Skins writer takes a shot at Ralph

[ICE74129]

http://redskins.scout.com/2/519169.html
OUCH!

[Slim]

That guys a douchebag. Although he does bring up some decent points... But hes making fun of an old man. He has no balls.

[Voltron]

easy for him to say when washington has one of the highest ticket prices in the league.

[OpIv37]

what a crock of ****.

First, the CBA means that if teams like the Skins and Cowboys increase their revenue, teams like Buffalo that can't increase their revenue will have still have to pay higher player salaries, so we're ****ed.

Second, the Skins have the highest ticket and parking prices in the NFL, keep people from walking from the metro and nearby shopping plazas to the stadium so they have to pay for parking, and they tried to charge for training camp. Snyder's greed is well documented.

[OpIv37]

I'm in class right now and I can't put my full concentration into it, but as soon as I get out of here I'm going to send this guy an email and post it here. I'm gonna tear this guy a new one.

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

That might just be the dumbest article I have read in a long time. I don't think that guy has a clue.

[DMBcrew36]

Ok, before people get angry, this guy has the intelligence of a 3rd grader. For instance, "04.11.06--Unahppy that the subsidy check that NFL owners will be writing out to him doesn't have enough zeroes in it, Ralph Wilson is quesitoning Daniel Snyder's "values". He has no credibility - he can't even spell...

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

Ok, before people get angry, this guy has the intelligence of a 3rd grader. For instance, "04.11.06--Unahppy that the subsidy check that NFL owners will be writing out to him doesn't have enough zeroes in it, Ralph Wilson is quesitoning Daniel Snyder's "values". He has no credibility - he can't even spell...


The real question is doesn't that qualify him to be a Billszone writer?
:couch:

[OpIv37]

here is what I wrote


Mr. Tandler,

I am a Bills fan from the Buffalo area who now lives in the DC area, and I am writing to inform you that your article from 4/11 entitled "Bills Wilson Enlists Allies vs. Snyder" is completely off base.

First, you accuse Ralph Wilson of being greedy. But you fail to acknowledge that Snyder's Skins have both largest seating capacity AND highest ticket prices in the NFL, that Snyder does not allow people to walk up to the stadium so people have to pay the parking fee (also, I believe, the most expensive in the NFL), and that Snyder tried to charge fans to watch training camp (which is free in every other NFL city). Snyder's greed is well-documented.

But let's move away from the name-calling and accusations. The fact is that when it comes to television ratings, selling out games and merch sales, Buffalo can compete with the best of them. Do you think most NFL teams could sell 70,000 tickets in a snowstorm at the tail end of a 5-11 season? The Bills did, and they did it in an economically depressed city a fraction of the size of DC.

Keeping a salary cap is generally good for small market teams- that is correct. The problem is that the new CBA sets the salary cap at a percentage of the NFL's revenue. So when Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones get naming rights and luxury box revenue, it INCREASES what smaller team owners like Ralph Wilson have to pay to players WITHOUT increasing their revenue. This means the surplus between revenues and player salaries gets smaller for Wilson while Jones, Snyder and Kraft get richer and richer. (Buffalo could do the same, but given the state of the area, there is no way Buffalo's revenue could ever approach larger cities in these areas. The money just isn't there).

And you also missed the point on the "conventional wisdom" thing. The reason Americans like football is because it's more competitive than the other major sports. And the reason for that is the NFL's least favorite term: "salary cap parity". Every team has a chance and no team can stay on top for too long. That gives every fan hope that fans of other sports do not always have for their teams. The salary cap has gone a HUGE way towards the success of the NFL.

In addition, you overvalued the Bills. According to Forbes Magazine in 2005, they were worth $708 million, not $800 million (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/301765.html). Ralph Wilson is 88. He would have to pay a huge capital gains tax on a sale, then his family would have to pay the estate tax on it when he dies. So selling isn't as simple an option as you make it sound.

Please, do a little research before you write a scathing article. The large market owners like Snyder ARE hurting the small-market owners like Wilson, and in the long run this is bad for the league and the game as a whole.

Sincerely,

OpIv37 (of course I sent him my real name)

[DMBcrew36]

good job Op... you hit the nail on the head

[OpIv37]

thanks

[Bill Brasky]

very nice write up OP! :up:

[Iehoshua]

Good work! Stick it to those Deadskin losers!

