OT: The Buffalo Bills on borrowed time in western NY and the AFC East?

[Rob0729]

You are half correct. When a player is signed with a big SB the money goes to him that year.

But the rest of his contract the SB is an accounitng amortization cipher. If the guy signed a $100 million dollar 10 year deal and $50 was SB in year one, the club acutually pays him $55 million. Every other year his cap is $10 million but they only pay $5 million out of pocket.

To say the Pats cap is $113 million and they spend all of it, may mean they have half or twice as much out of pocket depending on the signings that year.

The thing is with the cap ever increasing and most teams having to at least sign a handful of at least decent contract players every year, the amount of paid out bonuses are more likely than not even out or eclipsed amortized bonuses vs. the cap. If you sign several higher free agents you easily eclipse the amortized money.

Besides, that is why teams put a lot of phoney years in contracts. Adalius Thomas got a six year deal which is very unlikely he will ever see the end since the Pats probably aren't going to be paying a nearly $6 million base salary to a 35 year old LB. But buy making the contract six years, they make the amortized cap charge for his signing bonus at $2 million rather than giving him a four year deal (which is more realistic what he will see of the contract) and taking a $3 million cap hit a year. San Francisco gave Nate Clements an eight year deal eventhough every knows that last two year are never going to be realized to minimize the affects of his huge signing bonus.

Also, with signing bonuses getting so big, teams are giving out multiple bonuses over multiple years to minimize the loss. Seymour and Brady got his bonuses in two installments spread out over two years and Brady has more roster bonuses due to him in the last years of his contract. If Stallworth and Washington are on the roster in 2008, both are due big installments.

On that subject, one thing that went under the radar this year is that Seymour just got an $12 million option bonus this year (at least we can assume they picked up the option because it is recognized on Miguel's site). So between Seymour, Thomas, and Welker the Pats paid out $37.6 million in real dollars vs. a cap charge of $11.8 million for this year. I don't think a small market team could easily afford to pay out nearly $40 million for just three players like that. This was my original point until we got bogged down in all the other peripheral BS.

 

[frankiesfly]

This team in our division is on borrowed time,Wilson will NOT keep the team in the family and that spells doom for the fans of Buffalo.

IMO the new owner when Ralph dies is DEFINATELY without a doubt in my mind going to move this franchise,There is NO big market and interest outside this city anymore and the new owner will never keep it there.

Once Ralph dies I expect the team to move to California - The Anaheim Bills?

Wilson is now 88 years old and any day could be the last.

Ralph has been owner of this team for 48 years and had to go though a 4 year stretch of being the Super Bowl runner-up that was probably so dissapointing to him you gotta feel sorry that he will likely die without a championship over all 48+ years,He bought this team for $25,000 and its now worth 625 million

These type of owners who hold on to thier team this long with so many ups and downs along the way,come once in our lifetime,Ralph definately is to be respected as one of the best owners in NFL history.

The only way I see the Bills remaining in Buffalo is if a local business man and a huge bills fan from the city goes on to buy it like Kraft did in New England or Marv Levy decides to buy the team and take over as CEO if he outlives Wilson,Marv probably has the $$$ to buy it but his age once again would probably eliminate the possibility to enjoy the team long enough to buy it.

Here is a recent article about it.... http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070617/SPORTS03/70617001

Even the Buffalo Sabres were rumored to be moving not long ago. Thanks to them having a good team i think there going to stay.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

We are talking salary cap vs. money paid out. These are two different things. The Pats pay out actual dollars well over the cap virtually every year. Are they violating the cap rules? No. Dollars actual paid are totally different than the actual cap.


The cap is a BS number when it comes to determining how much a team spends in salaries every year. High revenue teams like the Patriots spend well over the cap every single year.

I agree that small markets *may* have an issue with short term overages in spending due to shelling out large signing bonuses. However, the teams are still ultimately limited to the cap in spending. Those over years are eventually offset by some under years in actual spending vs the cap number.

The Patriots or any other team for that matter cannot consistently spend over the cap. They may do so 1 year or even a few years in a row due to the signing bonuses and how they are amortorized.

However, it is impossible to spend over the cap forever. Eventually, all the money you spend on players is applied to some year's cap number.

