Bills’ Wilson was right regarding CBA; where are the apologies?

[Dr. Lecter]

When the NFL's 32 team owners elected to opt out of the league's collective bargaining agreement earlier this week, which could cause a work stoppage in 2011, the move didn't come as a surprise. The owners, who nearly unanimously approved the present labor deal in March 2006, have become increasingly upset with the amount of revenue (60 percent) their foremost employees, the players, are currently raking in.

"We were fully prepared for this," players association head Gene Upshaw said. "We expected this; we started talking to the players last fall. All this means is that we will have football from now until 2010 not until 2012."

Though opting out was an expected move by the owners, one has to rewind to when the CBA was agreed on.

Back then, the Buffalo Bills' Ralph Wilson was one of two owners who vetoed the plan (joining the Cincinnati Bengals' Mike Brown), which proved to be a disastrous public relations decision at the time by the 89-year-old. With that said, it was also a prudent one. And Wilson, who's been rightly criticized for more than a few poor football-related decisions during his nearly 50-year tenure as the Bills' owner, deserves both praise and apologies for realizing that the CBA was not going to work.


http://www.realfootball365.com/index.php/articles/bills/11295

:bf1:

Like I said last week, there are many people in the media that should publically apoligize to Ralph, starting with Clayton and Mort.

[OpIv37]

"I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258

Ralph didn't say it wasn't going to work. He said it was a complicated issue that he didn't understand. There's a world of difference.

[Jan Reimers]

No, but Ralph was smart enough not to sign a complex agreement - one which gave an absurd 59.5% of gross revenues to the players and contained a very complicated revenue sharing formula between the small and large market teams - after only 45 minutes of review.

He and Brown turned out to be the only owners with a lick of common sense.

[Meathead]

ralph is cheap

[Jan Reimers]

Oh, and if the other owners UNDERSTOOD that they were giving 59.5% of the gross to the players, why the HELL did they sign it?

[Meathead]

Ralph didn't say it wasn't going to work. He said it was a complicated issue that he didn't understand. There's a world of difference.
i dont think so

i think he was saying 'i dont understand how these ******s around me can rush to rubber stamp such a complicated issue when frankly i look at it and i see a bunch of ***t that dont make no damn sense at all'

[OpIv37]

i dont think so

i think he was saying 'i dont understand how these ******s around me can rush to rubber stamp such a complicated issue when frankly i look at it and i see a bunch of ***t that dont make no damn sense at all'

that's your interpretation and it's a pretty loose one. Read the quote- that's not what he said.

[OpIv37]

Oh, and if the other owners UNDERSTOOD that they were giving 59.5% of the gross to the players, why the HELL did they sign it?

because Gene Upshaw's a thug and they wanted to avoid a work stoppage.

[Bill Brasky]

ralph is cheap

:rofl:

[Jan Reimers]

The Joneses,' Kraft's and Snyder's were help up by Gene Upshaw? Then they're cowards, and Ralph is a hero.

Op, you can crap all over Ralph on this, but he certainly comes off better than 30 of the other owners, no matter how negatively you try to spin Ralph's stance.

[OpIv37]

The Joneses,' Kraft's and Snyder's were help up by Gene Upshaw? Then they're cowards, and Ralph is a hero.

Op, you can crap all over Ralph on this, but he certainly comes off better than 30 of the other owners, no matter how negatively you try to spin Ralph's stance.

only if you give him credit for something HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY. This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the blind homerism around here. Ralph never came out with a bunch of reasons why the CBA was bad. He just said he didn't understand it. Now we're supposed to give the old man credit for not understanding something that turned out to be bad? Give me a break.

I'm not crapping all over him- for whatever reason, he made the right choice. But a lot of people are trying to give him credit he doesn't deserve.

[Meathead]

that's your interpretation and it's a pretty loose one. Read the quote- that's not what he said.
do you mean this one or are there more?

"I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it."

it depends on what the definition of 'it' is

i still hear him saying "I didn't understand it," with 'it' being the other owners being in such a rush to sign it

when placed in the context of the rest of what he was saying that whole time, i cant see how it could be interpreted any other way. he was continually complaining how the other owners werent looking at the details and were in too much of a hurry to just get it over with

[yordad]

The Joneses,' Kraft's and Snyder's were help up by Gene Upshaw? Then they're cowards, and Ralph is a hero.

Op, you can crap all over Ralph on this, but he certainly comes off better than 30 of the other owners, no matter how negatively you try to spin Ralph's stance.
because Gene Upshaw's a thug and they wanted to avoid a work stoppage.I could be wrong, but to me Op's comments sounded like a Wilson compliment. I mean, if 30 wealthier, younger, more powerful owners all bowed down, and Wilson didn't, that makes him sound like a knight to me. :idunno:


do you mean this one or are there more?

"I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it."

it depends on what the definition of 'it' is

i still hear him saying "I didn't understand it," with 'it' being the other owners being in such a rush to sign it

when placed in the context of the rest of what he was saying that whole time, i cant see how it could be interpreted any other way. he was continually complaining how the other owners werent looking at the details and were in too much of a hurry to just get it over withExcellent point. It could be interpreted either way.

[chernobylwraiths]

ralph is cheap

and greedy

[YardRat]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-04-10-congress-cba_x.htm

The issue concerning Wilson is that under the new CBA, new owners of NFL franchises would be excluded from revenue sharing, for a yet-to-be-decided length of time. That would very likely force the Bills' new owner to move to a more profitable city.

Wilson said the new CBA is too expensive to afford and doesn't address the growing disparity in wealth between large- and small-market teams.

A successful businessman, Wilson doesn't like the math of the NFL's new collective bargaining agreement with its players. He figures small-market teams eventually might have to pay 70% of their revenues in salary, compared with 40% for the wealthiest clubs.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2006-03-28-nfl-tech_x.htm

"This new deal is worse than the one we had," said Wilson, not attending the owners meetings in Orlando this week. "You want labor peace, but you also want a fair deal."

Wilson believes club costs were not reflected enough in the CBA and that some peers were forced into a resolution because of significant debt. Although the previous CBA would not have expired until 2008, ramifications including an uncapped 2007 campaign would have been triggered if a new CBA wasn't done before the 2006 fiscal year began.

"The owners panicked," Wilson said. "They were afraid there might be a work stoppage. But we would've had 12 months to sit down and work a better deal out. With this deal, there's going to be half the clubs under water."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/bills/2006-04-16-bills-future_x.htm

"Yes, we could lose money, despite the sharing of TV money and all the audio stuff," Wilson said. "Don't believe everything the PR machine at the league office puts out."

Wilson believes his concerns about the league's future will be borne out.
"I think a lot of other clubs are in the same fix," he said last week. "They don't know it yet but they will when they examine their books at the end of the year."

As part of the deal, there is a new revenue-sharing model, whose provisions have not been determined.

It's this model that concerns Wilson, saying there are potential inequities that could seriously affect teams such as his.

Among his concerns is a proposal that would restrict a prospective buyer from fully taking part in revenue sharing.

Wilson is particularly disturbed by the economic model set out in the new pact because it heightens the inequity between large- and small-market teams.

He singled out three owners, including Daniel Snyder of the Washington Redskins, as being part of a group that doesn't have the best interests of the league at heart.

Asked later what he thinks Snyder's reaction will be to his comments, Wilson bluntly replied: "I don't give a damn about Dan Snyder."

You can take a five-second sound-bite and determine that it represents the entire truth if you want to, OP, but the fact is Ralph knew exactly what the hell he was talking about and why the CBA was bad for the league. There's a lot more out there than just "I didn't understand it."

[OpIv37]

do you mean this one or are there more?