[Mr. Pink]

Nicely done Op. :posrep:

[Mr. Miyagi]

Nice email Op, but I was looking forward to you tearing this guy a new one. :(


Mr. Tandler,

$#^%$# you mother #@!%$#@ #$@#@%. You better watch your %$#@^%$# ass when you walk down the ^%$#@ street because I'm a $#@%$#@ Bills fan living in DC and you're a %$#@%^$# dead man. Call your %$#@$# family to say ^%$&^% goodbye right now you %$#@$#@^%$&^%$&^$ scumbag horse#@%$#^%$ of a %$#@!%#%@ writer.

#@%$# you,

Mr. Miyagi

[The_Philster]

Nice letter, Op :up:

[Turf]

You all realize now that all we're going to hear from the TV announcers before every game is Ralph's comments about being a small market. It certainly doesn't help Buffalo's stigma.

[don137]

Great job Op. The big revenue owners do not care about the league only there team and revenue. They could care less if there is a team in Buffalo or LA. The only tradition they care about is watching there pocket books swell.

[Voltron]

Nice Job Op! That was easier to read than the article :D

[Earthquake Enyart]

OpIv37 is your real name? :huh:

[justasportsfan]

here is what I wrote:bf1:

[EricStratton]

I'm a bit concerned about you Op. You wrote a great email but lacked the fire you usually have.

is Dora holding out or something?

[OpIv37]

I'm a bit concerned about you Op. You wrote a great email but lacked the fire you usually have.

is Dora holding out or something?

I was trying to be civil to get a response. I'm writing back to him now and I'll post both his and my responses in a second.

[OpIv37]

The fact that you disagree with the conclusions of the article and my opinions does not mean that it wasn't well researched or factually incorrect. I defy you to point out a single factual error.

I did not say that Ralph Wilson was greedy. He's just whining.

I suppose that when you go into a car dealership and they charge you every dime you're willing to pay for a new car, they're being greedy. And when you go into the grocery store and that store owner prices his bread at the maximum price the market will bear, he's being greedy. Dan Snyder is just pricing his product at what the market will bear. Yeah, it's expensive, but it's called capitalism.

And you can blame those greedy players, not Snyder, for insisting that the luxury box revenue and the like be factored in to the salary cap.

I did look up the Forbes valuation of the Bills, but I've also seen the $800 million figure floated around, particularly if the team was bought to move to LA.

And if you counted in the debt payoff and the various taxes that you mention, Snyder's net worth in the Redskins is worth much, much less than the net value that Wilson has in the Bills (as it should be, given Wilson's long-term ownership).

Look, I hope the Bills can stay in Buffalo. You're obviously an intelligent person, and you know darn well that the reasons that the Bills may have to move have much, much more to do with the economy of the region that has been deteriorating for decades than they do with Danier Snyder or Jerry Jones. The NFL, like virtually every other business out there, has changed in the past ten years or so. The quicker Wilson quits complaining to Congress and the press about it and starts figuring out a way to make things in the new NFL world work in Buffalo the better off the Bills will be.

<<Please, do a little research before you write a scathing article. The large market owners like Snyder ARE hurting the small-market owners like Wilson, and in the long run this is bad for the league and the game as a whole. >>

Again, your conclusion is your opinion. The fact that my research led to different conclusions than you have does not invalidate the research. If you want to disagree with me, fine, that's why I put my email on the top of my articles. But I take exception to being accused of just making stuff up out of thin air.

Maybe you'll feel a little better about it if you read John Clayton's article. He's certainly never been accused of being a Dan Snyder apologist.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2403502&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab5pos1

Thanks for writing,

Rich Tandler

And my response:


Thanks for taking the time to respond.

After re-reading, you did not say that Ralph was greedy. You did say that he was envious, but I have to agree that it's probably true.

The thing about football is that it's not a purely capitalist venture. There is an element of loyalty that exists amongst the fans. If a local car dealership stops honoring warranties, or if a local bakery starts selling stale bread, customers stop going there and the shops will soon close. But football fans continue to watch games, buy tickets, and buy merch even when their team is down. I've seen it in both Washington and Buffalo- of course both teams make more money when they're doing well, but both teams also have a hardcore fan base that does not go away due to poor performance. Maybe this is idealistic, but it seems unfair that owners operate by purely capitalist principles while the fans clearly have a different view of the relationship.

