating revenue from non-standard sources. But when the Patriots can sell their parking lot naming rights for more than the Jags can sell their stadium naming right, it's not close to a level playing field. So because of this the small market teams are suppose to turn over some operational control to the big market teams?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe it is true the Jags cannot sell the naming rights to their parking lots to the same degree the Patriots can, but ultimately these words need to come from the owners who are subsidizing the lack of revenue, not the owners who are receiving the subsidizes.

 

[Franknbeans]

Has everyone forgotten the Bills draft already? Wilson is old and senile.

 

[BlueOnion]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will say I am glad you are hear, I followed your previous thread a month ago about Ralph Wilson and found it enlightening.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

would love to hear you back up those comments calling Ralph Wilson cheap and poor. TIA.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I consider him cheap and poor by NFL standards for the following two reasons:1) He sat on a gold mine (Buffalo Bills) for 30 some odd years, but after 30 some odd years he has taken few risks to expand his business. He is still just an NFL owner. :cheap:

2) Because he has been cheap above, it makes him poor today.

I certainly expect you to have a different point of view, but those are my thoughts on Ralph Wilson.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you really couldn't be more wrong. not really worth arguing about this though.peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aaron -I am going to open mind if you would like to supply a counter-point, you seem more invested in defending Ralph Wilson than I do critizing him.

My question is, what has Ralph Wilson done over the past 30 years (post 1970) to expand his wealth outside of the NFL?

 

[GroveDiesel]

Aaron -

I am going to open mind if you would like to supply a counter-point, you seem more invested in defending Ralph Wilson than I do critizing him.

My question is, what has Ralph Wilson done over the past 30 years (post 1970) to expand his wealth outside of the NFL?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does this matter. That's like saying "So what has Bill Gates done to expand his wealth outside of the computer business?" We all recognize that the new owners are all independently wealthy individuals due to their outside business interests. And the reason that those guys represent the new ownership is because men like Ralph Wilson took the risks creating the league. They put all of their own money on the line to start the league. They put in their own blood, sweat and time. Their ideas created the most successful professional sport on earth. They made each team so valuable because of the overall success of the league, that the only people that can afford to buy a team today are the super wealthy.

 

[BlueOnion]

Aaron -

I am going to open mind if you would like to supply a counter-point, you seem more invested in defending Ralph Wilson than I do critizing him.

My question is, what has Ralph Wilson done over the past 30 years (post 1970) to expand his wealth outside of the NFL?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does this matter. That's like saying "So what has Bill Gates done to expand his wealth outside of the computer business?" We all recognize that the new owners are all independently wealthy individuals due to their outside business interests. And the reason that those guys represent the new ownership is because men like Ralph Wilson took the risks creating the league. They put all of their own money on the line to start the league. They put in their own blood, sweat and time. Their ideas created the most successful professional sport on earth. They made each team so valuable because of the overall success of the league, that the only people that can afford to buy a team today are the super wealthy.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have no problem giving Ralph Wilson a pat on the back for what he did in the late 50s and 60s, job well done. But over the past 30 years the NFL has seen significant growth and I am curious what he has done to keep up.This may not be the same parameters you use to evalute owners but it is the parameters I use.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I have no problem giving Ralph Wilson a pat on the back for what he did in the late 50s and 60s, job well done.  But over the past 30 years the NFL has seen significant growth and I am curious what he has done to keep up.

This may not be the same parameters you use to evalute owners but it is the parameters I use.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I still just don't get it though. Wilson was one of the primary reasons that the NFL has seen significant growth over the past 30 years. For the most part he has put his own money back into the team. In fact, let's look at stadium subsidies. Ralph Wilson owns his stadium. He didn't foist that burden on the Buffalo taxpayers. But all these teams today force the taxpayers to pay for the stadiums and then collect all of the revenue. So those teams have a larger net profit than owners that paid for their own stadiums. And now they've taken that inflated revenue side of that and forced the other owners to pay based on that revenue.

