Is Ralph Cheap?

[Meathead]

and please no pinching

[StraightJ]

Anyone care to give any reasoning for their votes either way(although it's all one sided now). I think Ralph contacted Ron Paul's campaign directors for this one. ;)
J

[ricogarion]

He may just be tired of throwing good money after bad free agents.

[Woody]

The dude comes from a day and age where getting the most value for your money was the thing to do. :niterider

[dasaybz]

is Ralph cheap?

Who gives a shit?

It's game time bitches!!!!

:beerme:

[Meathead]

this is interesting

usually when i post football related polls both here and at bfz they come out very similar. the politics polls are a different story but when it comes to sports theyre pretty much the same percentages all the way through

this time however it started out completely opposite. here most of the early pollers said ralph wasnt cheap but there it was heavily weighted that he was - both were around 80% after 12 or so votes

now theyve both turned sharply the other way and now are both much closer to fitty percent

just a voting anomaly that i now see was a lot more interesting in my mind before i typed it all out :sadwalk:

[bv]

I don't blame Wilson for being cheap after making people like Mike Williams multi millionares. That situation is a disgrace and what is wrong with the NFL today. Hopefully it won't happen again.

[The Chosen]

I prefer to think of Ralph as frugle.

[notacon]

No.

All the facts are here for the whole world to see...

USA TODAY's football salaries database (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspx)

I asked Spiked (the premier promoter of the propaganda about Mr Wilson) the following questions...I challenge ANYONE to do the research and back up the assertion that spending = winning and not spending = losing...

16 teams have never won a Super Bowl...are they all in the bottom half of spending?

6 teams have never even been to a Super Bowl...are they all at the bottom of spending?

10 teams have won Super Bowls since the Bills lost in 1994...did all of those teams spend considerably more than the rest of the league?...did all those teams spend more than the Bills over the same period of time?

If you want to make an argument that Mr Wilson's spending is the reason for the Bills lack of success then give us the facts to back up your reasoning.

[d1220]

No.

All the facts are here for the whole world to see...

USA TODAY's football salaries database (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspx)

I asked Spiked (the premier promoter of the propaganda about Mr Wilson) the following questions...I challenge ANYONE to do the research and back up the assertion that spending = winning and not spending = losing...

16 teams have never won a Super Bowl...are they all in the bottom half of spending?

6 teams have never even been to a Super Bowl...are they all at the bottom of spending?

10 teams have won Super Bowls since the Bills lost in 1994...did all of those teams spend considerably more than the rest of the league?...did all those teams spend more than the Bills over the same period of time?

If you want to make an argument that Mr Wilson's spending is the reason for the Bills lack of success then give us the facts to back up your reasoning.

I usually do not post a lot anymore, but after looking at your link, I felt compelled to respond. Look at the total payroll for 2006, and see who is at the bottom of the list. How did those teams fare last year? I am not criticizing you or the team, but the facts are that the majority at the bottom of the list did not have the greatest of years in 2006. You can talk about the past as much as you want, it still does not change the present.

[SpikedLemonade]

I usually do not post a lot anymore, but after looking at your link, I felt compelled to respond. Look at the total payroll for 2006, and see who is at the bottom of the list. How did those teams fare last year? I am not criticizing you or the team, but the facts are that the majority at the bottom of the list did not have the greatest of years in 2006. You can talk about the past as much as you want, it still does not change the present.

Of course you are right.

The bottom 4 in total salary for 2006:

(29)Kansas City Chiefs $ 81,748,009
(30)Buffalo Bills $ 80,924,316
(31)Tampa Bay Buccaneers $ 78,779,519
(32)Oakland Raiders $ 71,822,140

[notacon]

I usually do not post a lot anymore, but after looking at your link, I felt compelled to respond. Look at the total payroll for 2006, and see who is at the bottom of the list. How did those teams fare last year? I am not criticizing you or the team, but the facts are that the majority at the bottom of the list did not have the greatest of years in 2006. You can talk about the past as much as you want, it still does not change the present.

You cannot cherry pick the facts.

2006 season Indy was #1 in spending and the Bills were #30.

In 2005, Indy was #23 and the Bills were #17.

In 2006 #2 was the Vikings...#7 was Houston...#11 was Arizona...#24 was Chicago...#25 was New Orleans...#12 was New England.

So...the four teams that were in the AFC and NFC Championship games...two were in the bottom half of spending and two were in the upper half. Two Super Bowl teams...one in the upper half and one in the bottom half.