"I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it."

it depends on what the definition of 'it' is

i still hear him saying "I didn't understand it," with 'it' being the other owners being in such a rush to sign it

when placed in the context of the rest of what he was saying that whole time, i cant see how it could be interpreted any other way. he was continually complaining how the other owners werent looking at the details and were in too much of a hurry to just get it over with

of course you can't see it- you have your red and blue colored glasses on. Sounds to me like the question was "What do you think of the new CBA?" or, more likely since he was 1 of 2 who voted against it, "why did you vote against the CBA?", in which case the pronoun "it" would be referring to the CBA.

And even if he said he didn't understand the rush, it's not like he came out with a list of reasons why the CBA was bad. He just said he didn't understand the rush. All these people demanding apologies as if Ralph saw something in the CBA that no one else saw, and there's absolutely no evidence that he did that.

[OpIv37]

You can take a five-second sound-bite and determine that it represents the entire truth if you want to, OP, but the fact is Ralph knew exactly what the hell he was talking about and why the CBA was bad for the league. There's a lot more out there than just "I didn't understand it."

AFTER he got called out for admitting to not understanding it in a 5 second sound byte, AFTER his team of accountants and lawyers got to look it over.....

[YardRat]

of course you can't see it- you have your red and blue colored glasses on. Sounds to me like the question was "What do you think of the new CBA?" or, more likely since he was 1 of 2 who voted against it, "why did you vote against the CBA?", in which case the pronoun "it" would be referring to the CBA.

And even if he said he didn't understand the rush, it's not like he came out with a list of reasons why the CBA was bad. He just said he didn't understand the rush. All these people demanding apologies as if Ralph saw something in the CBA that no one else saw, and there's absolutely no evidence that he did that.

Ahem...

[Philagape]

When's Ralph going to apologize for firing Polian?

[OpIv37]

Ahem...

look up- I addressed it. It's called "spin" or "damage control"

[YardRat]

look up- I addressed it. It's called "spin" or "damage control"

From the day before the agreement was reached and Wilson made his comment that you are partial to...

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2006/03/07/2006-03-07_owners_labor_among_selves.html

The NFLPA dropped its demand from 60.3% of all of the league's revenues to 59.5% over the weekend. The league's last offer was 56.5%. Included in the union's proposal is about a 2% cap on how much cash the teams can spend over the salary cap in signing bonus money that gets prorated.

It is meant to appease the low-revenue teams such as the Bengals and Jaguars. They are concerned that the high-revenue Redskins, Patriots, Cowboys, Eagles and Texans will drive up the salary cap with their lucrative stadium revenue counted in the salary cap calculation for the first time in a new CBA, while not sharing those dollars. That will lead to a situation where the low-revenue teams would pay a much higher percentage of their revenues to player costs, which they fear could destroy competitive balance.

It is considered essential that Tagliabue and the owners come up with a new revenue-sharing plan in Dallas for the CBA to get passed. There are reportedly 9-10 low-revenue clubs who have joined forces - several had a conference call yesterday to pledge their allegiance to each other in Dallas - who can block the deal if they are not satisfied.

"We're in a small market and we have worked really hard to keep this thing going," Bills owner Ralph Wilson said yesterday. "All I want is enough so I can hang onto the canoe."

It's not spin or damage control...Ralph knew what was going on, and what he was doing, all along. The other owners cracked, and caved...Ralph and Brown didn't.

[OpIv37]

From the day before the agreement was reached and Wilson made his comment that you are partial to...

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2006/03/07/2006-03-07_owners_labor_among_selves.html

The NFLPA dropped its demand from 60.3% of all of the league's revenues to 59.5% over the weekend. The league's last offer was 56.5%. Included in the union's proposal is about a 2% cap on how much cash the teams can spend over the salary cap in signing bonus money that gets prorated.

It is meant to appease the low-revenue teams such as the Bengals and Jaguars. They are concerned that the high-revenue Redskins, Patriots, Cowboys, Eagles and Texans will drive up the salary cap with their lucrative stadium revenue counted in the salary cap calculation for the first time in a new CBA, while not sharing those dollars. That will lead to a situation where the low-revenue teams would pay a much higher percentage of their revenues to player costs, which they fear could destroy competitive balance.

It is considered essential that Tagliabue and the owners come up with a new revenue-sharing plan in Dallas for the CBA to get passed. There are reportedly 9-10 low-revenue clubs who have joined forces - several had a conference call yesterday to pledge their allegiance to each other in Dallas - who can block the deal if they are not satisfied.

"We're in a small market and we have worked really hard to keep this thing going," Bills owner Ralph Wilson said yesterday. "All I want is enough so I can hang onto the canoe."

It's not spin or damage control...Ralph knew what was going on, and what he was doing, all along. The other owners cracked, and caved...Ralph and Brown didn't.

Of course, Wilson cited his concern as the fact that the lower revenue clubs had to pay a higher percentage of revenue to payroll because stadium revenue isn't shared. However, the reason the owners have since opted out of the agreement is because the percentage of revenue that goes to payroll is too high, ie NOT what Ralph was saying in those articles. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of giving Ralph undue credit.

[Dr. Lecter]

When's Ralph going to apologize for firing Polian?

Go into work tomorrow and call your boss's daughter a ****ing *****.

Tell me how it works out.

[Dr. Lecter]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258

Ralph didn't say it wasn't going to work. He said it was a complicated issue that he didn't understand. There's a world of difference.

Of course he didn't. He had 45 minutes to read and sign it.

A few days later he came out and said it was a ****ty deal, as seen in YardRat's posts.

Fact is, he was was the only owner honest enough to admit he did not know what was in the deal. 30 idiots went ahead and signed the deal anyway, without knowing what they agreed to. And now, they admit it was a bad deal they should have learned more about, just like Wilson said at the time.

In other words, he was right. (as was Brown).

The other 30 jackasses were wrong and now admit it. Clayton and Mort were wrong because they thought it was a great deal.

Ralph was right.

Again.

[Dr. Lecter]

One thing I don't get about you Op:

You ***** when our politicians sign deals without getting a full understanding and are not honest about it when nobody understands the deal.

Now Ralph did the same thing and you are *****ing about his honesty and the fact he ended up being right.

What gives?

[Philagape]

Go into work tomorrow and call your boss's daughter a ****ing *****.

Tell me how it works out.

I'm not Bill Polian, and I don't care.

[Dr. Lecter]

I think we would have all loved it if Polian was still here.

But it happened 15 years ago.

Can we ***** about current events with the team and discuss something more current like the CBA?

[Meathead]

From the day before the agreement was reached and Wilson made his comment that you are partial to...

pwnt

[OpIv37]

Of course he didn't. He had 45 minutes to read and sign it.

A few days later he came out and said it was a ****ty deal, as seen in YardRat's posts.

Fact is, he was was the only owner honest enough to admit he did not know what was in the deal. 30 idiots went ahead and signed the deal anyway, without knowing what they agreed to. And now, they admit it was a bad deal they should have learned more about, just like Wilson said at the time.

In other words, he was right. (as was Brown).

The other 30 jackasses were wrong and now admit it. Clayton and Mort were wrong because they thought it was a great deal.

Ralph was right.

Again.

so, now when Ralph doesn't understand something, he gets credit for honesty instead of criticism for not understanding it? What the hell? Do you even understand how skewed and lopsided that view is?

[OpIv37]

One thing I don't get about you Op:

You ***** when our politicians sign deals without getting a full understanding and are not honest about it when nobody understands the deal.

Now Ralph did the same thing and you are *****ing about his honesty and the fact he ended up being right.

What gives?

he ended up being right AFTER his team of lawyers and accountants went over it and did the damage control. In the moment, he was just a bumbling idiot who didn't understand.

