If all Ralph Wilson cares about is money

[chernobylwraiths]

Why doesn't he raise ticket prices to the league average?

[Typ0]

because the price sensitivity in the marketplace dictates that price increase will result in less profits due to lost sales...ie ticket sales will tank.

[chernobylwraiths]

But then he could move the team for "lack of support". It's a win/win situation for him. Raise prices and it sells out, more money in his pocket, raise money and not sell out = move the team and make a ton of money.

The Ralph wants more money argument is weak and stupid. There are SO many more ways he could make more money, even right here in Buffalo.

[trapezeus]

however, i think if he moved it to a non football market like LA or Toronto (as it seems now), he'd have to pay up for a better team. he'd have expensive seats, but if the team failed as much as it did, i doubt you'd get half the stadium filled. Like how it works in the rest of the NFL. if the team does poorly, no one comes. buffalo is the only market where we come no matter what.

i do think that ralph is a Bills fan and not just a money fan. He has the trouble of balancing the profits and losses as well as with W's and L's. However, i think he'd be better off with an expensive coach and GM, and let their system of excellence get the most out of young players and let players leave. it's better than overpaying for 4-5 players who can't make a difference when they are playing on a poorly coached team.

[chernobylwraiths]

however, i think if he moved it to a non football market like LA or Toronto (as it seems now), he'd have to pay up for a better team. he'd have expensive seats, but if the team failed as much as it did, i doubt you'd get half the stadium filled. Like how it works in the rest of the NFL. if the team does poorly, no one comes. buffalo is the only market where we come no matter what.

i do think that ralph is a Bills fan and not just a money fan. He has the trouble of balancing the profits and losses as well as with W's and L's. However, i think he'd be better off with an expensive coach and GM, and let their system of excellence get the most out of young players and let players leave. it's better than overpaying for 4-5 players who can't make a difference when they are playing on a poorly coached team.

While I agree with your first point, going to a big market like Toronto would be a huge windfall. Remember, the money made by a franchise has nothing to do with the actual seating capacity and how many of those seats are sold, but on corporate sponsorship and how many suites you can sell for how much apiece. That is why Dallas is building their mega stadium with all the luxury suites. Plus, they keep all the suite money and share all the other seat money. Logically, if they sell out all the suites and don't sell a single seat, they could make millions.

[OpIv37]

If Ralph doesn't care about money, why did he sell out our home games against division rivals to another city that doesn't even care about our team? Why does he consistently go cheap with coaches and FO personnel? Why does he let good players walk rather than re-sign them (Winfield, Pat Williams, London Fletcher, Nate Clements, etc)?

And when Ralph does spend money, he spends it poorly: Schobel, Kelsay, Fowler, Royal, the whole litany of FA's that aren't even here anymore (especially on the OL), even Dockery is struggling this season.

This franchise is a failure. It has been a mess from top to bottom for it's entire existence, with the exception of 1964 and a chunk of the 1990's. Yet, people still feel the need to defend Ralph because "at least we have a team." That's what I'm talking about when I say Bills fans should accept mediocrity. We shouldn't be satisfied with just having a team. We should demand more from this organization, starting from the top down. There's no point in having a team if we're just going to get our asses handed to us by New England, Pittsburgh, Indy, Denver, Dallas, the NJ teams, etc every damn season. They're not going to get it right every year because no one does, but they should be able to get it right every once in a while, and this constant defense of Wilson is letting them off the hook even for that.

[Typ0]

But then he could move the team for "lack of support". It's a win/win situation for him. Raise prices and it sells out, more money in his pocket, raise money and not sell out = move the team and make a ton of money.

The Ralph wants more money argument is weak and stupid. There are SO many more ways he could make more money, even right here in Buffalo.


it's kind of an odd situation because he's near death. There are a lot of costs associated with moving the team and, in the long run, those costs would justify moving it. However, those costs would also never be recouped before his death so it would be a negative to his estate to move the team--especially since costs can help to decrease the tax burden on the estate.