This is why teams who foolishly backloaded too many contracts ended up losing half their players yet still were up against the cap (SF a few years back for example).

It wasn't because their owners didn't have any money to spend, it was because all that old money (from old SB's) came due along with huge backloaded salaries and they simply couldn't get under the cap without cutting a bunch of players.

Your argument is not logical.

 

[Rob0729]

I agree that small markets *may* have an issue with short term overages in spending due to shelling out large signing bonuses. However, the teams are still ultimately limited to the cap in spending. Those over years are eventually offset by some under years in actual spending vs the cap number.

The Patriots or any other team for that matter cannot consistently spend over the cap. They may do so 1 year or even a few years in a row due to the signing bonuses and how they are amortorized.

However, it is impossible to spend over the cap forever. Eventually, all the money you spend on players is applied to some year's cap number.

This is why teams who foolishly backloaded too many contracts ended up losing half their players yet still were up against the cap (SF a few years back for example).

It wasn't because their owners didn't have any money to spend, it was because all that old money (from old SB's) came due along with huge backloaded salaries and they simply couldn't get under the cap without cutting a bunch of players.

Your argument is not logical.

Of course teams can spend over the cap for years. Look at the Redskins. They have. All teams need to do is convert some of their larger salaries into signing bonuses.

You are comparing a different era of the cap. People didn't understand the cap back then and they gave large signing bonuses along with backloaded contracts. Most people didn't realize that by doing that, it would kill their cap or force them to cut marquee players in their prime (or at the very least they did it anyway and didn't care).

Two major things have changed since then. First, the cap is growing at a rapid rate. The cap has jumped something like $30 million in the last two years. That means teams can spend more without as much fear of cap ramifications.

Second, teams are far more cap savvy and don't do backloaded contracts any more. Most contracts do not have major fluxuations in cap hits over the life of the contract (at least for the years the team actually expects to keep the player). The days of players having a $1 million cap hit in the first year of his contract and a $12 million cap hit in year four or five are gone. Most teams now make their contracts set up that they can easily cut a player after 3-4 years without hurting their cap.

When was the last time you saw a team get into major cap trouble that they had to do major cuts in their rosters and have no money to sign more players. Daniel Snyder throws out money for signing bonuses like a drunken sailor and they were still a fairly active player on the free agent market this year. I would be surprised if Snyder didn't spend more money than the cap more than one or two years since he bought the team. And every year people are saying this is the year it will come back to bite him, but it hasn't yet.

 

[everlong]

I couldn't bring myself to read 11 pages of this topic so if this was brought up previously sorry.......

I'd have to assume the Bills would be going to LA if they moved so the downside would be getting our new division rival. The NFC East isn't going to get broken up and in the AFC North Pitt, Cleveland and Cincy would want to stay together so the most likely teams coming this way would be Indy and Baltimore both of whom are well run franchise.

Keep the Bills in Buffalo!!!

 

[upstater1]

Even the Buffalo Sabres were rumored to be moving not long ago. Thanks to them having a good team i think there going to stay.

Well, Buffalo is always one of the NFL's most sound franchise because hockey is big up there. It's in the upper tier. The team was threatened because they were owned by the Rigases, the crooks who bankrupted Adelphia, went to jail and went bankrupt themselves. No one knew if the team was going to be sold in a fire sale to pay back the creditors that the Rigases defrauded.

 

[italian pat patriot]

i have to admit that i would be unhappy to see the Bills leave Buffalo

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I too would hate to see the Bills leave Buffalo.
Anyone here ever work for Readers Digest Condensed Books who can summarize 160 posts of pissin back and forth succicntly?

 

[upstater1]

I too would hate to see the Bills leave Buffalo.
Anyone here ever work for Readers Digest Condensed Books who can summarize 160 posts of pissin back and forth succicntly?

Don't worry about it. All the pissin' really had little to do with the Bills' situation. The big argument was about what's the better measure for determining fan support. Is it % capacity (the Bills apparently rank near the bottom) or tickets sold (the Bills usually rank 8th or 9th in the league in that category. Obviously the people who thought % capacity was more important thought the Bills were in trouble. Those who thought tx sold were more important thought the Bills would be OK.