And can we please stop pretending that the Bills are making all of this noise just to take a larger portion of the revenue sharing pie? Unless I'm mistaken, the plan was for the top 10 teams to share with the bottom 10 teams. The Bills are not one of the bottom 10 teams in revenue even though they have one of the 5 smallest markets. In fact, the Bills pull in more money per person in their market than the Cowboys. So Buffalo won't be seeing a dime of this money. So maybe we can stop pretending that Ralph Wilson is just a greedy owner and start realizing that he's truly trying to do what's best for the league as a whole.

 

[BlueOnion]

I have no problem giving Ralph Wilson a pat on the back for what he did in the late 50s and 60s, job well done.  But over the past 30 years the NFL has seen significant growth and I am curious what he has done to keep up.

This may not be the same parameters you use to evalute owners but it is the parameters I use.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I still just don't get it though. Wilson was one of the primary reasons that the NFL has seen significant growth over the past 30 years. For the most part he has put his own money back into the team. In fact, let's look at stadium subsidies. Ralph Wilson owns his stadium. He didn't foist that burden on the Buffalo taxpayers. But all these teams today force the taxpayers to pay for the stadiums and then collect all of the revenue. So those teams have a larger net profit than owners that paid for their own stadiums. And now they've taken that inflated revenue side of that and forced the other owners to pay based on that revenue.

And can we please stop pretending that the Bills are making all of this noise just to take a larger portion of the revenue sharing pie? Unless I'm mistaken, the plan was for the top 10 teams to share with the bottom 10 teams. The Bills are not one of the bottom 10 teams in revenue even though they have one of the 5 smallest markets. In fact, the Bills pull in more money per person in their market than the Cowboys. So Buffalo won't be seeing a dime of this money. So maybe we can stop pretending that Ralph Wilson is just a greedy owner and start realizing that he's truly trying to do what's best for the league as a whole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never stated Ralph Wilson was a greedy owner and I have no doubt that he is genuinely trying to do what is best for the league. I just think his vision for the league is in the minority.Lets talk about Buffalo's stadium (which Ralph Wilson owns). How does it stack up against the stadiums? How many luxury suites does it have, how much do they go for and what is their average ticket price for standard seating tickets? How much revenue does he generate for selling the naming rights of the stadium? Has developed any new revenue streams from the Buffalo market?

 

[GroveDiesel]

I never stated Ralph Wilson was a greedy owner and I have no doubt that he is genuinely trying to do what is best for the league.  I just think his vision for the league is in the minority.

Lets talk about Buffalo's stadium (which Ralph Wilson owns).  How does it stack up against the stadiums?  How many luxury suites does it have, how much do they go for and what is their average ticket price for standard seating tickets?  How much revenue does he generate for selling the naming rights of the stadium?  Has developed any new revenue streams from the Buffalo market?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's one of the older stadiums in the league. It was renovated a few years ago to add some more luxury seats but is probably on the low side compared to the rest of the league. The tickets are the cheapest in the league, although they sell out every game and have one of the largest stadiums in the league.(I'm also editing my original argument here. I believe that the stadium is owned by the taxpayers but that it has been paid off. They currently do subsidize some operating expenses though and Wilson continues to pay a lease).

As for revenue that they've generated: LINK

Since 1998, the last time the Bills painted a bleak financial future, the team has tapped its broadcasting and merchandising potential and has doubled its corporate sponsors from 50 to 100, driving their local revenue into the many millions.

The earning power of those deals also has soared. In 1997, the Bills soft drink deal was worth $50,000. Today it's worth $900,000.

But while Brandon said the Bills "stack up against anyone" in the NFL in terms of dominating their market — and their Rochester training camp is a model others have copied — the team's gross receipts will always lag behind larger cities.

For example, an average luxury box in Buffalo brings in $65,000. In Washington and New England, a box goes for around $200,000. It's largely why Washington, according to Forbes, was No. 1 in revenue in 2004 with $287 million and Buffalo was 22nd at $173 million.

And again, the Bills make more per person in their market than even the Cowboys. At some point, market size and the economics of the market play a role.

