Jeffery Littman

[trapezeus]

I disagree. I had the same thought about Darcy Reiger: "let's see how he does with Pegula's money and without Golisano's restrictions." Turns out Darcy was part of the problem and he flopped.

I want to see Pegula come in with a scorched earth policy. Everyone with blood on their hands for the debacle of the last 14 years is OUT. Brandon, Littman and Overdorf should be first on the chopping block. Unless the team completely tanks this year, I'd give Whaley and Marrone one more year because it takes about 3 years to rebuild if it's done right. But everyone above Whaley needs to be axed.

They've tried blows to the body and occasionally hacking an appendage to no avail. Time to cut off the head.

I think he's shown some level of being a strong guy with the cap. even bad deals have been able to come off t he books. there aren't too many legendarily bad deals on the books for buffalo. that expertise may not be easily replaced. but i think he would be looking at a demotion. and he might be old enough that that's ok with him.

I don't even want name people, i just want people who have had result elsewhere coming together to build a front office that has a vision of drafting well and supplementing with FA when the team is close. currently the team is run as a marketing departmant. No football acumen, a lot of prayers that some stories work out.

to not make the playoffs in 14 years when every other team has been at least once means that that they are the dumbest people on the face of the earth, or they willingly don't care. they just want to get their earnings, skim it off the top, and then leave the rest. that's not a good organization to work for. and the results show. i think we've all worked for that kind of company before and its sole sucking.

i think pegula knows that and addressed it with the sabres (learned some really hard lessons along the way about money not being the cure all) and will do the same with the bills if he is the owner.

[BLeonard]

If Littman had any hand whatsoever in Bill Polian being fired after the 1992 season, my vote is for "Should have fired him 22 years ago."

If Littman is fired and Polian stays, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that we wouldn't have had the past 15 years play out the way that they did. Hell, Polian might still be the GM today, meaning we would have never had to deal with Russ Brandon, at least in a NFL executive capacity.

Polian had an expansion team in the Conference Championship in it's second season and has one more Super Bowl ring than Ralph Wilson, Russ Brandon, Jim Overdorf and Jeff Littman combined... You could throw every member of the current Bills front office not named Doug Whaley into that statement and Polian would still have more Championships.

As far as "orchestrating the sale to Pegula," it takes 3 of the 4 trust members to approve the sale to anyone... Littman cannot do it without at least two other members approval. So, regardless, whoever ends up buying the team, no one member will be able to take full credit (or blame).

-Bill

[justasportsfan]

Russ is Ralph.

He runs the team exactly how Ralph did: with the bottom dollar driving every decision. Yes, he's a great businessman if making money is the only goal. But football teams also have the goal of winning.

Brandon said he stepped back from football operations: how do we know that's true? How do we know he won't butt in again the second a football decision costs too much?

You can't do the same thing over and over again and expect different results, and we've seen the results that Brandon gets.

ON the flipside , could you please show us proof that Brandon was in charge on any football decisions prior to him becoming CEO?

I could show your several examples where things have changed ever since Russ became CEO compared to when Ralph was still healthy.

Lets start with Russ hiring Marrone while Ralph hired retreads. It has also been reported the Pettine was paid a lot of money for a DC to come here.
Do you think Ralph would have traded up for Sammy and spend next years 1st pick to do so?

[jimmifli]

My opinion wouldn't change, but the reality is without a large increase in revenue or constant cash infusions by an owner this team has to be run on a cash to cap philosophy. It takes real money to pay the real expenses.

Cash to cap is irrelevant. It's a closed system and every dollar spent must be accounted for eventually (with the exception of the vet minimum exemption).

Ralph's problem were:
-coming up with the cash required to pay large signing bonuses.
-spending up to the cap
-spending on coaching

A new owner with deeper pockets has no problem with the signing bonuses, because it's identical money - just a different payment schedule. So that at least solves a portion of the problem. The other two are likely remain problems with any new owner -below cap spending and cheap coaches are here to stay unless the team can generate some extra revenue.

However, it isn't unreasonable to be a little optimistic.... looking at the reported profits, and comparing it to the money the Bills saved by spending less than the cap, it seems like a new owner could spend up to that cap and still break even, if he was so inclined. And paying a couple of coaches a competitive salary could be offset with a small increase in revenue (potentially from raising ticket prices). So it's not impossible to think that a new owner could spend to the cap, and pay coaches at least average salary without losing money.