Most of the other posts stuck to the topic at hand, but that's like about one page worth of posts.

 

[upstater1]

And after all was said and done, the Bills are selling tickets:

http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/121596.html

Any lament about the Bills' ticket base is misplaced. I'd say old Ralph could sure afford to raise the ticket prices.

 

[Asante4prez]

We could always use a team in Providence or Boston....

Boston Bills....Has a nice ring to it

 

[Bruschi 3:16]

The more I think of it, a move from Buffalo to Toronto would be a huge coup for the NFL. For Buffalo fans, its not that far to Toronto, for the NFL, they'd get the international audience they've craved. I wonder what the CFL would do to stop such a move.

 

[PATRIOT64]

The more I think of it, a move from Buffalo to Toronto would be a huge coup for the NFL. For Buffalo fans, its not that far to Toronto, for the NFL, they'd get the international audience they've craved. I wonder what the CFL would do to stop such a move.

This is the NFL which is different than those other 3 so-called sports events Baseball,Hockey and Basketball

Lets leave this sport the way it is just in the USA for heavens sake - we don't need international involvement/teams,Besides the Canadians already have a football league.

 

[chris66]

Bills use the salary cap a little different then most teams use.I didn't read entire thread , but bills use cash to cap theory. which is any signing bonus they give doesn't amortize through entire contract. they view it as part of this years cap. ex. say Dockery's contract is 5 mil a year with an 8 mil signing bonus. they will put the entire 13 mil towards this years cap. thats why if you look they are still about 30 mil under cap ,but in there eyes they are at the cap.
Another big difference between small and big market teams is the total percent of player salary cost. In new england that 109 cap number is probably only about 30% of revenue compared to 70% for the Bills. Thats a huge difference in cost

 

[upstater1]

Bills use the salary cap a little different then most teams use.I didn't read entire thread , but bills use cash to cap theory. which is any signing bonus they give doesn't amortize through entire contract. they view it as part of this years cap. ex. say Dockery's contract is 5 mil a year with an 8 mil signing bonus. they will put the entire 13 mil towards this years cap. thats why if you look they are still about 30 mil under cap ,but in there eyes they are at the cap.
Another big difference between small and big market teams is the total percent of player salary cost. In new england that 109 cap number is probably only about 30% of revenue compared to 70% for the Bills. Thats a huge difference in cost

It adds up to the same thing. I just don't get this reasoning. If I use the entire value of the signing bonus in this year's cap, then I don't count the signing bonus against next year's cap. Money is money.

I realize the Redskins do it differently, but you have to realize that the Skins are always sitting on a load of dead money. The Bills aren't. But at the end of the day, the two teams are both spending up to the cap. The fact that the Skins are pushing that cost into the future may indeed help them. But it may also hinder them when they can't field enough good players because the cap is bloated with signing bonuses from 4 years ago.

 

[NE39]

Another big difference between small and big market teams is the total percent of player salary cost. In new england that 109 cap number is probably only about 30% of revenue compared to 70% for the Bills. Thats a huge difference in cost

I understand this, especially when you consider their cash flow and how it is effected by revenue.

However, you need to take into account the expense side of the equation. Ralph Wilson doesn't pay a dime for his stadium, it was built by the state and Erie County pays for the maintenance. Bob Kraft, on the other hand, has a large debt service and maintenance costs he has to pay for because he built his own stadium.

Also, the TV money (shared equally) covers most operating expenses for the NFL teams. On top of that, the Bills receive revenue sharing income as a small market club under the latest CBA, which the large earners don't get.

Bob Kraft raises more revenue because he has to to pay his debt. He aggressively finds new revenue streams to make his team financially viable, and his hard work has payed off because the franchise is a lot more valuable than it was when he purchased it. Ralph Wilson isn't nearly as aggressive seeking out non-traditional revenue streams because his debts are all covered for him. Guys like him and Mike Brown just want the collect their money from the NFL.

 

[upstater1]

I understand this, especially when you consider their cash flow and how it is effected by revenue.

