I don't agree with Ralph Wilson here

[ghz in pittsburgh]

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8504227

Competitive balance is the key, not the profit balance. If the Cowboys make 100 million profit whereas the Bills make 10 million despite everyone working just as hard, so what? Remember the Cowboys cost more. Like investing, if you want to buy more profitable enterprises, they usually cost more.

The issue should be whether the more profitable teams can use their profit to gain/increase their competitive edge. That is what Wilson should make sure to prevent from happening. We have a salary cap for the players. How about making signing bonus guaranteed but paid out each year during the length of the contract and counted towards each year's cap whether or not that player is still with the team? That should prevent the wealthy clubs from giving out huge signing bonuses whereas the other clubs may have a cash flow problem for big signing bonuses. How about creating a cap for all coaches, scouts, training and medical stuffs so no one has an edge there?

So long as the money towards the team is capped the same everywhere, you ensure everyone has an equal chance in terms of player, coaches, support, which means same competitive edge. And the revenue sharing should be just to that level - make sure everyone can meet those caps. Anything on top of that is up to individual teams. Some teams market well or some executives work hard and smart, etc., as a result they get more revenues, they should be able to keep it.

[NJFINSFAN1]

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8504227

Competitive balance is the key, not the profit balance. If the Cowboys make 100 million profit whereas the Bills make 10 million despite everyone working just as hard, so what? Remember the Cowboys cost more. Like investing, if you want to buy more profitable enterprises, they usually cost more.

The issue should be whether the more profitable teams can use their profit to gain/increase their competitive edge. That is what Wilson should make sure to prevent from happening. We have a salary cap for the players. How about making signing bonus guaranteed but paid out each year during the length of the contract and counted towards each year's cap whether or not that player is still with the team? That should prevent the wealthy clubs from giving out huge signing bonuses whereas the other clubs may have a cash flow problem for big signing bonuses. How about creating a cap for all coaches, scouts, training and medical stuffs so no one has an edge there?

So long as the money towards the team is capped the same everywhere, you ensure everyone has an equal chance in terms of player, coaches, support, which means same competitive edge. And the revenue sharing should be just to that level - make sure everyone can meet those caps. Anything on top of that is up to individual teams. Some teams market well or some executives work hard and smart, etc., as a result they get more revenues, they should be able to keep it.
I can't argue with that!

[Gunzlingr]

Great post.

[Bill Brasky]

How about making signing bonus guaranteed but paid out each year during the length of the contract and counted towards each year's cap whether or not that player is still with the team?

I personally don't know why they never did that in the first place.

[mybills]

But who owns the team, you or Ralph? :snicker:

[wchutalkinboutwillis]

We have a salary cap for the players. How about making signing bonus guaranteed but paid out each year during the length of the contract and counted towards each year's cap whether or not that player is still with the team?

I think this already happens. Example: The player gets a $15mm signing bonus over 5 years. He gets the 15mm up front but it's pro-rated over 5 years for cap purposes. So if the player leaves after the 2nd year, he will still count 6mm cap for the first two years and an additional 9mm dead cap for the last 3. No? If you want to know for sure, ask Terrell Owe Me.

[clumping platelets]

If a player is no longer with a team, any signing bonus proration is immediately accelerated onto the cap. If released before June 1st, ALL remaining proration counts on THAT years cap. If released after June 1st, 1 yr proration counts on THAT years cap and the rest counts on the following years cap.

Using the above example of $15 million signing on 5 yr deal. It's prorated at $3 million per yr. If the player was released before June 1st in the 2nd yr of the deal, the rest of the proration, $12 million, counts immediately. That player will no longer count on future salary caps. If released after June 1st of the 2nd yr of the deal, 1 yr proration, or $3 million, counts on the cap and the rest, or $9 million, would count on the following yrs cap.

[clumping platelets]

To answer the question originally posed, it does matter. A team that has those resources can "buy" any player they want. They can structure contracts that allow them to corner the market on FAs because they have the upfront cash to do so. This revenue disparity could lead to a similiar situation as in baseball if they do not fix it

[djjimkelly]

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8504227

Competitive balance is the key, not the profit balance. If the Cowboys make 100 million profit whereas the Bills make 10 million despite everyone working just as hard, so what? Remember the Cowboys cost more. Like investing, if you want to buy more profitable enterprises, they usually cost more.