Now, in theory, the value of the company is the net present value of all the future cash flows...and those cash flows are greater in another market any way you look at so the value of the team and it's sale price immediately increases. However, this will still hold true on the open market after his death so the sale price will be inflated by the value of the team in the market they want to place it in and the costs associated moving it will be included in this sale price. These things can all be costed off as immediate costs, like other things, that would decrease the tax burder on the estate. So, looking at it another way, in a perfect market the team might move right now. However, the IRS has created tax rules that make it advantageous to wait until the death of RW to transfer ownership of the team and that is where the risk of relocation will come into play.

I also do believe RW is an old traditionalist fart and would not move the team from Buffalo based on principal.

[Jeff1220]

I don't necessarily believe Wilson's got this grand scheme of purposely taking the fans for everything they're worth by putting up a team that is constantly doing just enough to make us think that they could turn the corner "next year."

I do think that his management methods with this pro football team became passe about 25 years ago. He just doesn't realize that the way to build a successful team is different in 2008 than it was in 1960 or even 1986.

[Typ0]

I don't necessarily believe Wilson's got this grand scheme of purposely taking the fans for everything they're worth by putting up a team that is constantly doing just enough to make us think that they could turn the corner "next year."

I do think that his management methods with this pro football team became passe about 25 years ago. He just doesn't realize that the way to build a successful team is different in 2008 than it was in 1960 or even 1986.


couldn't agree more.

[OpIv37]

I don't necessarily believe Wilson's got this grand scheme of purposely taking the fans for everything they're worth by putting up a team that is constantly doing just enough to make us think that they could turn the corner "next year."


That borders on a conspiracy theory, and I don't think any sane person truly believes it's that manipulative.

I think it works like this: Ralph wants to win, but he also wants to save money and maximize profits. So, he takes the cheap route hoping it will pay off. The mentality isn't "I'm going to spend X, and we'll get as far as spending that much will allow. Screw trying to win." The mentality is "X is what I have, how can we win with that amount?" It seems like semantics, but it's a different mentality behind it. He tries to find ways to win within a certain budget. It hasn't produced results on the field.

However, the team still makes money. The fans still buy tickets and merch. So, while Ralph's methods haven't worked yet, he doesn't have the economic incentive to change them. And that's why this team has remained mired in mediocrity.

[madness]

If Ralph only cared about money, he'd put a winning team on the field. Losing seasons doesn't not help his wallet.

[Night Train]

You have to offer at least 4 years 16+ Mil to any name coaching candidate out there. Cowher would demand much more.

Ralph collected a cool 78 Mil from the Toronto deal. He doesn't need to overpay the roster but push that fresh $$ toward GM,coaching & scouting.

Ask yourself if Ralph will do that.

[OpIv37]

If Ralph only cared about money, he'd put a winning team on the field. Losing seasons doesn't not help his wallet.

the fallacy in your argument is that losing seasons don't hurt his wallet either. we were 7-9 last year and still sold out this entire season, even the overpriced Toronto game.

[Typ0]

If Ralph only cared about money, he'd put a winning team on the field. Losing seasons doesn't not help his wallet.


that was Jeffs point. RW has the short term vision of the past where you hoard money and exploit labor and the marketplace. Things have changed and the new marketing vision is about meeting peoples needs and profiting from your ability to do that.

[OpIv37]

Ask yourself if Ralph will do that.

and if he does it, ask yourself if he'll do it right. Who was the last real quality football person Ralph had? And over the history of the organization, how many has he had total?

I'm too young to remember beyond 20 years, but in the last 20 years, Polian and Butler are the only ones I can think of.