However, you need to take into account the expense side of the equation. Ralph Wilson doesn't pay a dime for his stadium, it was built by the state and Erie County pays for the maintenance. Bob Kraft, on the other hand, has a large debt service and maintenance costs he has to pay for because he built his own stadium.

Also, the TV money (shared equally) covers most operating expenses for the NFL teams. On top of that, the Bills receive revenue sharing income as a small market club under the latest CBA, which the large earners don't get.

Bob Kraft raises more revenue because he has to to pay his debt. He aggressively finds new revenue streams to make his team financially viable, and his hard work has payed off because the franchise is a lot more valuable than it was when he purchased it. Ralph Wilson isn't nearly as aggressive seeking out non-traditional revenue streams because his debts are all covered for him. Guys like him and Mike Brown just want the collect their money from the NFL.

You're right about Wilson not being aggressive.

But you're wrong about the stadium. It wasn't built by the state. It was built by Ralph, and as an older stadium it was built way back when it was a cheap thing to do. So of course he's not leveraged to the hilt like Kraft is.

As for maintenance costs, etc. The Bills PAY Erie county a modest lump sum every year ($4 million or so) and the county always comes out ahead on that deal. I really doubt you'll be able to pull a public funds for private sports millionaires deal in a northeast liberal state like New York. Just as in Massachusetts, it's not going to happen.

There will be some public help for infrastructure, but the area around Gillette received $100 million of that public money as well.

Although I don't agree with Chris about the Bills pay structure, I think he is dead on in terms the Bills limitations with regard to revenue/salary cap.

Right now it's absolutely manageable because they are still only expending 66% of revenue on the salary cap, but if the cap rises to $150 million, the Bills will become tapped out, and they'll never pay to the cap in the future. Right now they do. But in 10 years, maybe not.

Personally, I think the Bills are completely myopic and the whole franchise would do better with new ownership, better on the field, better in the revenue coffers. Their season tickets are dirt cheap. The Sabres made 3x as much money as the Bills from ticket sales. The Bills could easily afford to raise ticket prices right now. Bu heir lack of aggression in marketing, their flubbed decisions in coaching and long-term planning, their deadhead ticket structure, can all be laid to rest at Ralph Wilson's doorstep.

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

This is the NFL which is different than those other 3 so-called sports events Baseball,Hockey and Basketball

Lets leave this sport the way it is just in the USA for heavens sake - we don't need international involvement/teams,Besides the Canadians already have a football league.

64....we canucks aren't that bad are we! I agree we are a tiny country at 33 mil however TO does have a pretty big population and it would be very viable for the NFL to go there (I would certainly fly up to TO for at least a couple games and I live all the way out in the east coast).

We do already have a football league but when you taste caviar you don't want to settle for balony. Don't get me wrong the CFL is o.k. but it is no NFL....

and re hockey being a "so-called sport', lets see you strap on some skates and play a real game of hockey, then get back to me...but for god sakes keep your head up!

 

[Jacky Roberts]

This is the NFL which is different than those other 3 so-called sports events Baseball,Hockey and Basketball

Lets leave this sport the way it is just in the USA for heavens sake - we don't need international involvement/teams,Besides the Canadians already have a football league.

Anyone who doubts hockey as a sport needs to have his reality checked. I'll take one hockey player's athletic ability over ten basketball players' anyday.

 

[AzPatsFan]

There are only two possible expansion sites in the USA. The LA metroplex and the San Antonio metro area..

But the most logical team to move to LA is from the only area outside of New York that has TWO teams. The Bay area is not very large as a statistical Metro area, even including San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose and everything in between.

Al Davis moved the Raiders there once before, and then returned when he was unable to get a suitable Stadium. If LA has not a single team, and Chicago now only has one team, and they are the second and third largest areas, why does the much smaller Bay area have two? It's Unjustifiable.

From the standpoint of not running into political opposition, Oakland lost its team once before and could do so again, with little uproar. It would merely increase the viability of the 49ers by expanding their base too. Besides Oakland and the Raiders have no long term lease issue. IMHO, on purpose. Win, Win situation.

As for other sites:

Portland is tiny.

SC does not have a large metro area.

San Antonio is large enough but there are two teams in Texas now. All that a San Antonio team would do is detract from the other two.