The issue should be whether the more profitable teams can use their profit to gain/increase their competitive edge. That is what Wilson should make sure to prevent from happening. We have a salary cap for the players. How about making signing bonus guaranteed but paid out each year during the length of the contract and counted towards each year's cap whether or not that player is still with the team? That should prevent the wealthy clubs from giving out huge signing bonuses whereas the other clubs may have a cash flow problem for big signing bonuses. How about creating a cap for all coaches, scouts, training and medical stuffs so no one has an edge there?

So long as the money towards the team is capped the same everywhere, you ensure everyone has an equal chance in terms of player, coaches, support, which means same competitive edge. And the revenue sharing should be just to that level - make sure everyone can meet those caps. Anything on top of that is up to individual teams. Some teams market well or some executives work hard and smart, etc., as a result they get more revenues, they should be able to keep it.



so a team like the new york teams that have 5 times the population market better then the bills. please i dont want to get into marketing theory i can if u want. the NFL is the main brand however each team for lack of better term for now is each style 32 of them if one style is not doing as well the company doesnt go down one of the other styles pick up the slack. once again read the article he isnt asking for total sharing hes suggesting fairness and equity. the brand called the COWBOYS wouldnt exist if it wasnt for the other 31 brands just like the brand buffalo bills wouldnt exist of it wasnt for the other 31 teams.

look we as bills fans im from toronto but i do hope the niagara region picks up for the bills sake. its a shame a place like bethleham steel had to leave and countless others. i dont think ralphs views is what u should be critising it should be your local politicians who dont have the vision to entice large corporation to come to the area with tax breaks and so on to give the community a boost. u know u give some large company tax breaks for lets say 10-20 years that brings in 10000 new jobs that 10,00 jobs creates another 20,000 that are support business's and so on.

its actually quite sad the buffalo area hasnt tried this approach like other area of the country have adopted.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

To answer the question originally posed, it does matter. A team that has those resources can "buy" any player they want. They can structure contracts that allow them to corner the market on FAs because they have the upfront cash to do so. This revenue disparity could lead to a similiar situation as in baseball if they do not fix itWell put. In addition, one of the things that R.Wilson has pointed out as a problem is that teams with a lot of income can better afford to pay the up-front bonus money when signing their players. It's not about the salary cap--where that money is pro-rated--but about short-term cash-flow: signing a couple of players to contracts with large signing bonuses that have to be paid out immediately can tie up a lot of a small market team's revenue creating short-term cash-flow problems for the owners--a problem that would only get worse as the amount of the salary cap increases as more money is allocated to the players in a new CBA. A D.Snyder or J.Jones doesn't have to worry if he has to pay out $ 40 million in signing bonuses to draft choices and a couple of premium FAs in a year because his team generates so much cash that this amounts to a manageable percentage of income, whereas this could create a serious cash-flow problem for a team with only a $ 160 million income in a year where the salary cap was say $90 million and the team had other expenses to pay. Ultimately, it would preclude the smaller market teams from being able to compete with the richer teams to sign players as signing bonuses escalate in proportion to the increases in the salary cap. And, lack of profitability--the fact that small market teams would have to expend a greater percentage of their income in order to operate and continue to be competitive--would ultimately cause greater instability in the league by making the moving of franchises more attractive to owners of small market teams, which could undermine interest in the overall product.

As the article states, R.Wilson isn't looking for all of the teams to make the same amount of money, but to make enough to be able to remain competitive. And, as P.Tagiabue has stated, this should be something that they can work out.

[don137]

Another point is low revenue teams are not able to corner the coaching and office positions with big names...If Buffalo and Washington needed a head coach there is no way Ralph would be able to compete with Snyder for a coach. The same goes for getting the assistant coaches. There is no cap for the coaching staff so the high revenue teams simply outbid for the rest of the league for the a coach (i.e. Spurrier went to Washington, Parcells went to Dallas because they were offered a ton of money). Small market teams meanwhile have to hire re-tread coaches or first time coaches.

[The_Philster]

In 1998, the Buffalo Bills were feeling pretty good about their financial future.
A renovated stadium, more luxury seating and a new 15-year lease with Erie County created more revenue streams while cutting down on team operating expenses.

But just as a turnover can quickly change the outcome of a game, so too can steady growth in the National Football League change Buffalo's ability to compete against larger market rivals. In the past 10 years, 13 new arenas have been built in the NFL and four more are planned...more (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/bills/2005-05-27-wilson-revenue-sharing_x.htm)