You will find this kind of result in any way you look at the facts. Spending does not = winning...not spending does not = losing.

Look at the overall picture for several years and answer the questions.

The result is that spending has nothing to do with success or failure in the NFL

[notacon]

BTW...there are two categories that the Bills are ALWAYS at the bottom...

ALWAYS the lowest ticket prices....almost always close to the bottom of total team revenue.

[d1220]

You cannot cherry pick the facts.

2006 season Indy was #1 in spending and the Bills were #30.

In 2005, Indy was #23 and the Bills were #17.

In 2006 #2 was the Vikings...#7 was Houston...#11 was Arizona...#24 was Chicago...#25 was New Orleans...#12 was New England.

So...the four teams that were in the AFC and NFC Championship games...two were in the bottom half of spending and two were in the upper half. Two Super Bowl teams...one in the upper half and one in the bottom half.

You will find this kind of result in any way you look at the facts. Spending does not = winning...not spending does not = losing.

Look at the overall picture for several years and answer the questions.

The result is that spending has nothing to do with success or failure in the NFL

I agree with you to a certain extent. But looking at the rosters for a team like the Colts, for example. Had they not spent the money between 2005 and 2006, many of those players would not have been retained, and may have resulted in a different record. But again, it's all projection. I think an argument can be made both ways.

[camian]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

Quoting statistics on this board is pointless. Statistics can be twisted many different ways to support any argument. It's like saying Holcomb is a top 10 QB ;)

That being said, I support your claim that the tie between spending and winning is very loose at best.

[Victor7]

He's not cheap, but he's not "splendid" either

[jwenger]

He's not cheap, but he's not "splendid" either

Yeah, I have to agree with that. When he bought the team it was $25 GRAND. I would say he has a very high appreciating business. He is OK with spending,but seems to spend in spurts and won't pony up for certain guys that will help the team and overspending on other guys who suck. He is probably getting advice from people around him who aren't the best talent advisors in the league. Oh well, it is what it is. I'm glad we had a guy like Ralph who brought pro football to us. Thanks Ralph. :bigasskiss:

[FamousAmos]

I said he isn't cheap because of the low ticket prices (relative) and how he has paid good money to free agents like Spikes and Dockery, gave big money to Mike Williams, and brought in Drew Bledsoe when the club needed a shot in the arm. Remeber the party when Bledsoe arrived?

However, he doesn't usually shell out a lot for coaches (Triple G Gregg Williams, Mularkey, Jauron) so the argument could go both ways.

[rob on the job]

Is Ralph frugal? Probably.

Is Dan Snyder a spendthrift? Yeah.

Who looks like the bigger idiot: the cheap guy or the guy who throws around money like Travis Henry throws around spermatoza?

[shotgun]

he's realy ****ing cheep looka at our payroll

[travolta]

i agree, you can't buy a team - see redskins

at least keep up with the cap. when the cap goes up, add to the player payroll or you will not compete. if you do compete, it will be short lived because you will lose your best players to FA.

the bills pretty much sucked from 1970-1989. bill polian (ralph fired because polian didn't respect ralph's daughter as a scout) convinced ralph to spend some money on talent. ralph spent more money on players than ever and we went to 4 superbowls. i am sure that 1990-1995 were the bill's most profitable years ever.

donohoe didn't work out, so ralph reverts back to his loser attitude of 1970-1989. what are the odds of seeing another SB while ralph is in cheap mode?

now add in the big F you of getting mad when asked about keeping the bill's in buffalo.

[westphal]

Ralph is cheap.

JP is a homo.

Marv is old.

Now, let's talk about something else...

Go Bills, ya loosers...

Yes, I said loosers because an extra "o" never hurt nobody. And yes, that last sentence was not gramatically correct.

Nobody's perfect, except maybe for you loosers.

[DannyBoy]

No.

All the facts are here for the whole world to see...

USA TODAY's football salaries database (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/default.aspx)

I asked Spiked (the premier promoter of the propaganda about Mr Wilson) the following questions...I challenge ANYONE to do the research and back up the assertion that spending = winning and not spending = losing...

16 teams have never won a Super Bowl...are they all in the bottom half of spending?

6 teams have never even been to a Super Bowl...are they all at the bottom of spending?

10 teams have won Super Bowls since the Bills lost in 1994...did all of those teams spend considerably more than the rest of the league?...did all those teams spend more than the Bills over the same period of time?

If you want to make an argument that Mr Wilson's spending is the reason for the Bills lack of success then give us the facts to back up your reasoning.