That's my pipedream anyways.

[BLeonard]

Do you think Ralph would have traded up for Sammy and spend next years 1st pick to do so?

Well, if Brandon has "stepped back from football operations" as he claims, then he had nothing to do with trading up to draft Watkins anyway...

IMO, this is kinda the point OP's trying to make... You can't give Brandon credit for doing things like trading up for Watkins if you don't also saddle him with all of the negatives... Selling a game per season to Toronto immediately comes to mind, as does 14 seasons without a playoff appearance.

Finally, what if the Bills go 6-10 again, getting a top 10 pick, (that's been traded to Cleveland)? Is the trade up for Watkins still in Brandon's "good" column, then...?

-Bill

[OpIv37]

ON the flipside , could you please show us proof that Brandon was in charge on any football decisions prior to him becoming CEO?

I could show your several examples where things have changed ever since Russ became CEO compared to when Ralph was still healthy.

Lets start with Russ hiring Marrone while Ralph hired retreads. It has also been reported the Pettine was paid a lot of money for a DC to come here.
Do you think Ralph would have traded up for Sammy and spend next years 1st pick to do so?

I see Marrone as more of the same: he may not be a previous NFL HC, but he's still a cheap 2nd or 3rd tier guy. It's more of the same to me.

I don't know if Ralph would have traded up for Sammy, but different doesn't necessarily mean better. I'm glad we have Sammy but I don't think it was wise to give up next year's first for a WR when we have a questionable QB.

And I can give you examples of more of the same under Russ: for example, letting Byrd and Levitre walk while being way under the cap.

Given the results over Russ' tenure, I don't know why this is even a discussion.

[Night Train]

It's " Jeffrey "

[YardRat]

Cash to cap is irrelevant. It's a closed system and every dollar spent must be accounted for eventually (with the exception of the vet minimum exemption).

Ralph's problem were:
-coming up with the cash required to pay large signing bonuses.
-spending up to the cap
-spending on coaching

A new owner with deeper pockets has no problem with the signing bonuses, because it's identical money - just a different payment schedule. So that at least solves a portion of the problem. The other two are likely remain problems with any new owner -below cap spending and cheap coaches are here to stay unless the team can generate some extra revenue.

However, it isn't unreasonable to be a little optimistic.... looking at the reported profits, and comparing it to the money the Bills saved by spending less than the cap, it seems like a new owner could spend up to that cap and still break even, if he was so inclined. And paying a couple of coaches a competitive salary could be offset with a small increase in revenue (potentially from raising ticket prices). So it's not impossible to think that a new owner could spend to the cap, and pay coaches at least average salary without losing money.

That's my pipedream anyways.

Cash to cap is most certainly relevant, if you're trying to balance the bottom line without continuously pouring more of your own money into the team.

It costs real money to hire employees, pay salaries and benefits, turn the heat and lights on every day, etc. That money has to come from some revenue stream, and anybody with a half of a brain cell for finances knows it isn't a good business model to perpetually invest more and more individual dollars to bankroll an enterprise that can't stand on it's own two feet.

IMO you're dead on with the comment about needing more revenue, but off when stating deeper pockets will solve even part of the issue (maybe temporarily, short-term...maybe...but certainly not over any significant length of time), and off with the 'saving money by spending less than the cap' comment, unless you actually have the financials that show the cash-to-cap 'savings' weren't expended on other areas of the organization (like, as you mentioned, coaches salaries, but also all other salaries and benefits associated with the staff, front office, ticket-takers, medical personnel, etc etc)

It's too bad that all of those other expenses it takes to operate a professional football team aren't readily available, I think some people would be shocked to see how much money an owner needs to spend on other things other than player salaries.

[stuckincincy]

Cash to cap is most certainly relevant, if you're trying to balance the bottom line without continuously pouring more of your own money into the team.

It costs real money to hire employees, pay salaries and benefits, turn the heat and lights on every day, etc. That money has to come from some revenue stream, and anybody with a half of a brain cell for finances knows it isn't a good business model to perpetually invest more and more individual dollars to bankroll an enterprise that can't stand on it's own two feet.

