Ronin

You got that right. Even if they make it to '20, which I'd bet good money won't happen, the team will likely uproot and go away. Here's the scenario that I envision unfolding. New owner buys team. Sees how the Bills have made money with a **** product on the field. Does the same between now and 2019/2020. Then has plans to move the team to somewhere that will build a nice stadium for him, a state-of-the-art one, and where he/she/they can sell premium seating like other top NFL teams. I see them approaching Erie county execs, who own the lease, to negotiate an earlier buyout while perhaps lining the pockets of the same on the side. Otherwise, everything's for sale. If an owner determines that he can make $20M more elsewhere, in profit, hardly inconceivable, it may well be worth his while to break a lease outright. Why didn't they come the first time they tried this? Much premium seating is still available in Buffalo by my understanding. I haven't researched it lately, or read much on it, but I have difficulty believing that all of their problems have been solved in a few years with a losing team. I have read about companies quitting. I agree, as if we don't have enough to dampen our excitement for the season given that we're presently the league's most futile team and a season away from making history in that regard. Sell the dam thing already and let's move on.

The team tried to sell premium seats a few years ago and it didn't go well at all. Remember all the empties. WNY simply does not have the population base to to support the reality, which we agree on. I know a number of people here that work at wage-grade, and other forums too. They can't afford to pay for PSLs.

"The front 7 is one of the best in the league when they consistently beat the opposing offense." Gotcha. Yes, I did misunderstand. Additional stats: 6-10 We logged many sacks, but again, 10 sacks against Atlanta (2-14) and N.O., but both QBs had excellent games regardless and beat us anyway. Does it really matter whether we log 5 sacks against Jax or Cleveland? Can't we beat Jax or Cleveland without having 5 sacks? As it is, 5 sacks and we still lost to Cleveland. Think things through.

Oh please! For a few bucks the NFL can buy off all the right people. Gimme a break. The politicians are nothing but dogs on a leash with the uber wealthy holding the leash.

Could very well be true, but this is not your average team sale. We're talking about the team that's had the lowest combined average between team revenues and team profits. I really don't think that it's going to be as simple as you say. Read this, then tell me if you feel the same; http://espn.go.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/9827/jerry-jones-signals-mixed-on-bills-future

It may dwarf the NBA in some senses, but in terms of ticket revenue the NBA dwarfs the NFL's. Average per-game attendance for an NBA game has remained relatively steady at over 17,000 over the last ten years. The average NFL attendance averages around 65,000 annually. That's 520,000 average per team. Ticket prices are comparable. 41 NBA home games at 17K apiece is 697,000.

They must "approve" of the new owner, they can come up with whatever reasons they want for not approving. If 24 owners do not approve, ... no sale. The only guarantee in this scenario is that they'll chase every dollar that they can chase. You can bet your last dollar that they're all thinking of where to move the team to make more money, as a league, which will benefit each of them. They've already had struggles with Wilson on the topic.

These guys can always leverage their assorted holdings. Exactly right. As to the Wilson family, they're going to have to sell to an owner that the other NFL owners, or 24 at least, will allow. As I've said many many times, if they wanted to sell the team to an owner wanting it to stay in WNY, then they'd have had a better shot while Wilson was alive. He carried more clout. None of the other NFL owners are going to respect Mary Wilson at all. Jerry Jones and Kraft are going to have a lot more influence than any of the Wilsons at this point.

Not against the run. Last season they couldn't stop Steven Jackson, who's washed up, Powell, Ivory, BJGE, Vereen, Blount, Bobby Rainey (who wasn't even drafted and is on his third team in two seasons), Jordan Toddman (a 6th rounder also on his third team in two seasons) Great point about the front-7 being good. I mean stopping all of those future hall-of-fame RBs, I see your point. Does anyone even conduct a thorough analysis anymore?

Agree, but a huge part of the play of the secondary is going to come down to the play of the LBs against the pass, and Spikes sucks against the pass. He could be the worst MLB in the league vs. the pass.

The roster is hardly changed. Out as starters: Byrd, Stevie In: Spikes, Mike Williams, Watkins The rest are just backups and role players. Who cares. You're right about the players gelling, rather the chemistry. But that's going to be most important in the passing game where Manuel only has as a starting WR Woods from last season. Woods still hasn't even proven that he'll be a bona fide starting WR in the NFL. Neither Watkins nor Williams have ever caught a pass from Manuel. The play of the secondary is going to be huge this year, and right now it's worse than it was last year. Last season we played only 4 top-10 passing teams. This season we play 5 of the top-6 from last season.