 

[GregR_2]

The Jaguars do an excellent job of creating revenue from non-standard sources. But when the Patriots can sell their parking lot naming rights for more than the Jags can sell their stadium naming right, it's not close to a level playing field. So because of this the small market teams are suppose to turn over some operational control to the big market teams?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe it is true the Jags cannot sell the naming rights to their parking lots to the same degree the Patriots can, but ultimately these words need to come from the owners who are subsidizing the lack of revenue, not the owners who are receiving the subsidizes.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These words are coming from the owners doing the subsidizing. With the new CBA in place the small market owners are the ones subsidizing the large market owners until such time as they work out the details of local revenue sharing.That's the whole reason for local revenue sharing in the first place.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Not sure why I bothered with this, but I found it interesting. I ranked the NFL teams in market size using this page from a baseball site that also includes NFL teams. Then I got their 2004 valuations from this page at Forbes.com. Then I compared the Market size with the valuation. I would think that teams with a large market size would also have a high valuation. At least I think that's what people are arguing. And teams with a small market would have small valuations. Market

Size Team Valluation Team Diff by MarSize

1 NYG 1 WAS -19

2 NYJ 2 DAL -20

3 CHI 3 HOU -5

4 WAS 4 NE 3

5 BAL 5 PHI -5

6 SF 6 DEN -19

7 OAK 7 CLE -20

8 PHI 8 CHI 3

9 NE 9 TB 5

10 DET 10 BAL -4

11 DAL 11 MIA 9

12 HOU 12 CAR 9

13 ATL 13 GB -18

14 MIA 14 DET 3

15 SEA 15 TEN -2

16 ARI 16 PIT -16

17 MIN 17 SEA -13

18 CLE 18 KC 11

19 SD 19 STL -9

20 STL 20 NYG 1

21 DEN 21 JAX 15

22 TB 22 NYJ 13

23 PIT 23 CIN 7

24 CIN 24 BUF 1

25 KC 25 SF 7

26 IND 26 NO -3

27 CAR 27 OAK 15

28 NO 28 SD 2

29 TEN 29 IND 14

30 BUF 30 MIN 6

31 JAX 31 ATL 10

32 GB 32 ARI 19

A little bit hard to read, but looking at the first line, the #1 team in Market size is the NYG and the #1 team in Valuation is WAS. The NYG have a -19 difference between Market Size and Valuation (they're 20th in Valuation). Now, I'm no genius, but that sounds to me like an owner not doing enough to create value, right?

Pertinent to this discussion, some of the smaller market teams like GB, JAX, BUF, TEN and CAR have much higher valuations. BUF is not quite as high as the others at a +6, but that's better than alot of teams.

So I would conclude that market size does not always correlate with franchise valuation and, contrary to some opinions in this thread, Ralph Wilson has created more value that his market size indicates and more that several larger cities.

 

[BlueOnion]

The Jaguars do an excellent job of creating revenue from non-standard sources. But when the Patriots can sell their parking lot naming rights for more than the Jags can sell their stadium naming right, it's not close to a level playing field. So because of this the small market teams are suppose to turn over some operational control to the big market teams?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe it is true the Jags cannot sell the naming rights to their parking lots to the same degree the Patriots can, but ultimately these words need to come from the owners who are subsidizing the lack of revenue, not the owners who are receiving the subsidizes.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These words are coming from the owners doing the subsidizing. With the new CBA in place the small market owners are the ones subsidizing the large market owners until such time as they work out the details of local revenue sharing.That's the whole reason for local revenue sharing in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you say the small market owners are subsidizing the large market owners, I are you trying to say the small market owners are taking money out of their pocket and giving it to the large market owners to assist the large market owners make ends meet?

 

[Orange Crush]

Before the Steelers got their new stadium, they were the model of how to remain competitive despite very low relative revenue in the free agent era.

They maintained consistency in their coaching staff and front office, allowing the philosophy and coaching techniques to achieve institutional status. Thus they were able to better identify which players in the draft were uniquely suited for their style of play and acquire them later. Then when a player became a free agent and left for more money than the Steelers could pay, they had someone ready to step in and fill the position.