And yes, the greedy players are the ones who came up with the CBA, but you can bet it never would have happened if Snyder and Jones didn't think it it was in their best interest. At some point they have to realize that what's good for their individual team is not necessarily good for the league, and their teams' future is tied to the league's future.

Do you have a reference for the $800 million value of the team? This has been a hot topic in the last week or so- any information is helpful.

Thanks again for the response.

[chernobylwraiths]

Nice email Op, but I was looking forward to you tearing this guy a new one. :(

:rofl: Nice!

[Mr. Miyagi]

You're going way soft on the :curse: Op.

Time to really rip him a new one. :chuk:

[dplus47]

And my response:

nice response, Op. good observation about football and capitalism, complete with fitting analogies! well thought...

[LifetimeBillsFan]

nice response, Op. good observation about football and capitalism, complete with fitting analogies! well thought...

I agree. Excellent work in both of these emails OP!!! You hit all the right points.

Something that has gone out of fashion in recent years as the concept that unfettered capitalism and "market forces" are good and should be encouraged has become increasingly popular is the concept of the "Social Contract"--the notion that the individuals, businesses and institutions in a society are bound together by covenant that requires that all should give something back to the society that allows them to prosper. While the notion that we might owe something to society may seem odious to some and has been unfairly branded as "socialism" (which it is not!) by some, the "Social Contract" is a concept that our country was founded on.

While the NFL and its franchises are, indeed, capitalist ventures, their affiliation with cities and regions across the country are greater than those of most businesses with the communities that they are based in. Whether the NFL and its owners like it or not, there is a covenant between the teams and their home cities and localities. The team have no qualms about selling the image of their home towns when it suits them ("Da Bears" big and bad; the Steelers, tough as steel; Green Bay, the "Frozen Tundra", etc.) and are interwoven not just economically, but socially into the fabric of them. The league and its teams prosper because of this and, I would argue, owe something to them. Guys like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder have a hard time seeing this. But, that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to ignore it.

What Tandler says about the Buffalo area economy is largely true. I've railed about the failure of the area's political and business leaders to address the problems over the last 30 years. But, when many of the now prosperous cities and NFL teams in them were struggling and Buffalo and the Bills were prosperous, Ralph Wilson and the Bills did not abandon or make things worse for them--Wilson went so far as to secretly infuse the Raiders with cash and players to keep them alive and in Oakland, he shared revenues when Denver and the Titans couldn't fill a high school field with paying customers. He and the fans in Buffalo who supported his team and helped to make the NFL what it is fulfilled their part of the covenant. And, if the NFL wants to continue to be successful, owners like Snyder, Jones, Bowlen, Kraft and Johnson are going to have to fulfill theirs. The one thing about economics is that economic trends are constantly shifting and cities that are now propering can, in a couple of decades, become economically depressed. It wouldn't take much for half of the cities in the NFL to change places with Buffalo in the next 20 years. The money that their franchises give to keep the Bills competitive in Buffalo today may very well serve to keep their teams competitive in their own cities in the future.

If Tandler writes you back, Op, you might want to point that out to him--in your own, much more succinct and readable way.

[Historian]

Something that has gone out of fashion in recent years as the concept that unfettered capitalism and "market forces" are good and should be encouraged has become increasingly popular is the concept of the "Social Contract"--the notion that the individuals, businesses and institutions in a society are bound together by covenant that requires that all should give something back to the society that allows them to prosper. While the notion that we might owe something to society may seem odious to some and has been unfairly branded as "socialism" (which it is not!) by some, the "Social Contract" is a concept that our country was founded on.


Amen to that.




Why aren't you writing for us, Op?

[OpIv37]

Amen to that.




Why aren't you writing for us, Op?


grad school. But I'm done in May, so I might be able to work something out for the upcoming season....

[OpIv37]

If Tandler writes you back, Op, you might want to point that out to him--in your own, much more succinct and readable way.

thanks- so far he hasn't written back, but if he does I'll get the point across to him.