Also, you're making the faulty assumption that the other owners didn't understand. They may have understood but decided to vote for it and try to work with it to avoid a work stoppage. There are other forces at work here other than the "They were dumb, Ralph is smart" spin you're putting on the situation.

[BlackMetalNinja]

It really, really pains you to give ANY positive credit to anybody dealing with the Bills doesn't it Op? Once again, you're looking pretty ridiculous in this thread.

[OpIv37]

It really, really pains you to give ANY positive credit to anybody dealing with the Bills doesn't it Op? Once again, you're looking pretty ridiculous in this thread.

Once again, you're simply wrong.

Ralph said he DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT and Meathead's spinning what he understood and Lecter's giving him credit for honesty and no one's acknowledging the fact that all he did was not understand something.

I'm not the one who looks ridiculous- all you people with your red and blue colored glasses trying to give Ralph credit for not understanding are the ones who look ridiculous.

Winning is the only thing that deserves credit and this team hasn't done that. You people are like the commissioners of T-ball leagues that give the last place team the same trophy as the team that won the championship.

[Historian]

You ***** when our politicians sign deals without getting a full understanding and are not honest about it when nobody understands the deal.



They should have named this agreement, Patriot Act II.

It's almost as bad, lol.

[BlackMetalNinja]

Once again, you're simply wrong.

Ralph said he DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT and Meathead's spinning what he understood and Lecter's giving him credit for honesty and no one's acknowledging the fact that all he did was not understand something.

I'm not the one who looks ridiculous- all you people with your red and blue colored glasses trying to give Ralph credit for not understanding are the ones who look ridiculous.

Winning is the only thing that deserves credit and this team hasn't done that. You people are like the commissioners of T-ball leagues that give the last place team the same trophy as the team that won the championship.

Regardless of what he meant when he said he didn't understand it, he deserves credit for not wanting to rush into signing it and make sure he knew what the deal was, unlike 30 other owners. I know... Bills evil no good bad BOOOOO

[Jan Reimers]

Bottom Line: Ralph showed himself to be a prudent businessman by not signing a very important, complex agreement that he didn't fully understand because he was given only 45 minutes to review it. Isn't this how any intelligent, successful business owner should operate?

He didn't cave in to the other owners or the union. He didn't sign just to go along with the others. In retrospect, he did exactly the right thing.

How the HELL can he be criticized for what he did?

[OpIv37]

Bottom Line: Ralph showed himself to be a prudent businessman by not signing a very important, complex agreement that he didn't fully understand because he was given only 45 minutes to review it. Isn't this how any intelligent, successful business owner should operate?

He didn't cave in to the other owners or the union. He didn't sign just to go along with the others. In retrospect, he did exactly the right thing.

How the HELL can he be criticized for what he did?

he did it because he DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. Since when do we give credit to people for not understanding something? Oh, right- when those people have some affiliation with the Buffalo Bills.

If some moron fires a gun into a crowd of people just to see what would happen and ends up hitting a child molester by random chance, he shouldn't be hailed as a hero. The end doesn't justify the means.

[BlackMetalNinja]

Op, it's obvious you're just jealous because I look so fly in these:
http://www.fansedge.com/Images/Product/31-36/31-36137-P.jpg

[OpIv37]

Op, it's obvious you're just jealous because I look so fly in these:
http://www.fansedge.com/Images/Product/31-36/31-36137-P.jpg

that's exactly the problem. One day I'll get a pair and then we can all get along just like Rodney King wanted.

[BlackMetalNinja]

that's exactly the problem. One day I'll get a pair and then we can all get along just like Rodney King wanted.

Could you tell me again the number of times you were right and EVERYBODY else was wrong here? I've lost count now.

[OpIv37]

Could you tell me again the number of times you were right and EVERYBODY else was wrong here? I've lost count now.

that's easy- EVERY time.

[BlackMetalNinja]

that's easy- EVERY time.
Yes, disturbing trend in my opinion.

[Dr. Lecter]

he did it because he DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. Since when do we give credit to people for not understanding something? Oh, right- when those people have some affiliation with the Buffalo Bills.

If some moron fires a gun into a crowd of people just to see what would happen and ends up hitting a child molester by random chance, he shouldn't be hailed as a hero. The end doesn't justify the means.

Because he had 45 MINUTES to read, understand and agree to the complex deal. I am assuming the CBA is not a 10 page report. The nuances and details of the report could not have been fully understood by any owner.

Unfortanetly they still approved it.

[don137]

OP I think your attacking Ralph for a poor choice of words instead of what he was trying to imply with those words. He has said many more comments how it was a bad deal afterwards but he did not have time to do number crunching and fully understand the ramifications of the deal but he knew it was bad he just did not have the time to determine how bad was the deal and jusat said he did not understand it.

[OpIv37]

OP I think your attacking Ralph for a poor choice of words instead of what he was trying to imply with those words. He has said many more comments how it was a bad deal afterwards but he did not have time to do number crunching and fully understand the ramifications of the deal but he knew it was bad he just did not have the time to determine how bad was the deal and jusat said he did not understand it.

Fair enough- btw I'm not trying to attack him. I just don't think he deserves credit and the people who do are basing it on a pretty loose interpretation of his "I didn't understand it" comment.

In the end, it doesn't matter. The CBA is gone and hopefully they'll be able to work out a better deal this time.

[Dr. Lecter]

he ended up being right AFTER his team of lawyers and accountants went over it and did the damage control. In the moment, he was just a bumbling idiot who didn't understand.

Also, you're making the faulty assumption that the other owners didn't understand. They may have understood but decided to vote for it and try to work with it to avoid a work stoppage. There are other forces at work here other than the "They were dumb, Ralph is smart" spin you're putting on the situation.

Of course they did not understand it. Two years later, they voted down the deal 32-0. It is not an assumption. It is fact. Well, I suppose they understood and were too stupid to vote against a bad deal. Take your pick.

At the moment he was the only person who had the balls to stand up and say he did not fully understand the new proposal. After it was reviewed he knew it sucked (which, BTW, the other owners still would not admit).

I am not spinning this. You are. Your inability to give him any credit is perplexing. The NFL approved a crappy CBA 30-2 and the dumbest person is one of the two that voted against it (at least in your eyes). Now, the other 30 owners say the 2 dissenters were right and they are still dumb.

There is absolutely no logic in your arguement. None.

[OpIv37]

Of course they did not understand it. Two years later, they voted down the deal 32-0. It is not an assumption. It is fact. Well, I suppose they understood and were too stupid to vote against a bad deal. Take your pick.

At the moment he was the only person who had the balls to stand up and say he did not fully understand the new proposal. After it was reviewed he knew it sucked (which, BTW, the other owners still would not admit).

I am not spinning this. You are. Your inability to give him any credit is perplexing. The NFL approved a crappy CBA 30-2 and the dumbest person is one of the two that voted against it (at least in your eyes). Now, the other 30 owners say the 2 dissenters were right and they are still dumb.

There is absolutely no logic in your arguement. None.

Ralph's own words said he didn't understand. Maybe he was right in the long run, but in the moment, he didn't know any of those reasons. He voted against it because he didn't understand, not because he saw how evil it was while none of the other owners did. At best, he gets credit for not wanting to rush into it, but with the prospect of a work stoppage, not rushing could have had much broader implications. Working through a bad deal for a few years is better (and more profitable) than no football at all.

You can get rich by working hard and investing smart your whole life. Or you can get rich by randomly picking numbers and winning the lottery. In this instance, Ralph did the latter and you're giving him credit for the former.

There is no logic in your argument that Ralph deserves credit for not understanding something. None.

[Dr. Lecter]

that's easy- EVERY time.