If they had done what most teams do and fire coaches and/or GMs after back-to-back losing seasons, then they would have had players no longer suited for what the new coach wanted to run, end up losing again, and just when the players drafted by the new coach were ready to start, that coach would be fired and the cycle of losing would continue.

All Buffalo and Jacksonville need to do is apply those same lessons: find a coach and GM that the owner trusts, make a long-term committment to them, and be patient. That's how you win with a low payroll.

 

[fatness]

Ralph Wilson is far from cheap or poor. 

He has taken risks.  The Oakland Raiders exist only because of Wilson.  In the early 60's he gave or lent the Raiders $400,000 to survive.  THat was at a time when $400,000 was one heck of a lot.  THat was a risk.

He helped start the AFL.  THat was a risk.

His teams have won AFL championships.

THe fact that he has been loyal to Buffalo - a city which has not been particularly affluent and has a small growth (if not negative growth over that time frame) does not mean that he is cheap or poor.  Yes he could have just left Buffalo and found a "richer" city to exploit, but that is not what the NFL or the prior AFL was built on.

THe looking out for the others is what it was built on - as evidenced by what he did to help the Raiders back then.  Nowadays, the owners are more "me first".  While I understand that its a business, I believe that this new attitude and ownership may lead to problems down the road.  The NFL owners used to stick together and fight it out - for the most part.  That's why they won every major battle with the players.  Now I am not so sure that could ever happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was reading that and agreeing with you until your last paragraph. Right now the main owner in favor of not sticking together is Ralph Wilson. He's the one taking the shots at the CBA, saying it does things it does not do, saying the financial details are unfair when in fact they're not worked out yet. The league owners stuck together through tough labor and revenue-sharing negotiations, and there's every reason to believe they'll continue to do so.But Ralph has exited the tent and is now pissing in.

 

[LordBourbon]

It's OK to say this now that it's all said and done...And a nice prelude to asking for a new stadium next year...Or threatening a move to LA.

He (Weaver) didn't wake up and have a revelation the other day...He knows that laying the groundwork now is a build-up to making demands to get a better deal.

Honestly, the JAX franchise should have gone to LA anyway (but LA can never seem to get its act together)

 

[BlueOnion]

Before the Steelers got their new stadium, they were the model of how to remain competitive despite very low relative revenue in the free agent era. 

They maintained consistency in their coaching staff and front office, allowing the philosophy and coaching techniques to achieve institutional status.  Thus they were able to better identify which players in the draft were uniquely suited for their style of play and acquire them later.  Then when a player became a free agent and left for more money than the Steelers could pay, they had someone ready to step in and fill the position. 

If they had done what most teams do and fire coaches and/or GMs after back-to-back losing seasons, then they would have had players no longer suited for what the new coach wanted to run, end up losing again, and just when the players drafted by the new coach were ready to start, that coach would be fired and the cycle of losing would continue.

All Buffalo and Jacksonville need to do is apply those same lessons: find a coach and GM that the owner trusts, make a long-term committment to them, and be patient.  That's how you win with a low payroll.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just think the Steelers are well run organization.But sometimes even that is not enough. In 2004 the Vikings barely paid the league minimum on salaries and were able to break even. In 2005 the Vikings (under Zygi) started to spend some money in free agency. They were not able to get to the cap maximum (about 12 million short of the maximum) and the Vikings still lost money. And the Vikings did sell out every home game.

Edited - In addition, they had the smallest and cheapest coaching staff as well as the smallest and cheapest scouting department.

 

[Wadsworth]

The Jaguars do an excellent job of creating revenue from non-standard sources. But when the Patriots can sell their parking lot naming rights for more than the Jags can sell their stadium naming right, it's not close to a level playing field. So because of this the small market teams are suppose to turn over some operational control to the big market teams?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe it is true the Jags cannot sell the naming rights to their parking lots to the same degree the Patriots can, but ultimately these words need to come from the owners who are subsidizing the lack of revenue, not the owners who are receiving the subsidizes.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just a minor point, I said the Jaguars could not sell their stadium naming rights for what the Pats were selling their parking lot naming rights. And I'm not sure why it matters who this information comes from. I don't know the situation of other mall market teams very well, but do know that in Jacksonville the team is doing all they can to make their own money and to build a fan base that will eventually not require any help from other NFL teams. Wayne Weaver is not cheap or poor and is a proven business man. To continually characterize all small market teams as lazy welfare check wannabes is not fair or accurate. And with the growth in Florida and Jacksonville, in 15 years Jacksonville could be one of the stronger revenue teams. The Maras and others had this sort of long range vision for the NFL in the past. I hope some of the newer owners can learn from it.