I just answered the question asked. Is Ralph Wilson Cheap? YES! Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[westphal]

I just answered the question asked. Is Ralph Wilson Cheap? YES! Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I'm pretty damn cheap, too.

[ricogarion]

It isn't a question of dollars spent on personnel its the inability to hire and pay for quality football people and to retain them.That and allowing said front office and coachs,scouts to do their thing have doomed Mr.Wison over the course of his tenure as owner of the Bills.His relationships with these folks becomes strained at one point or another and then we are forced to start over the never ending cycle.

[DClash]

I think so, though it has not always been that way. I think there has been a great deal of lost trust over the last decade, especially since the beginning of the salary cap era and the issues with the previous front office. I don't see any other way that the organization is in the situation that it is in now in terms of staffing if such was not the case.

Additionally, perhaps Ralph Wilson does not deal with failure after success very well. It was hard to make this judgment before 1989 because the team was, on a whole, not very good very often. But if you fast forward ten years to 1999, Ralph Wilson would have a lot to be thankful for and a lot to dread equally. The last eight years have played out as if that was the case.

Regards,
DClash

[Fallsnative]

Ralphs getting bad advice from someone. That same person is there behind the scenes, likely a family member. I dont think he has gotten sound financial advice since Polian left town. TD was not a good money man, and certinaly Marv is not, he's a coach. He's swung back and forth over the last 13 years, the pattern isn't there. I think now as he is much older, he is a tightwad, not wanting to spend. He's being directed to save that money for his family for when he dies. Maybe his daughter?? She doesn't like the team or the game, and likely wants daddy to not give her money away to those "Foos-ball playas".

[TheLex]

One thing that always struck me funny was this great love for Wilson during the superbowl runs. Like he was this saint, great guy, etc. For another day but, Bill Polian revived the team in the late 80's and early 90's. The last edition of the Courier Express has a great sports editorial cartoon. Long story short, one of the parts was about how greedy ralph was and had a cartoon picture of him with stacks of money. It said something like this: Every Bills season x out ralph wilsons face because of how cheap he is. And if the Bills ever happen to win a supebowl, x it out anyways, he deserves it. Bills will probably not last in buffalo

[standingbuffalo43]

heres the problem...

noone is trying to say that pissing money away will result in winning...

I billieve the point is that NOT spending puts the team at a competitive disadvantage before a game is every played...

cash to cap may be fiscally smart for the Bills bottom line, but I dont see how anyone can argue that it doesnt put the Bills at a competitiive disadvantage on the field...

it can be overcome, but it makes the road steeper than it has to be.


btw:

I voted no.

[standingbuffalo43]

Is Ralph frugal? Probably.

Is Dan Snyder a spendthrift? Yeah.

Who looks like the bigger idiot: the cheap guy or the guy who throws around money like Travis Henry throws around spermatoza?

the one with the longer playoff drought...

[notacon]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

Quoting statistics on this board is pointless. Statistics can be twisted many different ways to support any argument. It's like saying Holcomb is a top 10 QB ;)

That being said, I support your claim that the tie between spending and winning is very loose at best.

The late Senator Daniel Moynihan once said "you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts".

When Spiked claims that the Bills spend "20% to 25% less" than any other NFL team...he is making up his own facts. He still has not answered for that bit of dishonesty but I expect that out of an ideologue.

Stating how much a team spends is not a "stat" but rather a fact.

If more facts were used in this debate...it would not even be a debate.

[notacon]

heres the problem...

noone is trying to say that pissing money away will result in winning...

I billieve the point is that NOT spending puts the team at a competitive disadvantage before a game is every played...

cash to cap may be fiscally smart for the Bills bottom line, but I dont see how anyone can argue that it doesnt put the Bills at a competitiive disadvantage on the field...

it can be overcome, but it makes the road steeper than it has to be.


btw:

I voted no.

It is easy to argue that the so-called "cash to cap" does not put the Bills at a competitive disadvantage...especially if one agrees that "pissing money away will (NOT) result in winning.

Almost no one here even understands the difference the new players contact affected teams like the Bills. Under the new guidelines amortizing bonuses and the such for cap purposes would certainly put the Bills into the red.

The percentage of revenues and what is considered as total league revenue to determine the cap was drastically changed and resulted in an exponentially huge increase. TV sharing revenue does not come close to helping a team like the Bills keep up.

If one looks at the database I provided from USA Today which provides actual spending and not "cap" spending they would see that the Bills spent as much or more than much of the other teams. Spending by some very good teams were sometimes higher than the Bills and sometimes lower.