I know I can't think of any!!!!

You sir, should run for office! After all, you have the modesty of a politician.

[OpIv37]

I know I can't think of any!!!!

You sir, should run for office! After all, you have the modesty of a politician.

forget that- I have to get a job with the Bills. The people on this board are the best constituents ever. If I don't understand, then I get credit for not rushing. If I don't perform, I can always blame it on the guy above me, below me or next to me. No matter what I do, it will never be my fault.

[Jan Reimers]

he did it because he DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. Since when do we give credit to people for not understanding something? Oh, right- when those people have some affiliation with the Buffalo Bills.

If some moron fires a gun into a crowd of people just to see what would happen and ends up hitting a child molester by random chance, he shouldn't be hailed as a hero. The end doesn't justify the means.
I said in my post that he didn't understand the agreement, because of the short time period he had to review it.

If you are honestly telling me that a prudent businessman should be pressured into signing an agreement of this magnitude without fully understanding it, then we have no further grounds for discussion.

[Dr. Lecter]

Ralph's own words said he didn't understand. Maybe he was right in the long run, but in the moment, he didn't know any of those reasons. He voted against it because he didn't understand, not because he saw how evil it was while none of the other owners did. At best, he gets credit for not wanting to rush into it, but with the prospect of a work stoppage, not rushing could have had much broader implications. Working through a bad deal for a few years is better (and more profitable) than no football at all.

You can get rich by working hard and investing smart your whole life. Or you can get rich by randomly picking numbers and winning the lottery. In this instance, Ralph did the latter and you're giving him credit for the former.

There is no logic in your argument that Ralph deserves credit for not understanding something. None.

I am not giving him credit for not understanding it. You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my point.

I am giving him credit for admitting he did not understand it and voting against a deal that was shoved down his throat in a ridiculously expedited manner.

Fact is, the other owners now are essentially admitting they did not understand it either or the ramifications of the new deal, since they ****-canned it.

So in summary, 32 owners did not understand the ramifications of the deal and 30 of them approved it.

Historian made a great comparison when he mentiont he Patriot Act. How many Congressmen have said "I did not understand it when I voted for it."? And how stupid is that?

Ralph saw a deal that he did not understand and shot it down, realizing that having no deal and continuing to work one out is better than approving a crap deal after 45 minutes. The other owners allowed the average American attention span of 1 hour kick in and said "Let's approve it and worry about what it says later."

And who is dumb here?

Do you agree to bank loans without reading the terms? Or insurance policies? Or investments? And if you do, whose fault is it if they are **** deals that screw you over?

[Dr. Lecter]

forget that- I have to get a job with the Bills. The people on this board are the best constituents ever. If I don't understand, then I get credit for not rushing. If I don't perform, I can always blame it on the guy above me, below me or next to me. No matter what I do, it will never be my fault.

Don't worry, there will always people like you who will invent reasons to complain about your job performance.

I would just hope that you would still post and complain about everything you do at your own job!

[OpIv37]

I said in my post that he didn't understand the agreement, because of the short time period he had to review it.

If you are honestly telling me that a prudent businessman should be pressured into signing an agreement of this magnitude without fully understanding it, then we have no further grounds for discussion.

a prudent businessman has to weigh the disadvantages of the agreement versus a work stoppage that will cost him millions. There are other factors in play beyond whether or not they rushed into the agreement.

[OpIv37]

I am not giving him credit for not understanding it. You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my point.

I am giving him credit for admitting he did not understand it and voting against a deal that was shoved down his throat in a ridiculously expedited manner.

Fact is, the other owners now are essentially admitting they did not understand it either or the ramifications of the new deal, since they ****-canned it.

So in summary, 32 owners did not understand the ramifications of the deal and 30 of them approved it.

Historian made a great comparison when he mentiont he Patriot Act. How many Congressmen have said "I did not understand it when I voted for it."? And how stupid is that?

Ralph saw a deal that he did not understand and shot it down, realizing that having no deal and continuing to work one out is better than approving a crap deal after 45 minutes. The other owners allowed the average American attention span of 1 hour kick in and said "Let's approve it and worry about what it says later."

And who is dumb here?

Do you agree to bank loans without reading the terms? Or insurance policies? Or investments? And if you do, whose fault is it if they are **** deals that screw you over?

see my previous post- not voting for the CBA could have meant a work stoppage so it's not as cut and dry as "I don't understand it so I'm not voting for it" or short attention spans. Ralph risked millions of dollars by doing that. But hey, he admitted to not understanding something so that's all that matters, right?

[Jan Reimers]

a prudent businessman has to weigh the disadvantages of the agreement versus a work stoppage that will cost him millions. There are other factors in play beyond whether or not they rushed into the agreement.
Like I said, discussion over. It is impossible to discuss an issue with someone who is always right, even when they're wrong.

[Dr. Lecter]

a prudent businessman has to weigh the disadvantages of the agreement versus a work stoppage that will cost him millions. There are other factors in play beyond whether or not they rushed into the agreement.

Apparently the other owners now think a potential work stoppage is preferable to this deal. They have said as much.

You can't sacrifice the long-term for the short-term. And you also have to remember that the other side of the deal (players) also do not want a work stoppage and probably want one less than the owners as most of them do not have outside interests to keep them going financially and they also have limited time for their careers unlike owners.

[OpIv37]

Don't worry, there will always people like you who will invent reasons to complain about your job performance.

I would just hope that you would still post and complain about everything you do at your own job!

invent? Have you looked at this team's performance over the last decade? There's no need to invent reasons to complain- there are plenty of very obvious ones. The people on this board constantly give the benefit of the doubt to people like Ralph who haven't earned it.

[OpIv37]

Apparently the other owners now think a potential work stoppage is preferable to this deal. They have said as much.

You can't sacrifice the long-term for the short-term. And you also have to remember that the other side of the deal (players) also do not want a work stoppage and probably want one less than the owners as most of them do not have outside interests to keep them going financially and they also have limited time for their careers unlike owners.

just ignore the fact that they have 3 years to fix it before the work stoppage comes in whereas last time they only had a couple of months, if that....

[Dr. Lecter]

invent? Have you looked at this team's performance over the last decade? There's no need to invent reasons to complain- there are plenty of very obvious ones. The people on this board constantly give the benefit of the doubt to people like Ralph who haven't earned it.

Of course there are legitimate gripes and complaints. Never said there was not.

It does not mean that people don't invent others.

[Dr. Lecter]

just ignore the fact that they have 3 years to fix it before the work stoppage comes in whereas last time they only had a couple of months, if that....

Of course they have more time. That is obvious. No one denied that.

I guess I don't understand why the other owners are smart for signing a ****ty deal that they had to opt out of. It is not liek they had two choices:

1. Approve ****ty deal.
2. Have a work stoppage.

Those were not the only two options.

BTW, they have one year to extend it before there is uncapped season.

But you can ignore that if you so desire.

[OpIv37]

Of course they have more time. That is obvious. No one denied that.

I guess I don't understand why the other owners are smart for signing a ****ty deal that they had to opt out of. It is not liek they had two choices:

1. Approve ****ty deal.
2. Have a work stoppage.

Those were not the only two options.

BTW, they have one year to extend it before there is uncapped season.

But you can ignore that if you so desire.

I never said anything about uncapped- I said work stoppage. If they do nothing, we're still guaranteed 3 more seasons before a work stoppage. You're the one who brought up uncapped- not me.

And I never said the other owners were smart. I said there were a lot of factors at play and the other owners decided they'd rather work with the deal than risk a work stoppage, and they signed it knowing that they had an opt-out in case it didn't work. They made a mistake but it was one they knew they could correct and the choice wasn't as simple as you're making it sound. I don't know how you got "the other owners are smart" from what I said, which was that Ralph doesn't deserve credit for not understanding.