I need to see Chris Ivory and Bileal Powell not lighting us up whenever they play us. Ditto for a bunch of other no-name RB tandems last season. Were you aware that we only played against one top-15 RB last season? I also need to see us not finish 20th in scoring D, or on the fringe of the bottom quartile in passing TDs allowed. Did you ever ask yourself what difference all those sacks make if we can't prevent teams from throwing TDs against us? The New Orleans game is a fantastic example. 4 sacks but Brees had a career game. So is the Atlanta game, remember Atlanta, 2-14, 6 sacks, but Ryan had a very good game. Cincinnati, Dalton sacked 3 times but still had a great game. Other than NE those were the only top-10 passing offenses that we played last season, and NE was only ranked 10th in yardage, in passing TDs they were ranked tied for 13th. The sacks were irrelevant. What wasn't irrelevant was Ben Jarvis Green Ellis tearing us a new one and Cincy hitting us up for 165 rushing, or Atlanta hanging 151 rushing on us with a washed up Steven Jackson, or the Pats putting up 425 rushing yards in two games using primarily Blount and Vereen who both looked like Walter Payton. Yeah, Pettine was great last year.

How come NE's D has been below average with Spikes on their team then, and among the best in the biz as a head coach? This is a passing first league, who cares if we have the #1 vs. the run LB. We're going to see first hand this season why the Pats let Spikes go. Most plays in the NFL are passing plays. 1st and 3rd downs are typically passing downs. Spikes is a terminal liability on all of them. Only because it's favorable. If it had said the opposite, that the Bills have a below average LB corps, which may be the case Kiko aside, then the writer would be a retard.

Apparently you missed it over the last bunch of years, the team can't even come close to selling out its premium seating like other teams do. This team can't even sell out regular season games at face value without manufacturing sellouts, last season it was one non-sellout and four "aided" sellouts, you think that by raising the prices by charging people a $5K seat license, or whatever it would be, will sell more tix? Seriously? They, the team, has already expressed difficulties selling luxury suites. The world doesn't revolve around you in this way. Many fans can probably "afford" them, but who wants to go watch a team consistently play uninspired football? Why would any true fan be content with that on a consistent basis? And what is the PSL license fee in Buffalo going to be? What would it be in Toronto? Think that through.

I think that you're out of touch with the average Bills fan. Also, who's going to buy PSLs for a losing team? I can't even begin to tell you how many of my personal friends have not only quit their seasons, but don't even bother going to games anymore because the team sucks with no end in sight. Until the FO changes it will be same-old same-old just like it has since Wilson's owned the team with one brief pause when Polian was in charge. And I'm talking about fans that used to make some of the biggest tailgating parties during the '90s era Bills, not merely lukewarm fans. You can rant on about them not being real fans all you want, but that's to ignore the point. As to your latter point, I don't think in that case that homefield advantage would be a factor. His point was that in L.A. it's all about the status. The team may suck because the players don't like playing there, which is a different matter. I suspect that if something like that were to happen it would be a lot more luxury suites but still 30-40K standard seating.

But they'd have to actually show up to the games or it would be a joke for the NFL. They'd also have to have "regular seating" just for appearances. I hear ya, but I still discount LA as a landing spot. Toronto seems to be the spot for numerous reasons.

Anyone 'could' do anything. That's what makes sports reporting so irrelevant. That can't be any more evident than pre-Draft reporting. I hope he does well though, Reich's a great guy seemingly. I have no idea why Pettine gets so much credit for last year. He wasn't all that great with the Jets and the Jets D got worse on his watch. Our defense ranked 20th in scoring D last year, below average. It ranked 28th against the run, and we only faced one top 15 RB. The average ranking of scoring offenses we played was worse than 19th. The average ranking of yardage offenses that we played was 20th. That may not seem like a huge off-the-average mark, but it is huge.

Spikes, as we will all find out, just as NE fans did, absolutely sucks vs. the pass, which is most plays. He's an enormous liability on pass plays. That alone makes this guy ignorant. As others have said, Kiko will be in a different role, although I suspect he'll be fine. But then what, Lawson, who's never had success as an OLB in a 4-3? Who the hell writes these things. Shouldn't we as fans of the actual team know better and know our players better? Are we no better than the FO? Lawson had one good season in terms of sacks, it was last season in our sack/pass-rush happy D. Meanwhile, how good was he, or any of the other LBs or front 4 in stopping the run since every Tom, Dick, and Harry RB tandem managed to look like Roger Craig and Tom Rathman against us. Are we all this short-sighted in our analyses here? Come on guys!! You're certainly not going to hear it regarding our LB corps this season. You'll be hearing about botched coverages by Spikes and "what happened to Lawson since he logged 4 whopping sacks last year in a pass-rush happy system. Kiko may be elite, but that hardly makes an elite corp. We gave up a lot of passing TDs too given that we finished 2nd in the league in sacks. We allowed 28 passing TDs. One more and we would have been in a log-jam tie for 26th. The teams that were ranked 27th and 28th, GB and TB, had terrible D's. How do you reconcile that? When is everyone going to realize that last year this foolish team was so focused on logging sacks that they designed their entire D around that. They even said that prior to the season. They told us that. They put all their eggs into one basket, yet we still finished 6-10. The teams we faced didn't even have good offenses on average, we had it very easy last season. Even the Pats had their worst offense since probably Brady's first few seasons. This year we face more good offensive teams. The D isn't going to be better this year, it's going to be worse, and everyone's going to blame it on Schwartz, not the facts per above. There are other indicators besides pass rush. And frankly, those sacks didn't even help us against teams like NO and ATL, who both had great offensive days despite 10 sacks against them. Why does no one see this most simple of things?

