Bills Owner Ralph Wilson Comments On NFL Lockout

by Brian Galliford on May 15, 2011 9:30 AM EDT in Buffalo Bills Opinion

It's not often that the New York Daily News covers Buffalo Bills football - before today, their most recent headline was "Bills name Nix as new GM" - but give Gary Myers credit for his latest piece on Bills owner Ralph Wilson.

Myers profiles Wilson from the angle of the Bills' founder being one of just two owners - Cincinnati's Mike Brown was the other - that voted against the CBA that has left the NFL in its current labor catastrophe. This is something that Bills fans discuss fairly frequently, but was rarely - if ever - part of NFL rhetoric outside of Western New York.

In the article, Wilson discusses NFL finances in a small market, his reasons for getting into the NFL in the first place (hint: it wasn't about money), and cracks wise about his age.

"I hope the sides come to an agreement," Wilson said to conclude the piece. "I hope they can. I miss football like millions of other people."

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Ralph Wilson has been a great influence on the evolution of pro football. He’s a genius in his own right. May he live forever.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men." -Unnamed NFL CBA negotiator

by BuffaloBlueBlood on May 15, 2011 9:50 AM EDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs

All hail Ralph! All hail Ralph!

"There is not a loser in this room." Marv Levy.

by SERGEANT MAJOR THOR on May 15, 2011 9:57 AM EDT reply actions

Pro Football Hall of Famer

enough said.

I'll Billieve it when I see it!

by Jason Holodook on May 15, 2011 10:03 AM EDT reply actions

Yeah for as much as everyone makes fun of his age, amongst other things, the guy does know the business side of football.

by bizarro bills on May 15, 2011 10:07 AM EDT via mobile reply actions

He really does not give one the impression of a man well into his 90’s.

In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!

by TheAfghanTwilight on May 16, 2011 8:12 AM EDT up reply actions

What abou the other part of the piece?

He said it’s hard to make money in Buffalo. Will it be good business sense to buy the team once he passes, and keep it in Buffalo?

by doctork44 on May 15, 2011 10:10 AM EDT via mobile reply actions

most people that go and buy a team are not in it to make money they want to win.

"This is a chance to shine some light on the city, They say it’s too cold. I’m going to bring some warmth to it." Marcell Dareus

by matthew62 on May 15, 2011 11:03 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Golisano? He wanted to win – more money.

In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!

by TheAfghanTwilight on May 16, 2011 8:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Short answer: No

Even when the national economy was good, Western New York was lagging way behind. I believe he said Buffalo was the 14th largest metropolitan area when he bought the team (Wikipedia now has it at number 47…putting it behind Katrina ravaged New Orleans and behind Jacksonville). And the census shows Buffalo is losing population not just that other places happen to be growing faster. We have to keep ticket prices lower than the rest of the league to make it possible to sell out the games. And it’s not just because the city is small because Pittsburgh and Nashville are small markets but they have companies that can actually buy tickets and pay for sponsorship (whereas Buffalo has Cellino and Barnes). So from a strictly dollars and sense perspective there is not good reason to keep the team in Buffalo….unless the Toronto games pay off and Canadian corporate money flows south of the border.

But as stated, people who buy are sports team care about winning first and foremost. They are usually already billionaires so making money may be secondary. Especially if someone like Pegula buys the team.

by TheNazarene on May 15, 2011 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions

No, Wilson said that Buffalo was the 14th largest city, not 14th largest metropolitan area. Please remember that one of the reasons that Buffalo has lost so much population as compared to other cities is that many other large cities annexed their suburbs while Buffalo did not. Also, where metropolitan areas are compared, Buffalo was given an exceptionally small one by the federal government (Erie and Niagara counties only) while other cities have numerous counties included in theirs (for example, Rochester has six counties). Combine that with the fact that Buffalo also has the statistical disadvantage of being right on a heavily populated border area and those border regions are deliberately not counted in metro population figures), it has really had a snowball effect.

If Buffalo was to annex the Tonawandas, Amherst, Cheektowaga, West Seneca and Lackawanna, an annexation less drastic than those done by cities like Indianapolis and Jacksonville, they’d be in the top 15 in city population again. If Buffalo was allowed to count the Niagara Region of Ontario as well as Chautauqua, Cattaraugus and Genesse counties in their metro area, again, something more in line geographically with other metro areas, they’d be back in the top twenty five. The concept of Buffalo as a “small market” is largely a statistical anomaly created by factors largely out of control of the people who live here and is the creation of federal bureaucrats who do not understand the area.

"I could have conquered Europe, all of it, but I had women in my life." - King Henry II of England

by Calvert on May 16, 2011 8:22 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

there is no more to be said....you explain this perfectly

Rrrawrrrr, rrrawrrr like a dungeon dragon-Busta Ryhmes
This just hurts. I'm sorry Rumblers but I'm crushed

by Moe_frm_B_ on May 16, 2011 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Ralph Wilson

I came into this game 50 years ago because I enjoyed the game of pro football. Not to make money," Wilson said. “In those days, everybody was hoping to break even. We lost money for a number of years. I am really not into the game to make money, but I would like to break even or make a little.”

and then there is Jerry Jones owner of the so called America’s Team. Should be called Corporate’s Team.

As pointed as that statement is isn’t it the truth about how businesses are run today. If I don’t get my way I will move my business overseas and make more money. Many big market teams are exploring revenues as a side to the game. Which provides more revenue for those big market teams and they don’t want to share any of it. IMO it takes away from the game and if not financially controlled will skew the competitiveness of the league which in turn will ruin what has taken 50 years to mold. We all have seen what it has done in the world, a corporated driven league will tarnish the game, league and the balance it has taken to provide equal parity amoung all teams.

YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde

by VanScottM on May 15, 2011 10:28 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

I wish I could applaud Ralph Wilson for his foresight............

but frankly that part (the revenue sharing) isnt why the Bills have been sucky for over a decade.

It wouldnt be that hard to win and be competitive in the league with a smaller payroll, just by drafting better and hiring the right guys the Bills could be a playoff team every 2-3 years with maybe a 2-3 year down turn.

It’s not like the teams who are spending the most money win (unlike what happens the majority of the time in baseball)

So while Ralph Wilson was right in terms of the financial situation the NFL finds itself in…….that doesnt mean squat to the product he’s been allowing on the field since President William Jefferson Clinton was still in office.

The score dictated they pass

by norcaliangelsfan on May 15, 2011 11:12 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs

rec'd

I never liked to point fingers, but if one happened to pop up, the common thread over the last decade would be when Russ Brandon was in charge of football operations, with the exception of the Donahoe era. Russ at least recognized the need to step asided and allow different blood to take that portion of the business over if not sooner than obviously later.

YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde

by VanScottM on May 15, 2011 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions

At no point does Ralph or the author of this article use revenue-sharing as an excuse for the teams performance. While it may not ahve been an issue for the past ten years, the trend has been less money is getting shared. And at some point, the reason we suck might have more to do with money and less to do with Russ Brandon. So even if it hasn’t been our primary issue, its still an issue.

by greysquirrel on May 15, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Couple of things lead me to believe it is a money related issue.

First:

He objected to the revenue sharing plan that didn’t put enough money in the pockets of the small-market teams like the Bills rather than to any distaste he had for all the money – 59.5% – that was going to the players. He felt the revenue-sharing portion was being shoved down his throat without a proper explanation what he would be signing

Then this.

It has become increasingly problematic for the Bills to compete with the big-market teams, even with the salary cap. They have not made the playoffs since 1999, the longest drought in the league. The difference in revenue is so distinct between the top and the bottom. It’s a lot easier for Cowboys, Redskins, Patriots, Jets, Giants and Eagles to write those big signing-bonus checks

Maybe you have a different interpretation?

The score dictated they pass

by norcaliangelsfan on May 15, 2011 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m confused. I don’t understand why we can’t appreciate Ralph’s foresight on this issue. It had nothing to do with the team’ performance, I think we agree that has largely been the result of mismanagement. But how does it mean he wasn’t right about the CBA?

by greysquirrel on May 15, 2011 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Let’s just give some credit to the old man when its due. No one’s nominating him for owner of the decade.

by greysquirrel on May 15, 2011 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions

norcali.....

didn’t the league, since the salary cap, also have a league minimum???

I know the Bills aren’t maxing out on the salary cap, but they have never ranked near the bottom either…

Went to my first "BB" meeting today... When I stood, introduced myself, and admitted I was a Billsaholic, the other members threw beer cans at me!!

by Cinga on May 15, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions

I've never claimed that the team hasnt spent the money..............

they have………..just foolishly.

But I am reading this piece and it says (or atleast it leads me to believe) that the lack of money is the problem – i.e. revenue sharing………..

The score dictated they pass

by norcaliangelsfan on May 15, 2011 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Rec'd

Put out a good product, people will come and people will invest…plain and simple.

by blknites on May 16, 2011 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Typical New Yorkers -- not having a clue what goes on in Buffalo

One of the comments on that Daily News article went like this:

MidnightRider
10:55:46 AM
May 15, 2011

And I’m sure it’s not helping the Bills when the NFL makes it play one “home” game in Toronto per season.

For the uninitiated like Midnight Rider, the Bills Toronto initiative is NO DIFFERENT than what the Packers did for decades, when they would play four games a year {1 preseason and 3 regular season} 116 miles away in Milwaukee: they knew they had fans in the area {just as the Bills know they have fans in Toronto}, they expanded their regional footprint {just as the Bills are doing}, and they took advantage of a larger metro area/media market {just as the Bills are doing.}

And yet . . . in all the years they did so, I never once recalled the sports punditry saying that the Packers playing in Milwaukee was a precursor to their eventual permanent move
to that city — why do they do so in Buffalo’s case?

by go_buff on May 15, 2011 5:45 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs

Well said

I think the name buffalo bills and the team playing closer to Canada is what the future of this franchise should be. Even if a new stadium were built in niagara falls Canada it would still be close enough in buffalo to e the home team but close enough to the Toronto Hamilton Mississauga area soy eu could bring I more revenue. Keep the name buffalo bills and the same uniforms etc. And ts team could be very profitable it’s own right. Make it a dome and you have the first international super bowl, and it will boost the economy of buffalo and niagara falls ny due to the proximity and the inexpensive cost to stay and do business.

I'm waitin'..... @killascript on twitter

by killascript on May 16, 2011 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions

I remember they made fun of him then.

Now look.
Yankee Stadium Tips Taken By Owners, Servers Allege
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/yankee-stadium-tips_n_861770.html?ref=email_share

by Bill Frank on May 16, 2011 7:03 AM EDT reply actions

Both Paul Brown and Wilson were mocked, quite heavliy, too. I believe it had much to do with the “perceived,” yet largely incorrect notion that those two teams were whining simply because they wanted the other teams to bail them out without working hard to fix the problems on their own.

Silly, misguided owners. Who here wouldn’t love for Jerry Jones to suffer a bit of a financial meltdown?

In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!

by TheAfghanTwilight on May 16, 2011 8:24 AM EDT up reply actions