Other owners: "Let's try to work with it to avoid a work stoppage and we can opt out later if we need to."
Ralph: "I didn't understand it."

The other owners made a mistake but I still don't see why you think their logic was so much worse than Ralph's or why Ralph deserves credit.

[justasportsfan]

If Ralphy boy was right about anything. It was not acting impulsively and signing off on something he admittedly didn't understand.

The other 30 teams signed what was pretty much a blank piece of paper. DUH!

[Dr. Lecter]

I never said anything about uncapped- I said work stoppage. If they do nothing, we're still guaranteed 3 more seasons before a work stoppage. You're the one who brought up uncapped- not me.

And I never said the other owners were smart. I said there were a lot of factors at play and the other owners decided they'd rather work with the deal than risk a work stoppage, and they signed it knowing that they had an opt-out in case it didn't work. They made a mistake but it was one they knew they could correct and the choice wasn't as simple as you're making it sound. I don't know how you got "the other owners are smart" from what I said, which was that Ralph doesn't deserve credit for not understanding.

Other owners: "Let's try to work with it to avoid a work stoppage and we can opt out later if we need to."
Ralph: "I didn't understand it."

The other owners made a mistake but I still don't see why you think their logic was so much worse than Ralph's or why Ralph deserves credit.

No an uncapped year is not a work stoppage, but it is still a pretty crappy potential outcome, one all owners want to avoid. We will have three seasons of play. But an uncapped year has so many serious ramifications (i.e. contract extensions) that it is must be avoided at all costs. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
And we all know Ralph does not deserve credit for not understanding. I think (thought) I made that clear. What he deserves credit for is not rushing blindly into a deal that the owners were not given time to read and comprehend. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Ralph also deserves credit for saying the deal was bad within a day or two of approval, something other owners (i.e. Bowlen) admitted after a year or so as he said he would not have approved it if he know the ramifications. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
You are not going to logically convince anybody that the other owners knew what they were doing when they approved the deal or they understood it. It is pretty clear they panicked and signed the deal out of fear instead of letting the negotiating process take its course. Now they opt out and once again must go through the ugly ramifications of a deal with the union and Gene Upshaw. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I really don’t see why people can’t say Ralph was right to shoot down a deal he (and others) did not fully understand, especially for the long term. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>

[OpIv37]

No an uncapped year is not a work stoppage, but it is still a pretty crappy potential outcome, one all owners want to avoid. We will have three seasons of play. But an uncapped year has so many serious ramifications (i.e. contract extensions) that it is must be avoided at all costs. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
And we all know Ralph does not deserve credit for not understanding. I think (thought) I made that clear. What he deserves credit for is not rushing blindly into a deal that the owners were not given time to read and comprehend. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Ralph also deserves credit for saying the deal was bad within a day or two of approval, something other owners (i.e. Bowlen) admitted after a year or so as he said he would not have approved it if he know the ramifications. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
You are not going to logically convince anybody that the other owners knew what they were doing when they approved the deal or they understood it. It is pretty clear they panicked and signed the deal out of fear instead of letting the negotiating process take its course. Now they opt out and once again must go through the ugly ramifications of a deal with the union and Gene Upshaw. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I really don’t see why people can’t say Ralph was right to shoot down a deal he (and others) did not fully understand, especially for the long term. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>

I'm not trying to say the other owners knew what they are doing- you keep saying that but I never did. So you can let that go already.

Ralph had the right idea but for the wrong reasons- he said he didn't understand it. That means he didn't understand what he was voting against. It turns out he was right, but he didn't exactly use a logical thought process to be right. He just as easily could have been dead wrong and the CBA could have been the best thing in the history of the league.

You could give me a multiple choice test on nuclear physics and I could get a 98 by random chance, but that doesn't make me qualified to do Hans Blix's job.

[justasportsfan]

but he didn't exactly use a logical thought process to be right. .

Confucious says " don't sign off on anything you don't understand" . Ralphy took heed and he was right in doing so.HIs thought process was right.


Meanwhile the other 30 were confused.

[OpIv37]

Confucious says " don't sign off on anything you don't understand" . Ralphy took heed and he was right in doing so.HIs thought process was right.


Meanwhile the other 30 were confused.

In hindsight, he was right. At the time, he could have been right or wrong. He lucked out and was right, and now everyone wants to give him credit. Sorry- not buying it.

[Dr. Lecter]

I'm not trying to say the other owners knew what they are doing- you keep saying that but I never did. So you can let that go already.

Ralph had the right idea but for the wrong reasons- he said he didn't understand it. That means he didn't understand what he was voting against. It turns out he was right, but he didn't exactly use a logical thought process to be right. He just as easily could have been dead wrong and the CBA could have been the best thing in the history of the league.

You could give me a multiple choice test on nuclear physics and I could get a 98 by random chance, but that doesn't make me qualified to do Hans Blix's job.

It was the right reason.

You don't agree to a deal you do not understand. 30 owners did just that. Ralph did not. The outcome is not as significant as what the cause of the outcome was.

I tell you what: I will loan you $5,000 right now. Will you sign onto the loan? I'll write-up the details and give you 30 seconds to make a decision.

[justasportsfan]

In hindsight, he was right. At the time, he could have been right or wrong. He lucked out and was right, and now everyone wants to give him credit. Sorry- not buying it.


HE was right in not signing something he didn't understand.Thats a very common practice . The fact that the other owners are now against it is PROOF.

Would sign the dotted line if you went to a car dealer without looking at what you're signing? Would you sign it if you didn't understand what you were signing? NO!

[Dr. Lecter]

In hindsight, he was right. At the time, he could have been right or wrong. He lucked out and was right, and now everyone wants to give him credit. Sorry- not buying it.

Maybe he did not luck out. He knew the deal was being signed in haste.

Ralph does something bad = He sucks and is dumb.

Ralph does something right = He got lucky.

Logical. Real logical.

Can you ever give credit where credit is due? You complain about the "homers" never being critical even when deserved. Yet you will not give credit when deserved.

I swear the Bills could go 19-0 and you would find something (everything?) to gripe about.

[OpIv37]

It was the right reason.

You don't agree to a deal you do not understand. 30 owners did just that. Ralph did not. The outcome is not as significant as what the cause of the outcome was.

I tell you what: I will loan you $5,000 right now. Will you sign onto the loan? I'll write-up the details and give you 30 seconds to make a decision.

That depends on whether or not I'm 5k behind in mortgage payments and the bank is about to foreclose on my house. When faced with the prospect of nowhere to live, I may take your loan and worry about the consequences later because at least I'll have a place to live for now.

Ralph made a decision on something he didn't understand without considering the consequences. But hey- it must be a great decision because Ralph made it.

[OpIv37]

Maybe he did not luck out. He knew the deal was being signed in haste.

Ralph does something bad = He sucks and is dumb.

Ralph does something right = He got lucky.

Logical. Real logical.

Can you ever give credit where credit is due? You complain about the "homers" never being critical even when deserved. Yet you will not give credit when deserved.

I swear the Bills could go 19-0 and you would find something (everything?) to gripe about.

He DIDN"T DO SOMETHING RIGHT! ALL HE DID WAS NOT UNDERSTAND! Suddenly that counts as doing something right? He makes a decision admitting he didn't have all the information and you want to give him credit for it. It's completely illogical.

No credit is due in this case. Ralph did not know any more or less than the other owners when he made the decision. You guys want to make it sound like he's so much smarter than them and was the only one who knew it was bad, and that's not the case. He didn't understand it. And even the reasons he gave after the fact weren't the same ones that the other owners gave for opting it out. You're trying to give him credit where he doesn't deserve it-the problem is yours, not mine.

