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. :wtf: :mad:

[X-Era]

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. :wtf: :mad:

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]

Clump/Eb/Ing?

[gr8slayer]

It is seriously time for Ralph to hang it up.

[L.A. Playa]

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]

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]

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]

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]

oh my its equal LOL

[RedEyE]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[mybills]

:dizzy:

[ICE74129]

All of you guys are missing one HUGE piece of the puzzle. Owners don't pay players salaries. The TV contracts do. 102-109 Cap number? Who cares? I remember the first time I heard this. Chris Spielman (an NFLPA Team rep at the time) had a lady calling in on this very issue with 'Don't you feel an obligation to the fans since we pay your salary'. LMAO Chris was like 'Fans don't pay my salary, TV contracts do'.

What small market owners lose is what they can pocket. What they have to do stadium upkeep, Staff salaries etc with. That is why I said again, Sell the naming rights! You can bring in 5 mill each year easy. Increase tickets slightly. Work with the county and state to fund a larger % of upkeep or something. Bottom line there is always something more than can reasonably be done.

[ICE74129]

PS From what I understand they created a 500Mill pool that the upper 15 teams have to contribute to in order to assist the lower 17 teams.

[Stewie]

you guys are funny... making up numbers, making up contract language, explaining things to each other, assuming everything, and calling ralph an idiot for reading a contract he's about to sign.

ahhh priceless

[RedEyE]

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.

I was thinking about this this morning as well. While your statement might be true in principal, we need the actual numbers to decide who is getting screwed and who is making out in the deal (if anyone).

Overhead in Dallas would obviously be more expensive then overhead in Buffalo. But there are also a lot of other things to consider. A team like Dallas will also have 5x the population allowing them to increase ticket prices to compensate for overhead costs. Also, local corporations will snatch up suites and box seats in greater preportions to what is to be had in Buffalo.

The numbers that we have used are skewed. We need the actual numbers to determine the outcome.

I think that small market teams only make like 5% of the NFL. If the numbers are so that small market teams are contributing like 30% of the total collected revenue, that's just not right. And the Bills are getting screwed.

[TigerJ]

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.

I think that's what I said, RedEye.

[RedEyE]

you guys are funny... making up numbers, making up contract language, explaining things to each other, assuming everything, and calling ralph an idiot for reading a contract he's about to sign.

ahhh priceless

Why not explain it to us then if you have all the answers? That's what I thought.

[Night Train]

Perception vs. Reality

Low-income teams say high-revenue teams should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in nonfootball income from things such as advertising and local radio rights.

Under the new deal, the bottom 17 teams in revenue will not contribute to the pool, which will be funded with the top five teams contributing the most; the second five less; and the third five less than them.

[TigerJ]

The new agreement does not favor the Bills IMO, but it may not doom them either. It may just squeeze Ralph's profit margin more than it squeezes Robert Craft's.

Give me a link, or show a source, Nighttrain and I might change my mind.

[Stewie]

Why not explain it to us then if you have all the answers? That's what I thought.

I never claimed to have the answers. Nor did I ever claim Ralph was an idiot. But you should keep assuming idiotic things, it seems to be working out for you.

[RedEyE]

The new agreement does not favor the Bills IMO, but it may not doom them either. It may just squeeze Ralph's profit margin more than it squeezes Robert Craft's.

That's precisely what I'm wondering.

[mybills]

I never claimed to have the answers.

I wish someone did.

[LtBillsFan66]

All of you guys are missing one HUGE piece of the puzzle. Owners don't pay players salaries. The TV contracts do. 102-109 Cap number? Who cares? I remember the first time I heard this. Chris Spielman (an NFLPA Team rep at the time) had a lady calling in on this very issue with 'Don't you feel an obligation to the fans since we pay your salary'. LMAO Chris was like 'Fans don't pay my salary, TV contracts do'.

What small market owners lose is what they can pocket. What they have to do stadium upkeep, Staff salaries etc with. That is why I said again, Sell the naming rights! You can bring in 5 mill each year easy. Increase tickets slightly. Work with the county and state to fund a larger % of upkeep or something. Bottom line there is always something more than can reasonably be done.
Fans watch the TV. The fans give TV networks the ratings they need to generate ad revenue. That ad revenue is needed to afford the NFL TV contracts. Companies buying the ads (eg beer, etc) need to make up the cost of buying the ads somehow. Those costs are passed on to the consumer, who most likely are the fans.

Speilman really said that? Did that neck injury hurt his brain too?

[LtBillsFan66]

The bottom line is small market teams are asked to pony up more of their measly local revenue than the big market teams. I bet overall, the large market teams are by and large keeping the small market teams afloat.

It's like corporate welfare. All the NFL is doing now is making the smaller market teams pay up some more. I don't see anything wrong with this.

It's like when liberals attack the conservatives for "favoring the rich" because millionaires pay less of a percent of their income as taxes even though given the smaller percentage paid, they are overwhelmingly paying more taxes.

[RedEyE]

I never claimed to have the answers. Nor did I ever claim Ralph was an idiot. But you should keep assuming idiotic things, it seems to be working out for you.

Nice. So you've resorted to name calling now as well? Paul I knew that you weren't one of the best posters on the board, but now you've just proven to me that you're one of the most ignorant as well.

Since the media has explained things so well (sarcasm) we are left to determine things for ourselves. Fact: Ralph Wilson voted against the current CBA configuration. Fact: you can criticize others but the plain truth is that you don't have the answers anymore than the rest of us do.

Do your own thing and we'll do ours. In the meantime, keep you childish insults to yourself.

[EricStratton]

This plan treats the NFL as one company with 32 parts instead of the baseball model of 32 separate companies.

It works and it keeps labor peace until 2011 and it keeps smaller teams afloat while still growing the league.

For the fans it's a win all around IMO.

[Stewie]

Good call on the tax analogy. The rich teams will pay more total dollars, even if the poor teams pay a higher percentage. I think that's fair.

In all honesty, Ralph has to know that he's not going to be around for the next agreement. This agreement will only have an affect on his estate's net worth. And I'm all for anything that will lower the net worth of the team so local investors are more inclined to keep it in Buffalo.

If the team costs a crazy amount of $$$, the new owner may have to justify his investment by moving to a bigger market.