Before 2006 season (and the signing of the new bargaining agreement) look at the comparative spending, by team, from 2000 to 2005. Some very good franchises, that generate much more than the Bills, on average, spend right about what we did.

For example, from 2000 to 2005 Dallas spent more that the Bills three years and the Bills spent more than Dallas the other three years. The salary cap kept the spending relatively equal...which blows out of the water the false theory that Mr. Wilson does not spend enough and hence the product on the field suffered.

That is just plain not true.

The bargaining agreement of 2006 changed all that. Now it is more a case of being able to spend as much as the rich teams since they have more room between revenue and expenses...the same pressures that every business has.

It is explained quite well in this article...

Financial gap widening between NFL's haves and have-nots (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2007-02-27-widening-financial-gap_N.htm)



Even though the NFL has a salary cap, the equal ceiling teams can spend for players, the current formula for determining the cap is helping to create the disparity, Brown said.

Teams in top-third NFL markets, such as Boston, Washington, Dallas, Philadelphia, Chicago and New York, generate revenues on average of $256 million, according to Enquirer research. Teams in the middle third, such as Baltimore, Tampa and Seattle, have average revenues of roughly $199 million.

In Cincinnati, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Jacksonville and Buffalo — the league's smallest markets — average per-team revenues are about $177 million.

The average per-team revenue is $211 million, and each team is responsible for paying 57.5% of its revenues toward player costs, according to the collective bargaining agreement ratified 30-2 by owners in March 2006.

And though each of the 32 teams share equally in the league's national television and sponsorship contracts — about $102 million per team — big-market teams are generating unshared revenue at such a pace that it is causing the salary cap to rise faster than small-market teams can handle.

The higher rate of growth in unshared revenue generated by teams with new stadiums in larger markets has created disparity. A little more than a decade ago, Brown said, the revenue gap between NFL teams in big and small cities was less than $10 million. Now it's more than $100 million.

And the problem with unshared revenue — such as money from luxury box revenue, stadium naming rights, marketing and sponsorships and local media — is that it all goes into the league-wide tally that is used to determine the salary cap.

For example, Brown paid $5 million for the naming rights to Paul Brown Stadium before it opened in 2000. It went toward the $44 million the Bengals contributed for construction. Had a private company wanted the naming rights to the Cincinnati football stadium, the next $11.67 million would have gone to the Bengals.

But in New York, the Jets and Giants expect to get a deal worth $25 million for their new shared stadium.

In New England, Patriots owner Bob Kraft gets $100,000 to $300,000 for suite rental at Gillette Stadium. At the RCA Dome, Colts president Jim Irsay can get an average of $34,000 annually for a luxury box.

"The new stadiums have produced a discrepancy between the top-revenue and bottom-revenue (teams)," Brown said. "That has put the teams in the large markets in prime position. They are doing very well. But the teams in the smaller markets, they are struggling because their cap costs have gone up while their revenues have not kept pace."

The Bengals are paying roughly 68% of their revenue on players. Big-market teams are paying an average of 47%. For the Washington Redskins, the NFL's top-revenue team that has broken the $300 million mark, that percentage is even smaller.

The Bengals are on solid financial footing — for now. But the future is precarious.

"What is not in question is the Bengals' ability to compete over the next few years," Brown said. "What is in question is the Bengals' viability over the long term."

Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson — the other nay vote in March when owners decided to extend the collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association — says his team was expected to lose $5 million-$10 million in 2006. The reason, Wilson told the Rochester Times-Union, was that 65 cents of every dollar goes to his players.


Read the whole article.

Now it is all about what percentage of total revenue a team spends on players. Can one honestly say that the Bills, paying 65% of their total revenue is spending "less" than a big market team spending 47% of their total revenue.

If anyone wants a long term relationship between Buffalo and the NFL you better open your eyes. It's not about Mr. Wilson selling a piece of the Bills before he dies...it is about the economics of the league considering the 2006 players bargaining agreement.

The ONLY reason that Mr. Wilson is able to keep the team in Buffalo is because he does not have any debt. You have ANY new owner that has to justify the investment of $700,000,000 to buy a team that is LOSING money and they know that they can change the dynamic by changing cities...don't be stupid...the TEAM WILL LEAVE!!!

Mr. Wilson is doing the city a service by fighting and speaking up...here on the Range we have knuckleheads that don't know their ass holes from a hole in the ground berating him with false pretenses.