And that 19-0 thing is pure speculation because I've always maintained that I'd be happy when the team wins, and the team hasn't won since this message board has been in existence. So I'm really sick of hearing that crap.

[justasportsfan]

He DIDN"T DO SOMETHING RIGHT! ALL HE DID WAS NOT UNDERSTAND! .
he voted against what he didn't understand. That was the right thing to do.He did something right.

The other 30 teams voted for something the didn't understand or thought they understood. That was the wrong move.

[OpIv37]

he voted against what he didn't understand. That was the right thing to do.He did something right.

The other 30 teams voted for something the didn't understand or thought they understood. That was the wrong move.

no, the right thing to do would be understand what he's voting for or against and why he's voting for or against it, and to consider the consequences of voting for or against it before making that move. And he didn't do any of those things.

[Jan Reimers]

Why argue this any farther? Op will not give Ralph credit for making a reasoned, rational business decision. Whether the outcome proved him "lucky" or not, he made the the most intelligent decision at the time, by not signing an agreement - under tremendous pressure - when he didn't truly understand it.

It doesn't really matter that he has been proven right. What really matters is that he made the right decision at the time.

[justasportsfan]

no, the right thing to do would be understand what he's voting for or against and why he's voting for or against it, and to consider the consequences of voting for or against it before making that move. And he didn't do any of those things.
he said you can't understand it in 45 mins. Obviously he was right and the other 30 teams taking back their votes proved that Ralphy was righ.

The other 30 teams :

"we voted for it before we voted against it ( John Kerry anyone? ) . We didn't understand what we were signing but we signed it anyways. Now we're taking back what we signed now that we understand it" :coocoo:

It took them a whole year to finally understand what they signed. DUH!

BTW why didn't you answer this?


Would sign the dotted line if you went to a car dealer without looking at what you're signing? Would you sign it if you didn't understand what you were signing? NO!

[Dr. Lecter]

no, the right thing to do would be understand what he's voting for or against and why he's voting for or against it, and to consider the consequences of voting for or against it before making that move. And he didn't do any of those things.

Since he had 45 minutes, having time to understand it was not an option.

[Dr. Lecter]

That depends on whether or not I'm 5k behind in mortgage payments and the bank is about to foreclose on my house. When faced with the prospect of nowhere to live, I may take your loan and worry about the consequences later because at least I'll have a place to live for now.

Ralph made a decision on something he didn't understand without considering the consequences. But hey- it must be a great decision because Ralph made it.

Woo hoo!!!

I am now married to Dora!!!!

I never know Ralph was about to homeless. If you accept the offer without exhausting all possibilties with the bank, you are foolish.

[OpIv37]

he said you can't understand it in 45 mins. Obviously he was right and the other 30 teams taking back their votes proved that Ralphy was righ.

The other 30 teams :

"we voted for it before we voted against it ( John Kerry anyone? ) . We didn't understand what we were signing but we signed it anyways. Now we're taking back what we signed now that we understand it" :coocoo:

It took them a whole year to finally understand what they signed. DUH!

BTW why didn't you answer this?

you're neglecting the consequences of not voting it- the work stoppage. There were potential consequences to his actions that he neglected, and he voted against it for the wrong reasons. All he did was not understand. He doesn't get credit for that.

Would I sign on the dotted line if I didn't know what i was signing? In a perfect world, obviously not. If I had no car and bad credit and had to get to work or else I would get fired, then maybe. I'd have to weigh the options of getting fired vs dealing with a potentially crappy car loan.

[Dr. Lecter]

And that 19-0 thing is pure speculation because I've always maintained that I'd be happy when the team wins, and the team hasn't won since this message board has been in existence. So I'm really sick of hearing that crap.

It is not about team wins or losses.

It is about somebody doing something right and you not giving credit when it is due.

You also don't know how much consideration he gave to the ramifications of voting no, but since the stoppage was not imminent, it is a moot point. THis was not a last second deal. But the 30 owners still freaked out and agreed to a deal they had read little of.

At the time the deal as approved there was no reason to panic or freak out. None.

[OpIv37]

Why argue this any farther? Op will not give Ralph credit for making a reasoned, rational business decision. Whether the outcome proved him "lucky" or not, he made the the most intelligent decision at the time, by not signing an agreement - under tremendous pressure - when he didn't truly understand it.

It doesn't really matter that he has been proven right. What really matters is that he made the right decision at the time.

It wasn't reasoned- he didn't know what he was voting for or against. How could he know if it was reasoned if he didn't know what he was voting against?

It wasn't rational because it could have led to a lockout that would have cost him millions, and he didn't consider the fact that there was an opt-out clause if it didn't work later on.

He took a shot in the dark and hit the target.

[justasportsfan]

you're neglecting the consequences of not voting it- the work stoppage. There were potential consequences to his actions that he neglected, and he voted against it for the wrong reasons. All he did was not understand. He doesn't get credit for that. .
you are also neglecting the consequences in signing what you DO NOT UNSDERSTAND.

Hence, the other other 30 owners pulled a John Kerry. Flipflopped. Retreat. 180 degrees.

Lucky for them they didn't sign their team away.



Would I sign on the dotted line if I didn't know what i was signing? In a perfect world, obviously not. .
nuff said.

[OpIv37]

you are also neglecting the consequences in signing what you DO NOT UNSDERSTAND.

Hence, the other other 30 owners pulled a John Kerry. Flipflopped. Retreat. 180 degrees.

Lucky for them they didn't sign their team away.


nuff said.

THERE WAS AN OPT OUT CLAUSE SO THE CONSEQUENCES OF SIGNING WHAT YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND IS NOT AS BAD AS YOU AND OTHERS ARE MAKING IT SOUND.

And as usual, everything is black and white with you. You never look at the situation or try to understand what's really going on. There was an external factor that necessitated an agreement. But let's just ignore that fact....

[Dr. Lecter]

It wasn't reasoned- he didn't know what he was voting for or against. How could he know if it was reasoned if he didn't know what he was voting against?

It wasn't rational because it could have led to a lockout that would have cost him millions, and he didn't consider the fact that there was an opt-out clause if it didn't work later on.

He took a shot in the dark and hit the target.

But the lockout/strike was not an immediate threat. There was still time to get a new deal.

If this happened with hours or days left before a rock solid deadline, I would agree with you. But it did not. By your logic, the owners shoudl have accepted any deal.

You are also ignoring the reality that the players did not want a lockout either and would have fought it like hell if it came to crunch time.

[Dr. Lecter]

THERE WAS AN OPT OUT CLAUSE SO THE CONSEQUENCES OF SIGNING WHAT YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND IS NOT AS BAD AS YOU AND OTHERS ARE MAKING IT SOUND.

And as usual, everything is black and white with you. You never look at the situation or try to understand what's really going on. There was an external factor that necessitated an agreement. But let's just ignore that fact....

But those factors were not an immediate threat.

And the opt out cause just makes the owners and players go through the same **** again and puts us back where we started. It should not be used unless it is an emergency situation.

[OpIv37]

But the lockout/strike was not an immediate threat. There was still time to get a new deal.

If this happened with hours or days left before a rock solid deadline, I would agree with you. But it did not. By your logic, the owners shoudl have accepted any deal.

You are also ignoring the reality that the players did not want a lockout either and would have fought it like hell if it came to crunch time.

disagree- leaving that meeting without a deal would have greatly increased the possibility of a work stoppage.

And I didn't say any deal- this particular deal had an opt out clause. That alone makes it more acceptable.

The players would have taken a lockout before they would have taken less money.

