Page 1 of 1
Ralph Fuckin' Wilson
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:27 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Ever since I've been old enough to have some degree of comprehension of the situation, I've maintained that the Buffalo Bills' problems begin with ownership. Once again, Ralph Wilson opens his piehole and proves me right.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20 ... 056348.asp
This guy doesn't get it. Owning an NFL franchise is the closest thing one can legally acquire in this country to a license to print money. Put a competitive product on the field, and the books will take care of themselves. He approaches the situation ass-backwards.
Memo to Ralph: if you truly care about the Bills staying in Buffalo, sell the team. Or at least sell the naming rights to the stadium, rather than naming the stadium in honor of the guy who once thought Hank Bullough and Kay Stephenson were legitimate NFL head coaches.
Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:31 pm
by The Assassin
the Las Vegas Bills......
Re: Ralph Fuckin' Wilson
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:31 am
by DallasFanatic
mvscal wrote:Terry in Crapchester wrote:Put a competitive product on the field, and the books will take care of themselves.
You don't even have to be competitive.
--Bill Bidwell
Doesn't he get a cut of the Dallas Cowboys profit since he houses a shit load of their fans anyways?
Re: Ralph Fuckin' Wilson
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:31 am
by DallasFanatic
mvscal wrote:Terry in Crapchester wrote:Put a competitive product on the field, and the books will take care of themselves.
You don't even have to be competitive.
--Bill Bidwell
Doesn't he get a cut of the Dallas Cowboys profit since he houses a shit load of their fans anyways?
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:01 am
by BSmack
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:10 am
by The Assassin
Can a Joe Ferguson comeback be far behind?
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:33 am
by Mike the Lab Rat
You'd think that Ralph would have realized that the Bills' situation has a lot less to do with the amount of money available and a lot more to do with the poor decisions made WITH the money he had. From what I've witnessed (suffered through?) the last several years, I'd have to say that all more money would result in is paying underachieving losers too much money.
Whining to the state to fix a football team's "problem" is frigging pathetic, IMNSHO. It's not the state's problem to make a frigging NFL team more competitive, negotiate on its behalf, fund stadium's, etc. It's a frigging business and doesn't deserve any frigging welfare to bail out its ownership's years of bad decisions.
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:26 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
The Assassin wrote:
Can a Joe Ferguson comeback be far behind?
You never know. Marv Levy came back, after all.
Although, knowing Ralph Wilson, if he was going to recycle a previous head coach, I would've bet that it would not have been the most successful coach in the team's history.
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:39 pm
by Felix
the Bills' situation has a lot less to do with the amount of money available and a lot more to do with the poor decisions made WITH the money he had.
Bills have signed Peerless Price to a 4 year deal.
you mean like this?
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:47 pm
by M2
In a stunning move, California head coach Jeff Tedford today announced that former Cal and Buffalo Bill head coach, Marv Levy, was returning for another stint at Cal. Levy had been headed back to Buffalo in an advisory capacity, but jumped at the Cal job.
It is rumored that, along with his defensive back coaching duties, Levy will help Coach Tedford implement the "quick kick" on third down as a potent defensive weapon and to keep other teams off balance.
Some of you fans will remember Marv Levy as the person responsible, during his tenure, for the difficulty of getting Saturday and Sunday tee times at local golf courses during the Cal and Buffalo football seasons.
Below is a photo of the venerable Levy.
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:27 pm
by The Assassin
Say what you want about Al Davis,but at least he had the good sense to vote yes on the new CBA.
Soon you're gonna see Ralph Wilson dressed in pajamas all the time and wearing those wrap around sunshades.
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:20 pm
by BSmack
The Assassin wrote:Say what you want about Al Davis,but at least he had the good sense to vote yes on the new CBA.
Soon you're gonna see Ralph Wilson dressed in pajamas all the time and wearing those wrap around sunshades.
This just in from Pro Football Talk....
SALARY FLOOR MOVES UP
One of the most overlooked issues during the recent negotiations regarding the money that will be used to fund the salary cap under the new CBA was the salary floor -- i.e., the minimum money that each team must spend on player salaries in a given year.
In 2006, the minimum is 84 percent of the maximum. Based on a salary cap of $102 million, this means that every team must spend at least $85.68 million in 2006.
Coincidentally, the maximum per-team expenditure in 2005 was $85 million.
Come 2006, the minimum bumps up to 90 percent. With the salary cap expected to be at least $109 million, the floor moves to a whopping $98.1 million.
This reality sheds further light, in our opinion, on the Magooish attacks launched by Bills owner Ralph Wilson against the new deal. Wilson argues that a salary formula based on total football revenues earned by all teams increases the player costs of small-market teams, since the big money earned by high-revenue clubs is pushing the numbers higher for the franchises that earn less money.
And it also helps us understand Wilson's boasts that he's not afraid of the uncapped year. With no salary cap, there's also no salary floor, allowing the low-revenue teams to pay as little as they want.
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
Ralph wants no part of paying 90% of the cap. That's his beef.
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:29 pm
by DallasFanatic
So teams have to spend 90% of the cap on player's salaries? Dayum, I wonder how Green Bay is going to spend 25 million on rookies this year. I would love to be drafted by Green Bay.
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:53 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
Actually, I
at this at first, but the more I thought about it the more it started to make a little sense to me.
Lee Evans is definitely the #1 guy next year. That would have been the case even if the Bills had kept Moulds. The Bills got Price for a heckuva lot less money than it would have cost them to keep Moulds, and Price is three years younger.
This could actually work out pretty decently for the Bills, although they still have to get better on the OL (getting rid of Williams was addition by subtraction in that regard) and get more consistent play out of the QB position, which may be tied into the former.
OTOH, if you want to look at bad deals for the Bills, look no further than Tom Donahoe's five year carte blanche reign of error.
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:19 pm
by Funkywhiteboy
I hope the Bills got a bulk rate discount! :P