 

[Wadsworth]

All Buffalo and Jacksonville need to do is apply those same lessons: find a coach and GM that the owner trusts, make a long-term committment to them, and be patient.  That's how you win with a low payroll.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could not agree with you more. And I would like to echo and add to your statement that small market teams have to take a very different approach to life in the NFL. Small market teams almost need to be good every year, even at the cost of being great in a few years. It's a very different NFL with different rules.

 

[BlueOnion]

On behave of Ralph Wilson, his concern is that the Salary cap could inflate to numbers his franchise cannot meet. Certainly this is not the case today, but the future path of the current CBA has some small market teams wondering what they might have to do in the future if spending to the salary cap minimum forces their franchise to lose money and starting cutting back on the coaching staff and scouting department.

I am not naive enough to believe Ralph Wilson is cring wolf. It is my believe that Buffalo will eventually not be able to support the Bills and Wilson should take that franchise elsewhere.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I was reading that and agreeing with you until your last paragraph. Right now the main owner in favor of not sticking together is Ralph Wilson. He's the one taking the shots at the CBA, saying it does things it does not do, saying the financial details are unfair when in fact they're not worked out yet. The league owners stuck together through tough labor and revenue-sharing negotiations, and there's every reason to believe they'll continue to do so.

But Ralph has exited the tent and is now pissing in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, the owners managed to stick together by giving the players everything they wanted. Good job owners.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I was reading that and agreeing with you until your last paragraph. Right now the main owner in favor of not sticking together is Ralph Wilson. He's the one taking the shots at the CBA, saying it does things it does not do, saying the financial details are unfair when in fact they're not worked out yet. The league owners stuck together through tough labor and revenue-sharing negotiations, and there's every reason to believe they'll continue to do so.

But Ralph has exited the tent and is now pissing in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, the owners managed to stick together by giving the players everything they wanted. Good job owners.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No kidding. When you say the owners stuck together do you mean they all used the same jar of KY Jelly?

 

[GregR_2]

When you say the small market owners are subsidizing the large market owners, I are you trying to say the small market owners are taking money out of their pocket and giving it to the large market owners to assist the large market owners make ends meet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that isn't an accurate description of what is going on. You are a small market team. I'm a big market team. I make $10m of new revenue. Because of the CBA, this new revenue will result in an additional $6m being paid to players, and that amount is split across the league evenly via the salary cap/minimum. Each team is thus on the hook for 1/32 of that $6m (or just under $200k), despite not getting a piece of my $10m.

So the result of that increase in non-shared revenue is that I gained $9.8m and you and every other team lost $200k. You and the 30 other teams just subsidized me to the tune of $5.8m. Of course every $10m you make, I subsidize you back that $200k and you and I are even. But when teams don't all make the same, someone ends up paying the players so someone else could pocket extra money.

That is at the heart of this whole issue. So many people just view the small market teams as wanting a handout like it's welfare or something. They completely disregard the fact that if the league is giving players a cut of TOTAL REVENUE, and that means that teams are forced to commit their revenue based on what someone else made. Without revenue sharing on that other money, the teams that make less have to pay the players their share of what was made, without getting that much back.

I'm not saying it's entirely that simple, but that's at the heart of it. They do have the top 10 teams contributing to a fund to help the bottom 10 teams. It helps, but from the media reports it falls short.

What's fair? I don't know that there is a right answer. One could say if the Texans make $10m, then they should have to revenue share at a minimum the $6m from it that goes to players. I suppose that is probably fair. Whether it should go beyond that I don't know.