[justasportsfan]

THERE WAS AN OPT OUT CLAUSE SO THE CONSEQUENCES OF SIGNING WHAT YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND IS NOT AS BAD AS YOU AND OTHERS ARE MAKING IT SOUND.

And as usual, everything is black and white with you. You never look at the situation or try to understand what's really going on. There was an external factor that necessitated an agreement. But let's just ignore that fact....


too late. you already said you would do what Ralphy would do if you didn't understand a contract.

[Dr. Lecter]

disagree- leaving that meeting without a deal would have greatly increased the possibility of a work stoppage.

And I didn't say any deal- this particular deal had an opt out clause. That alone makes it more acceptable.

The players would have taken a lockout before they would have taken less money.

Increasing the possibility is not the same as necessitating an agreement.

Not even close.

I agree it would have increased the possibility.

[OpIv37]

too late. you already said you would do what Ralphy would do if you didn't understand a contract.

no, I absolutely didn't say that. You cut off my quote. Ralph wasn't working in a perfect world- he was working under the pressure of losing millions of dollars. As usual, you're treating situations that are drastically different as the same thing.

[Dr. Lecter]

no, I absolutely didn't say that. You cut off my quote. Ralph wasn't working in a perfect world- he was working under the pressure of losing millions of dollars. As usual, you're treating situations that are drastically different as the same thing.

Both sides were looking at losing millions of dollars. And, the loss is worse for the players since they have much shorter careers so losing one year is worse for them than it is for an owner.

But the owners blinked and over-reacted and panicked. At least 30 of them.

[justasportsfan]

no, I absolutely didn't say that. You cut off my quote. Ralph wasn't working in a perfect world- he was working under the pressure of losing millions of dollars. As usual, you're treating situations that are drastically different as the same thing.

you could've lost thousands of dollars if you signed something you didn't undestand.



too late. you already said you would do what Ralphy would do if you didn't understand a contract.

[OpIv37]

you could've lost thousands of dollars if you signed something you didn't undestand.

and I could have lost millions by not signing. That's the piece you're missing.

[justasportsfan]

and I could have lost millions by not signing. That's the piece you're missing.


Nope. BY your standards compared to Ralphy, you're in the thousands category ;).
You could've been signing your life away .

[OpIv37]

Ralph was playing it safe and he was right.

only with a little hindsight and a lot of spin.

Say whatever you want- not voting for the agreement could have cost Ralph a lot more money than voting for it. But you don't want to account for that fact because it contradicts the assertion that Ralph deserves credit.

[DraftBoy]

So can we use this logic the other way? Had this deal been as great as some pundits thought it was going to be who here would of come out with a thread to call Ralph dumb?

On one hand Ralph made the correct decision not signing onto an agreement he fully understood. Especially something of this magnitude. However people giving him credit for the foresight that this deal was a bad one are wrong, he did not know that at the time. Was he right or wrong? Not really either, he made the safe play. Call it dumb luck, call it genius foresight all you want what does it matter? The labor agreement is dead now, we have bigger fish to fry then trying to take a cheap shot at others and patting ourselves on the back. You know like being a competitive football team for the first time in about a decade...

[justasportsfan]

only with a little hindsight and a lot of spin.

Say whatever you want- not voting for the agreement could have cost Ralph a lot more money than voting for it. But you don't want to account for that fact because it contradicts the assertion that Ralph deserves credit.
What you're saying he could've missed EARNING MORE millions. By signing something he didn't understand he coul've LOST the millions he has left. Huge difference.

Ralph was playing it safe and he was right.

Ralph deserves credit for playing it safe while the rest look like idiots.

[Jan Reimers]

So can we use this logic the other way? Had this deal been as great as some pundits thought it was going to be who here would of come out with a thread to call Ralph dumb?

On one hand Ralph made the correct decision not signing onto an agreement he fully understood. Especially something of this magnitude. However people giving him credit for the foresight that this deal was a bad one are wrong, he did not know that at the time. Was he right or wrong? Not really either, he made the safe play. Call it dumb luck, call it genius foresight all you want what does it matter? The labor agreement is dead now, we have bigger fish to fry then trying to take a cheap shot at others and patting ourselves on the back. You know like being a competitive football team for the first time in about a decade...
No matter how the deal came out, Ralph made the right decision at the time.

Why can't people understand that no reasonable business person should ever sign an agreement of this scope under pressure, without a full and thorough understanding of the deal, just because others around him are caving in?

This is not about hindsight. It is about making a rational and prudent decision at the time the deal was offered, and for the right reasons. Ralph did that.

[DraftBoy]

No matter how the deal came out, Ralph made the right decision at the time.

Why can't people understand that no reasonable business person should ever sign an agreement of this scope under pressure, without a full and thorough understanding of the deal, just because others around him are caving in?

This is not about hindsight. It is about making a rational and prudent decision at the time the deal was offered, and for the right reasons. Ralph did that.


For the same reason people dont seem to understand what I dont understand means. Its hard to give a guy credit for his business salvo when he doesnt understand the terms of a labor deal. Many in this thread have claimed (with no knowledge or proof) that the other 30 owners who agreed to this deal also did not understand that. We dont know that and speculation about it at this point is pretty dumb. Also its easy to sit up here on our high horses and say that no reasonable business person would ever sign a deal under those pressures without a good understanding but we see it happen everyday and like Op did point out if the deal went sour (and it did) the owners had their opt out clause. Like I said before this whole discussion/cheap shot/back patting session is relatively minor and stupid given our horrible performances this past decade...

[Dr. Lecter]

For the same reason people dont seem to understand what I dont understand means. Its hard to give a guy credit for his business salvo when he doesnt understand the terms of a labor deal. Many in this thread have claimed (with no knowledge or proof) that the other 30 owners who agreed to this deal also did not understand that. We dont know that and speculation about it at this point is pretty dumb. Also its easy to sit up here on our high horses and say that no reasonable business person would ever sign a deal under those pressures without a good understanding but we see it happen everyday and like Op did point out if the deal went sour (and it did) the owners had their opt out clause. Like I said before this whole discussion/cheap shot/back patting session is relatively minor and stupid given our horrible performances this past decade...

They too had 45 minutes to understand it and are now opting out of the deal. A number of also said it was a bad deal.

There is tons of evidence they did not understand it as well as they should have.

[justasportsfan]

Its hard to give a guy credit for his business salvo when he doesnt understand the terms of a labor deal. Many in this thread have claimed (with no knowledge or proof) that the other 30 owners who agreed to this deal also did not understand that. We dont know that and speculation about it at this point is pretty dumb. Also its easy to sit up here on our high horses and say that no reasonable business person would ever sign a deal under those pressures without a good understanding but we see it happen everyday and like Op did point out if the deal went sour (and it did) the owners had their opt out clause. Like I said before this whole discussion/cheap shot/back patting session is relatively minor and stupid given our horrible performances this past decade...


So if we don't give credit to Ralphy for not signing for something he had not clue for, then we should trash the rest for something they obviously had no clue about.


We have proof theat they didn't know what they were signing. They retracted their votes and junked the CBA.

If Ralphy was balsted for what he did, then the 30 owners should be blasted for flippflopping and obviously being clueless.

[DraftBoy]

They too had 45 minutes to understand it and are now opting out of the deal. A number of also said it was a bad deal.

There is tons of evidence they did not understand it as well as they should have.

You know government and you know that there have been countless programs and policies that were put in to place with a good understanding of how they conceptually work but yet they failed to work (NCLB is a great example of such) just because the owners are opting out does not mean they did not understand the deal it simply means that the deal is not working as they had hoped. Which is why the clause was inserted in the first place. Please tell me you have more evidence than this to support such a claim.