IMO you're dead on with the comment about needing more revenue, but off when stating deeper pockets will solve even part of the issue (maybe temporarily, short-term...maybe...but certainly not over any significant length of time), and off with the 'saving money by spending less than the cap' comment, unless you actually have the financials that show the cash-to-cap 'savings' weren't expended on other areas of the organization (like, as you mentioned, coaches salaries, but also all other salaries and benefits associated with the staff, front office, ticket-takers, medical personnel, etc etc)

It's too bad that all of those other expenses it takes to operate a professional football team aren't readily available, I think some people would be shocked to see how much money an owner needs to spend on other things other than player salaries.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[YardRat]

lol...nice, cincy

[Historian]

**** Yardrat too!

[jimmifli]

Cash to cap is most certainly relevant, if you're trying to balance the bottom line without continuously pouring more of your own money into the team

I've been round and round this one a bunch of times, even Spike eventually capitulated. The cap is closed. All the money spent must be accounted for eventually, the only difference is in what year. Every dollar that gets paid to a player eventually ends up counting towards the cap. So choosing to pay roster bonuses instead of signing bonuses is just a change in the amortization of that expense.

In effect, if you spend over the cap in cash dollars in any season, you must spend under the cap in dollars in a future season. Cash to cap is irrelevant. Ralph spent less than the cap because he chose to spend less than the cap. For the most part though, over the long run he spent to the cap or over it.

I think the reason Ralph used the cash to cap, is that it helped smoothed expenses and allowed him to earn a steady predictable profit. I think he relied on that profit to pay for his lifestyle. An owner with other business income is unlikely to rely on the Bills for income and doesn't care of they make $0 in a year with a big signing bonus, and then $60 million the following season. Where as Ralph would have preferred 2 seasons @ $30 million. The problem being that it made us uncompetitive competing for free agents and resigning our own. That problem gets solved by deeper pockets with no effect on operating income.

It costs real money to hire employees, pay salaries and benefits, turn the heat and lights on every day, etc. That money has to come from some revenue stream, and anybody with a half of a brain cell for finances knows it isn't a good business model to perpetually invest more and more individual dollars to bankroll an enterprise that can't stand on it's own two feet.

The Bills have (reportedly) had positive net income for as long as I've been a Bills fan. They have cost certainty, and a large stream of guaranteed revenue. And most of all they have, as an NFL franchise, a decades long history of asset price accumulation that is exceptional. That sounds like a ****ing stellar business to me. It certainly stands on it's own feet.

Some will say ~$30 million isn't much return on a $1 billion dollars, and I'd agree. But that doesn't include the capital gains on sale. The recent sales have netted the previous owner between 10-15% CAGR adjusted for inflation. That's an exceptional return for such a low risk business.

IMO you're dead on with the comment about needing more revenue, but off when stating deeper pockets will solve even part of the issue (maybe temporarily, short-term...maybe...but certainly not over any significant length of time), and off with the 'saving money by spending less than the cap' comment, unless you actually have the financials that show the cash-to-cap 'savings' weren't expended on other areas of the organization (like, as you mentioned, coaches salaries, but also all other salaries and benefits associated with thestaff, front office, ticket-takers, medical personnel, etc etc)

year	cap	over/under cap
2001
2002	69	-2
2003	71	0
2004	80	8
2005	85	10
2006	102	-2
2007	109	-7
2008	116	23
2009	129	-2
2010	uncapped
2011	120	1

What that looks like to me is that they are targeting between $30-$35 million in profit and reducing payroll expenses in the lean years to reach that target. The only year that was far off was 2008, and it was followed by a couple of seasons of $40 million to pay back some of the missed earnings.

It's too bad that all of those other expenses it takes to operate a professional football team aren't readily available,

They are for Green Bay which gives us a reasonable base to make some assumptions. With total expenses of about $260 million, and player expenses of about $140 million, and a net income of about $40 million they spend about $80 million on non player expenses.

Compared to the Bills, with revenue of about $236 million, player expenses of about $121 million and net income of $41 million, they spend about $74 million on non-football expenses. Not much different really. But again, we spend a little less on players and a little less on non-player expenses, which is what I said previously.

I don't find that really surprising. If the new owner was comfortable taking home less than $40 million/year, the Bills could afford to pay the top coach's salary and top up the little bit under the cap they have been in recent years.