There also is merit to the higher end teams saying that everyone needs to try to increase revenue as much as they can if revenue is going to be shared. I agree with that, though at some point each owner should be able to run his own club too. I don't know of an easy answer to define when a team is not making a reasonable effort. For example, should a team have to relocate if they could do better elsewhere?

Ok Onion, I'm curious to hear now if what I said made sense and you can see how without revenue sharing the small market teams are indeed subsidizing the profits of the big market teams?

 

[redman]

Aaron -

I am going to open mind if you would like to supply a counter-point, you seem more invested in defending Ralph Wilson than I do critizing him.

My question is, what has Ralph Wilson done over the past 30 years (post 1970) to expand his wealth outside of the NFL?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does this matter. That's like saying "So what has Bill Gates done to expand his wealth outside of the computer business?"
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bill Gates is not complaining about how he's losing money and how business is unfair, which is to say Bill Gates can afford to continue to do the same thing. Otherwise the analogy is perfect.

 

[GregR_2]

Aaron -

I am going to open mind if you would like to supply a counter-point, you seem more invested in defending Ralph Wilson than I do critizing him.

My question is, what has Ralph Wilson done over the past 30 years (post 1970) to expand his wealth outside of the NFL?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does this matter. That's like saying "So what has Bill Gates done to expand his wealth outside of the computer business?"
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bill Gates is not complaining about how he's losing money and how business is unfair, which is to say Bill Gates can afford to continue to do the same thing. Otherwise the analogy is perfect.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bill Gates also isn't bound by an agreement that every time Oracle sells a database or someone buys Redhat Linux, that he has to increase his employee's salary by some percentage based on how much the other company made.

 

[redman]

Aaron -

I am going to open mind if you would like to supply a counter-point, you seem more invested in defending Ralph Wilson than I do critizing him.

My question is, what has Ralph Wilson done over the past 30 years (post 1970) to expand his wealth outside of the NFL?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why does this matter. That's like saying "So what has Bill Gates done to expand his wealth outside of the computer business?"
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bill Gates is not complaining about how he's losing money and how business is unfair, which is to say Bill Gates can afford to continue to do the same thing. Otherwise the analogy is perfect.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bill Gates also isn't bound by an agreement that every time Oracle sells a database or someone buys Redhat Linux, that he has to increase his employee's salary by some percentage based on how much the other company made.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, which means that Ralph Wilson doesn't in fact have an excuse for failing to try to expand his revenue base more than he has. I fail to see the point you're trying to make here.

 

[BlueOnion]

When you say the small market owners are subsidizing the large market owners, I are you trying to say the small market owners are taking money out of their pocket and giving it to the large market owners to assist the large market owners make ends meet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that isn't an accurate description of what is going on. You are a small market team. I'm a big market team. I make $10m of new revenue. Because of the CBA, this new revenue will result in an additional $6m being paid to players, and that amount is split across the league evenly via the salary cap/minimum. Each team is thus on the hook for 1/32 of that $6m (or just under $200k), despite not getting a piece of my $10m.

So the result of that increase in non-shared revenue is that I gained $9.8m and you and every other team lost $200k. You and the 30 other teams just subsidized me to the tune of $5.8m. Of course every $10m you make, I subsidize you back that $200k and you and I are even. But when teams don't all make the same, someone ends up paying the players so someone else could pocket extra money.

That is at the heart of this whole issue. So many people just view the small market teams as wanting a handout like it's welfare or something. They completely disregard the fact that if the league is giving players a cut of TOTAL REVENUE, and that means that teams are forced to commit their revenue based on what someone else made. Without revenue sharing on that other money, the teams that make less have to pay the players their share of what was made, without getting that much back.

I'm not saying it's entirely that simple, but that's at the heart of it. They do have the top 10 teams contributing to a fund to help the bottom 10 teams. It helps, but from the media reports it falls short.

What's fair? I don't know that there is a right answer. One could say if the Texans make $10m, then they should have to revenue share at a minimum the $6m from it that goes to players. I suppose that is probably fair. Whether it should go beyond that I don't know.