[DraftBoy]

So if we don't give credit to Ralphy for not signing for something he had not clue for, then we should trash the rest for something they obviously had no clue about.


We have proof theat they didn't know what they were signing. They retracted their votes and junked the CBA.

If Ralphy was balsted for what he did, then the 30 owners should be blasted for flippflopping and obviously being clueless.

See my response above. Nobody is either blasting or giving any more credit to Ralphy than he deserves. His decision to not sign looks like a smart move now that it hasnt worked out. But Im not sure if it was due to some savy business sense or some genius foresight, or just dumb luck.

[Dr. Lecter]

You know government and you know that there have been countless programs and policies that were put in to place with a good understanding of how they conceptually work but yet they failed to work (NCLB is a great example of such) just because the owners are opting out does not mean they did not understand the deal it simply means that the deal is not working as they had hoped. Which is why the clause was inserted in the first place. Please tell me you have more evidence than this to support such a claim.

They had 45 minutes to read it and get a firm grasp of it.

Within a day or two Ralph said the deal sucked.

Tell me if you think the other owners actually understood it.

Not to mention, when a deal works out so badly that 32 rich egomaniacs admit it now sucks (including Snyder and Jones who never admit to mistakes) there should have been warning signs. It took many owners only one year to see its faults.

[justasportsfan]

See my response above. Nobody is either blasting or giving any more credit to Ralphy than he deserves. His decision to not sign looks like a smart move now that it hasnt worked out. But Im not sure if it was due to some savy business sense or some genius foresight, or just dumb luck.

not signing what you don't understand is simple common business sense. It doesn't have to be savy.

The dimwit owners got PWNED by the NFLPA. Who's laughing their way to the bank on this issue? Not the owners.

[justasportsfan]

They had 45 minutes to read it and get a firm grasp of it.

Within a day or two Ralph said the deal sucked.

Tell me if you think the other owners actually understood it.

Not to mention, when a deal works out so badly that 32 rich egomaniacs admit it now sucks (including Snyder and Jones who never admit to mistakes) there should have been warning signs. It took many owners only one year to see its faults.
I don't know how that is so hard to understand.

[Dr. Lecter]

I don't know how that is so hard to understand.

Hell, even YOU understand it!!!!!

[justasportsfan]

Hell, even YOU understand it!!!!!
Understand what?????

[DraftBoy]

They had 45 minutes to read it and get a firm grasp of it.

Within a day or two Ralph said the deal sucked.

Tell me if you think the other owners actually understood it.

Not to mention, when a deal works out so badly that 32 rich egomaniacs admit it now sucks (including Snyder and Jones who never admit to mistakes) there should have been warning signs. It took many owners only one year to see its faults.

Thats incorrect. They had a 45 minute presentation to work with however this deal was hammered out by reps from both sides so its not like it was a one sided affair and the NFLPA was forcing the owners to sign it. Come on now at least be realistic...

[justasportsfan]

Thats incorrect. They had a 45 minute presentation to work with however this deal was hammered out by reps from both sides


That even makes the other 30 teams look even dumber. They should fire their reps who pieced those things together and then fed them stupid crap for 45 mins.

I'm glad Ralphy was sleeping through those 45 mins.

[Jan Reimers]

It's 2:00 PM on Friday afternoon. A man's got to believe in something, so I believe I'll leave this argument to you guys and have a little drinky-poo, or maybe several.

[Dr. Lecter]

It's 2:00 PM on Friday afternoon. A man's got to believe in something, so I believe I'll leave this argument to you guys and have a little drinky-poo, or maybe several.

Have one for me!

[John Doe]

Poor Ralph is always in a lose-lose situation.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The poor old fool can’t grasp the nuances of a super-complicated deal. He votes against it probably thinking to himself that there is no reason to rush the thing – check the deal thoroughly and then ratify if it’s OK. He had a gut feeling that it wasn’t.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Turns out he was right – there was something wrong for sure, but Ralph can’t get really get credit for being right because the standards set for him are so incredibly high. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Ralph has to be able to absolutely nail the flaws in the deal within 45 minutes or there is no credit due if he turns out to be right. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
It’s genius if Ralph nails it perfectly within 45 minutes – it’s luck after 45 minutes<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Even if he’s right in the end. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Wisdom does not count – not for Ralph. He’s has to be genius.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
High standards.<o:p></o:p>

[patmoran2006]

I will never "apologize" to Ralph Wilson.. EVER
He's made plenty of money off me, every fan on this board and every Bills fan all over the country for that matter. Apologize??????

[justasportsfan]

I will never "apologize" to Ralph Wilson.. EVER
He's made plenty of money off me, every fan on this board and every Bills fan all over the country for that matter. Apologize??????


who talking about making money off of anyone?

Oops, nevermind, PAt must've been one of those who blasted Ralphy .

[Meathead]

Hell, even YOU understand it!!!!!
then any ****** coulda

[Philagape]

I will never "apologize" to Ralph Wilson.. EVER
He's made plenty of money off me, every fan on this board and every Bills fan all over the country for that matter. Apologize??????


I'll trade him an apology for the Lombardi trophy. Until then he can bite me.

[Jan Reimers]

I'll trade him an apology for the Lombardi trophy. Until then he can bite me.
Yeah, if Ralph just could have nailed that 47 yard FG in SB XXV. . .

[yordad]

OK, so Ralph either meant he didn't understand the contract, or he didn't understand how everyone else could sign it.

So, he didn't sign, which means he did something right either way. No matter how you interpret what he said, he still did something right.

Either way, his actus reus was right, no matter the mens rea. No foul.

[Dr. Lecter]

Yeah, if Ralph just could have nailed that 47 yard FG in SB XXV. . .

I thought you were getting a drink or two?

(PS: He should have tackled Mark Ingrahm too.)

[Dr. Lecter]

I will never "apologize" to Ralph Wilson.. EVER
He's made plenty of money off me, every fan on this board and every Bills fan all over the country for that matter. Apologize??????


OK, makes no sense whatsoever, but OK.

[Philagape]

Maybe the NFL can give him half a ring for an Almost Super Bowl Victory. Maybe we can hold a mostly parade. I can hang up nearly completed Super Bowl banners and posters. I can wear a T-shirt and hat that say, "Super Bowl Champio."
Sixteen franchises have won Super Bowls, but it's OK because we ALMOST did! Yay!!!

[Typ0]

when Ralph Wilson came out to the public and talked nonsense, didn't know what day it was, and begged for Mularkey to stay it was the final nail in the he's senile coffin for me. To even insinuate that he was the only one that knew what he was doing and the rest of the owners we're blindsided is rediculous. It sounds good if you are a Bills fan so I guess that makes it so. I'm convinced the truth is that RW has been slipping for years.

Consider this, all the owners knew there was an option to opt out. They didn't have 100% confidence in the deal but they took a leap of faith in hopes to work with the players association towards better relations. RW had a my way or the highway attitude. The rest of the league disagreed because the risk for them was limited and they wanted things to get better. RW insisted on being a wrench in the works to make some waves and prove how powerful he is.

Do I know that's true? No. But it's a better assumption than RW is some kind of hero.

[YardRat]

Thats incorrect. They had a 45 minute presentation to work with however this deal was hammered out by reps from both sides so its not like it was a one sided affair and the NFLPA was forcing the owners to sign it. Come on now at least be realistic...

The deal wasn't even hammered out...some of the specifics were left open and to be determined later.

Those who agree to and sign any kind of contract without full understanding of the details = dumbasses, and I can think of thirty of them off of the top of my head, and two who weren't.

It's really that simple.

[justasportsfan]

But it's a better assumption than RW is some kind of hero.


No one saying Ralph is some kind of hero. If anything it made the other owners look like idiots for laughing at him.