Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

[Bill Brasky]

How the hell do HIGH revenue teams only have to contribute 10% while LOW revenue teams contribute upwards of 50%?

Does ANYBODY understand this, I certainly don't.

[X-Era]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

How the hell do HIGH revenue teams only have to contribute 10% while LOW revenue teams contribute upwards of 50%?

Does ANYBODY understand this, I certainly don't.

Well lets take a look for sec at another sport.

Im pretty sure that the NY Yankees had 120 mil in salary at one point and the Expos had 12 mil.

Now, 50% of 12mil = 6 mil
10% of 120 mil = 12 mil

So which team is paying more?

Im sure its not that big of a discrepancy in the NFL, but you get the point.

[Devin]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

Clump/Eb/Ing?

[gr8slayer]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

It is seriously time for Ralph to hang it up.

[L.A. Playa]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

It costs less to do business in small markets like Buffalo, ie. local employees can be paid less in Bufalo than a large market. This allows Buffalo to havea lower overhead cost.

This means that Buffalo will have a larger profit than a larger market where the cost of doing business is more, I am sure it is based on the local economics of each city and thats where the high and low %'s come into place

[TigerJ]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

I assume you're talking about so called "local revenue." I don't know, but I assume the way to do that is have a flat charge: the first X amount of dollars of local revenue goes to the union. If your local revenue is twice that amount, the charge is 50%. If it's ten times that amount, your charge is 10%. Although I generally take the side of the small market teams in this, there are some things Ralph can do to increase his local revenue, like not have the stadium named after himself.

[L.A. Playa]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

they probably went by profit margins on operating costs rather than revenue, there is a huge difference between revenue and profit, so I would assume being smart men they negotiated the local revenue as a profit margin rather than just taking into consideration the revenue

[Meathead]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

ok either im totally looking at this wrong or you guys are reeeally stupid lmao

lets say each team has to contribute $50 a year to the league

team a collects $100 per year in "local" revenue

team b collects $500 per year in local revenue

that means team a contributes 50% of their revenue while team b contributes 10%

now who gets the big duuh?

[L.A. Playa]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

oh my its equal LOL

[RedEyE]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

I think you guys are looking at this all wrong. Using Meathead's #'s:

Team A collects $100 total revenue for the year shelling out 50% of it's profits leaving them holding only $50.


Team B collected a $500 in total profits, giving back only 10%, leaving them still holding $450.oo


While keeping in mind that the salary cap is still in place, team A is being penalized for surviving in a small market.

Team B is therefore rewarded and has more money to accomplish more things to premote more business which in turn will ignite more revenue.

Team A, or the Buffalo Bills are being set up for failure.

[RedEyE]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

On top of that, the salary cap has been increased a substantial amount. The Bills are now forced to shell out more of their revenue to meet CBA standards as well as shell out more to qualify to compete in the league's Free Agency.

[LtBillsFan66]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

ok either im totally looking at this wrong or you guys are reeeally stupid lmao

lets say each team has to contribute $50 a year to the league

team a collects $100 per year in "local" revenue

team b collects $500 per year in local revenue

that means team a contributes 50% of their revenue while team b contributes 10%

now who gets the big duuh?

Exactly.

[RedEyE]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

Allow me to put it into different terms.

Let's say that LA Playa, Thurm and myself all agree on combining our company's to make a larger, single entity.

Thrum's portion of the company is worth only $200

My company is worth just around $500

While Playa's company pulls in around $800

Combined we are worth $1500.oo

In order for the comnbined company to stay afloat, each of us must contribute a portion of revenue. The total revenue needed is $230.oo.

The 3 of us hold a meeting and put the following to a vote:

The smaller of the 3 companies must contribute 50% earnings

While the other two divisions need only contribute 10% earnings.

Playa = (80)

Red = (50)

Thrum = (100)

What do you think Thrum's vote will be in this scenerio?

What will Playa and Red most likely vote?

Now if Thurm complains, Playa bites back "If you can't hold up your end of the bargain, we know a larger company in another city that can easily contribute. Buy in or buy out?!"

[Bill Brasky]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

at least red eye and myself are on the same page...

it might equal out in perctages, but as far as having expendable income, Buffalo is basically being left for dead.

i don't know how this passed by a 30-2 vote.

[L.A. Playa]

Re: Maybe I'm as dumb as Ralph Wilson, but...

Allow me to put it into different terms.

Let's say that LA Playa, Thurm and myself all agree on combining our company's to make a larger, single entity.

Thrum's portion of the company is worth only $200

My company is worth just around $500

While Playa's company pulls in around $800

Combined we are worth $1500.oo

In order for the comnbined company to stay afloat, each of us must contribute a portion of revenue. The total revenue needed is $230.oo.

The 3 of us hold a meeting and put the following to a vote:

The smaller of the 3 companies must contribute 50% earnings

While the other two divisions need only contribute 10% earnings.

Playa = (80)

Red = (50)

Thrum = (100)

What do you think Thrum's vote will be in this scenerio?

What will Playa and Red most likely vote?

Now if Thurm complains, Playa bites back "If you can't hold up your end of the bargain, we know a larger company in another city that can easily contribute. Buy in or buy out?!"

but because of where the companies are located and costs to opereat in those regions vary lest say it costs

Thurm $50 to operate

Red $ 400 to operate

Playa $ 670 to operate

so bottom line

Thurm $200 revenue - $100 revenue sharing - $50 operatings costs = $50 profit

Red $500 revenue - $50 revenue sharing - $400 operating costs = $ 50 profit

Playa $ 800 revenue - $80 revenue sharing - $670 operating costs = $50 profit

Accountants, lawyers, janitors, etc etc etc , get paid more in places like NY and Boston than they do in Buffalo and Cincinnatti, so though smallere cities such as Buffalo have smallere revenues they also have smaller operating costs. None of us know the exact specifics but just know none of these owners will be homeless anytime soon.