There also is merit to the higher end teams saying that everyone needs to try to increase revenue as much as they can if revenue is going to be shared. I agree with that, though at some point each owner should be able to run his own club too. I don't know of an easy answer to define when a team is not making a reasonable effort. For example, should a team have to relocate if they could do better elsewhere?

Ok Onion, I'm curious to hear now if what I said made sense and you can see how without revenue sharing the small market teams are indeed subsidizing the profits of the big market teams?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Skimmed it and I will have read this a few more times before I can thoroughly digest it. Thanks for posting, will comment later. Hopefully without a bag.

 

[fatness]

I was reading that and agreeing with you until your last paragraph. Right now the main owner in favor of not sticking together is Ralph Wilson. He's the one taking the shots at the CBA, saying it does things it does not do, saying the financial details are unfair when in fact they're not worked out yet. The league owners stuck together through tough labor and revenue-sharing negotiations, and there's every reason to believe they'll continue to do so.

But Ralph has exited the tent and is now pissing in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, the owners managed to stick together by giving the players everything they wanted. Good job owners.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The owners stuck together and prevented an uncapped year in 2007 when salaries would have skyrocketed, and big money teams would have been able to sign many or most of the good players available. Having a CBA prevents that from happening. In fact it's what Ralph Wilson, the Rooneys, the Maras, and other older owners are being given credit for in the past ---- keeping the league balanced, not letting the rich teams dominate. Now there's a new CBA and salary cap deal, and huge salary disparities like we see in baseball between rich and poor aren't possible. Why is that bad? Should the salary cap go away? Where will the low money teams be then? They'll be saying that they don't have money to compete. And they'd have a real reason for saying it, instead of the questionable reasons they're saying it now with a cap in place.

 

[BlueOnion]

Okay, I read it over and I think I understand what you are saying. However, I will need you to expand on the following exerpt, as I am not sure I completely understand what you are trying to say.

You are a small market team.  I'm a big market team.  I make $10m of new revenue.  Because of the CBA, this new revenue will result in an additional $6m being paid to players, and that amount is split across the league evenly via the salary cap/minimum.  Each team is thus on the hook for 1/32 of that $6m (or just under $200k), despite not getting a piece of my $10m.

So the result of that increase in non-shared revenue is that I gained $9.8m and you and every other team lost $200k.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In your example, I (the small market team) would not be subsidizing you (the big market team). Your extra 10 million requires me to pay the Player's Union an extra 200K (or slightly under) via the Salary Cap. But that 200K never ends up in your (big marke team's) pocket.So I don't agree with your analogy that the small market teams are subsidizing the big market teams. I think you could make the statement that the big market teams would be force the small market teams to spend more than they would be willing on payroll, but this is not the same as subsidizing.

 

[GregR_2]

Okay, I read it over and I think I understand what you are saying.  However, I will need you to expand on the following exerpt, as I am not sure I completely understand what you are trying to say.

You are a small market team.  I'm a big market team.  I make $10m of new revenue.  Because of the CBA, this new revenue will result in an additional $6m being paid to players, and that amount is split across the league evenly via the salary cap/minimum.  Each team is thus on the hook for 1/32 of that $6m (or just under $200k), despite not getting a piece of my $10m.

So the result of that increase in non-shared revenue is that I gained $9.8m and you and every other team lost $200k.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In your example, I (the small market team) would not be subsidizing you (the big market team). Your extra 10 million requires me to pay the Player's Union an extra 200K (or slightly under) via the Salary Cap. But that 200K never ends up in your (big marke team's) pocket.So I don't agree with your analogy that the small market teams are subsidizing the big market teams. I think you could make the statement that the big market teams would be force the small market teams to spend more than they would be willing on payroll, but this is not the same as subsidizing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know what to say. You acknowledge that the other teams pay the liability created by the 1 team, while the 1 team pockets the money... but say it isn't subsidizing. If that's the case, how about we make an arrangement that I go buy things and keep them and you pay for 98% of them without getting a share of what I bought. Since your money is going to the store, not to me, it isn't like you're subsidizing me, right?