[Voltron]

While the notion that we might owe something to society may seem odious to some and has been unfairly branded as "socialism" (which it is not!) by some, the "Social Contract" is a concept that our country was founded on.
:offtopic:

OK I don't want to get too political but the act of taking money from one group and redistributing it to another group is the definition of socialism!

Our Country was NOT founded on the concept of a social contract. If it were then it wouldn't have taken an amendment to the constitution over 150 years later to enact an income tax. HELLO ... McFly ... what the heck was the Boston Tea party all about??? TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! So when the framers wrote the constitution they made sure that the average citizen (meaning land owner back then) was not taxed by the Government at all.
<o:p> </o:p>
We change laws in this country every day of the year… but one law that will never change is the law of Supply and Demand because it is not based on any politics. It is based on consumption. <o:p></o:p>

[dplus47]

:offtopic:

OK I don't want to get too political but the act of taking money from one group and redistributing it to another group is the definition of socialism!

Our Country was NOT founded on the concept of a social contract. If it were then it wouldn't have taken an amendment to the constitution over 150 years later to enact an income tax. HELLO ... McFly ... what the heck was the Boston Tea party all about??? TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! So when the framers wrote the constitution they made sure that the average citizen (meaning land owner back then) was not taxed by the Government at all.
<o:p> </o:p>
We change laws in this country every day of the year… but one law that will never change is the law of Supply and Demand because it is not based on any politics. It is based on consumption. <o:p></o:p>

ayn rand, is that you?

sincerely,


not karl marx

[Voltron]

ayn rand, is that you?

sincerely,


not karl marx
Wow you have been saving that up for weeks! :eek:


I am not saying that I don't care about others. What I am saying is that I would rather have the personal choice of what cause to donate to then having my money forcefully taken from me and made to give to causes that I don’t support. ... I am a member of NPR in my area. At the same time I am forced to give again thru taxes. Why am I forced to support something? I already support it with out having to take it from me.

[dplus47]

Wow you have been saving that up for weeks! :eek:


I am not saying that I don't care about others. What I am saying is that I would rather have the personal choice of what cause to donate to then having my money forcefully taken from me and made to give to causes that I don’t support. ... I am a member of NPR in my area. At the same time I am forced to give again thru taxes. Why am I forced to support something? I already support it with out having to take it from me.

i haven't been saving anything. i just have a good memory. it would really surprise me if it has been weeks since the marx post. maybe 1 week, if that.

anyway, i see your point to an extent, but there are certain things that we need to pay for collectively, such as interstate highways and transportation infrastructure (e.g. air traffic controllers, traffic signals, etc). usually, when people look at the taxes taken from them as a form of "socialism," they are angered that a portion of the money goes to schools or organizations such as NPR, but they don't care that most of their money goes to companies such as lockheed martin, GE, and raytheon through the defense budget.

my view is, if they're taking our money anyway, i'd rather see some of it back as a public benefit. as americans, we tend to look down on people in other countries who actually get something out of the taxes they pay. most of the other first-world nations get a lot more than we do, yet we have the biggest pool of tax money. what is it we're getting again? protection?

[dplus47]

bottom line, ON TOPIC, i see what Op is saying with regard to the bills' responsibility toward the people of buffalo. yes, the team would be worth more money in LA, but the team is a big part of the community. the people of the community (and the entire surrounding area) have supported the bills through thick and thin. i liked Op's analogy about buying stale bread. the people are buying the stale bread because it's THEIR bread.

i don't agree that pure market thinking works in this situation, and i tend to believe that pure market views are just as idealistic as pure socialism. one fails to take people into account as anything more than individuals, and the other fails to take people into account as anything more than a collective that somehow acts rationally.

[HHURRICANE]

You all realize now that all we're going to hear from the TV announcers before every game is Ralph's comments about being a small market. It certainly doesn't help Buffalo's stigma.

BINGO!!

[OpIv37]

in case anyone cares, he never wrote back.

Since I responded to him, I've read several other articles that had the Bills valued at only $600 million. Forbes said $708 M and I provided the link- he never sent in a source for the $800 million number that he used in his article.

So until I get some verification, I'm going to have to believe he pulled that number out of his ass to enhance his point.