[Typ0]

the fallacy in your argument is that losing seasons don't hurt his wallet either. we were 7-9 last year and still sold out this entire season, even the overpriced Toronto game.

the problem with your arguement is it doesn't take into account opprotunity cost or the future. You make the assumption that sell outs this year = sell outs next year, for example. Also, you make the assumption that ticket sales are the primary source of revenue and they are actually a secondary source. The team would make a lot more if they were good enough to get one of those swing games in primetime and the advertising/television that comes from it. And then the popularity of winning and merchandise sales that go with it.

[madness]

the fallacy in your argument is that losing seasons don't hurt his wallet either. we were 7-9 last year and still sold out this entire season, even the overpriced Toronto game.

There's no fallacy there. It's just a naysayers excuse to blame Ralph. Sold out stadiums are just one slice of the pie. You don't think an extra game in the playoffs would be beneficial as far as ticket revenue? Again, that's just one slice. I've never met a rich man that was satisfied with just bringing in the minimum no matter how much that minimum was. All rich people are greedy whores who want more.

[OpIv37]

There's no fallacy there. It's just a naysayers excuse to blame Ralph. Sold out stadiums are just one slice of the pie. You don't think an extra game in the playoffs would be beneficial as far as ticket revenue? Again, that's just one slice. I've never met a rich man that was satisfied with just bringing in the minimum no matter how much that minimum was. All rich people are greedy whores who want more.

except that in order to get that playoff game he'd have to expend more money at the onset, and that introduces an element of risk, because playoffs are never guaranteed no matter how much the owner spends (see Snyder, Daniel).

So, Ralph can have an almost guaranteed (albeit smaller) stream of income with a small initial investment. Or he can bet the farm on a less likely but slightly higher return by spending more on the onset. Whether you believe it or not, there is such a thing as a risk adverse investor. That's your fallacy. Ralph seems content to take the sure thing, even if the profit is smaller. And at this point, he has to have an awareness of his own lack of football prowess, which is an even bigger reason to go with the safe investment.

[Typ0]

except that in order to get that playoff game he'd have to expend more money at the onset, and that introduces an element of risk, because playoffs are never guaranteed no matter how much the owner spends (see Snyder, Daniel).

So, Ralph can have an almost guaranteed (albeit smaller) stream of income with a small initial investment. Or he can bet the farm on a less likely but slightly higher return by spending more on the onset. Whether you believe it or not, there is such a thing as a risk adverse investor. That's your fallacy. Ralph seems content to take the sure thing, even if the profit is smaller. And at this point, he has to have an awareness of his own lack of football prowess, which is an even bigger reason to go with the safe investment.


and as people become older they become more risk adverse. He's more concerned about keeping his money than he is about making money. That's exactly right and why the team sucks.

[madness]

except that in order to get that playoff game he'd have to expend more money at the onset, and that introduces an element of risk, because playoffs are never guaranteed no matter how much the owner spends (see Snyder, Daniel).

So, Ralph can have an almost guaranteed (albeit smaller) stream of income with a small initial investment. Or he can bet the farm on a less likely but slightly higher return by spending more on the onset. Whether you believe it or not, there is such a thing as a risk adverse investor. That's your fallacy. Ralph seems content to take the sure thing, even if the profit is smaller. And at this point, he has to have an awareness of his own lack of football prowess, which is an even bigger reason to go with the safe investment.

Whether you believe it or not, Ralph isn't content and all these made up theories are just exuses to pin the blame on an old owner. I guarentee there isn't one NFL owner in the league that considers himself a "risk adverse investory".

Again, your reasoning is only based on your opinion that the owner is 100% completely incapable of running a franchise. It's not even worth arguing with someone is so self absorbed in his own ideas that he attacks anybody's opinion that disagrees with his own no matter how wrong he could be.

[madness]

and as people become older they become more risk adverse. He's more concerned about keeping his money than he is about making money. That's exactly right and why the team sucks.

Now the Toronto deal makes sense.

[Typ0]

Now the Toronto deal makes sense.


exactly, there was zero risk...we play there and they give RW 75 million dollars.

[OpIv37]

Whether you believe it or not, Ralph isn't content and all these made up theories are just exuses to pin the blame on an old owner. I guarentee there isn't one NFL owner in the league that considers himself a "risk adverse investory".

Again, your reasoning is only based on your opinion that the owner is 100% completely incapable of running a franchise. It's not even worth arguing with someone is so self absorbed in his own ideas that he attacks anybody's opinion that disagrees with his own no matter how wrong he could be.

We don't need made up theories to put blame on the old owner. The team isn't winning. Period. Remember Truman's plaque? "The buck stops here." It's not my opinion that the owner is incapable of running a franchise. The results and the turmoil that this organization have had prove it.

There is no investor in the MODERN NFL who considers himself risk adverse. But Ralph bought this team almost 50 years ago, when he was a lot younger and it requires a much less substantial investment. Buying a football team is not a risk adverse thing to do, but holding onto an asset you've had for five decades is.

As far as your last statement- you are attacking me and not addressing the matter at hand. I won't respond to it.

[ddaryl]

if Ralph doesn't hire Cowher after the last 10 years of ineptness then what's to prove he isn't cheap when it comes to costs outside the salary cap.

and what's the use of upping the ticket prices if people would stop paying and going to the games because they can't afford it. He could raise prices but that owuld actually make him less money.

we need a bad ass in your face coach, with a proven track record of winning that can stick his foot up the players asses and get them to play at a high level.

[Typ0]

you don't need a big mouth to be successful as a coach. I know people can't stand the placidity of DJ but I like his approach. Professionals don't need to be yelled at to be motivated.

[OpIv37]

you don't need a big mouth to be successful as a coach. I know people can't stand the placidity of DJ but I like his approach. Professionals don't need to be yelled at to be motivated.

the Bills' play over the last 3 years suggests differently. Some people respond to that kind of emotion, some don't.

But it's frustrating to see no emotion from Dick Jauron whatsoever. The players get pumped, the fans get pumped and Jauron just stands there. He doesn't have to be a raving lunatic like Bobby Knight, but an occasional reaction to something that happens on the field (positive or negative) would be nice. Just something to show he cares, instead of this phony contemplating "I'm thinking so hard about this game that I can't even react- I'm already planing the next play" bull****.

[Typ0]

the Bills' play over the last 3 years suggests differently. Some people respond to that kind of emotion, some don't.



how?

[Nighthawk]

because the price sensitivity in the marketplace dictates that price increase will result in less profits due to lost sales...ie ticket sales will tank.

I HIGHLY doubt that ticket sales would decrease if he raised them. Tickey prices are pretty low and just raising them some would make a huge difference in profit.

[Typ0]

I HIGHLY doubt that ticket sales would decrease if he raised them. Tickey prices are pretty low and just raising them some would make a huge difference in profit.

The Toronto deal decreased season ticket prices two full priced games. Ticket prices are raised every year. How much do you propose prices are raised?

[OpIv37]

how?

seriously? You don't think players respond to emotion? You don't think players respond to being held accountable? You're just kidding yourself.

[PECKERWOOD]

That borders on a conspiracy theory, and I don't think any sane person truly believes it's that manipulative.

I think it works like this: Ralph wants to win, but he also wants to save money and maximize profits. So, he takes the cheap route hoping it will pay off. The mentality isn't "I'm going to spend X, and we'll get as far as spending that much will allow. Screw trying to win." The mentality is "X is what I have, how can we win with that amount?" It seems like semantics, but it's a different mentality behind it. He tries to find ways to win within a certain budget. It hasn't produced results on the field.

However, the team still makes money. The fans still buy tickets and merch. So, while Ralph's methods haven't worked yet, he doesn't have the economic incentive to change them. And that's why this team has remained mired in mediocrity.

Nobody would want to spend as much as the Steinbrenner's ~ unless you make as much as the Steinbrenner's.