Indeed. As I've been saying, once some distance is put between Wilson's passing, we'll start hearing the "other side." Here's the same link as above; http://espn.go.com/b...on-bills-future Jerry Jones says exactly that, he won't discuss it quite yet out of respect. But once enough time has passed, and IMO we're there now, then the gloves will come off. As several other posters have stated or implied, those not blinded by notions that Buffalo's the center of much of anything, it's all about the money and the accommodation to the wealthy. Jones mentions Toronto directly and there is absolutely no question whatsoever that Toronto would do what he says. Frankly, and while I wouldn't, but I think that many Bills fans would still watch the games even if they wouldn't go to them. IMO Jones and other owners know that. Not that it's all that relevant because the WNY TV market really isn't huge by metro standards, but still. As I've also said often, I think that it's foolish to think that they might not move to one of several other cities that presently don't have a team. All of the following are bigger metro areas: Las Vegas, Portland, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Omaha. As well, I also don't see this $400M buyout option as a major hurdle. The owners can easily find a way out of that. I still see the team going to Toronto. There's been way too much hubbub in recent years about the NFL going international, and IMO they'll never have a better opportunity at a "good first step" in that regard. It's not going to be England before Canada, if England ever at all, and in Canada it's not going to be any city but Toronto. I highly doubt that there are ever teams in Toronto and Buffalo simultaneously. Think about that for a second. All I know is that many of the major things we were originally told have been stood on their heads: The sale would take years: now we're talking about having a new owner by October. The Wilson's control the sale: the owners control the sale. The only talk has been about owners desiring to keep the team in Buffalo: Now talk about owners wanting to move the team will begin surfacing. If it benefits the other owners to move the team, $400M isn't going to be a showstopper. Particularly if behind closed doors the new owner has designs on moving, has a closed door meeting with Buffalo/Erie execs, and tells them that he's not going to put much into the team in Buffalo and will suck up his losses, and then move the team in '20, ... OR ..., they can take say $50M as a buyout. I'm sure that giving them one or two a small sum to help the decision-making process isn't out of the question as well. These "legal" things are rarely in stone and hardly ever non-negotiable.

Yes we do know. "We can't afford seat licenses and luxury suites," Erie County executive Mark Poloncarz said in February. That’s the context for Jones’ comments. The modern NFL is a cash cow and some owners may feel that the Buffalo market — home to one of the NFL’s oldest stadiums and one of the league’s least expensive tickets — is holding the league back. http://espn.go.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/9827/jerry-jones-signals-mixed-on-bills-future

That is correct, and we also subsidize NFL owners and by default then, the players, many of whom are also millionaires. The system that is the NFL has gotten out of hand, just as it has with all sports. Nice of you to challenge as an opinion when the guy cites data. Meanwhile, you throw out a "20%" figure but don't explain what it is. If you mean 20% of seating capacity, and you think that this reasoning does not stand, I simply don't know what to say.

lol Might be better to do it the other way around as someone implied. Don't buy seasons and go to games looking to buy one ticket. Problem is that the seats may not always be good. There's almost always someone looking to sell. If not, you can usually get them for face or less out front and you can usually get pretty good seats.

Here's another good piece encompassing more on the topic from around the same time: Why the NFL Stadium Experience Is Dying While the NFL stadium experience is evolving under the guise of getting bigger and better, the average fan is getting priced out of the equation entirely. The once pleasantly rowdy atmosphere that defined stadium life has been overrun with a more refined and indifferent corporate culture. Further, alternatives to the stadium experience have grown more enticing. Here are four reasons the game-day experience has changed. The Rise of Luxury Suites Though stadium suites were initially invented to make the nosebleed section more attractive, luxury boxes are now one of the driving sources of revenue for NFL teams. CNBC.com notes that annual suite prices can stretch anywhere from $80,000 per box (the lowest price you'll pay at Indianapolis' Lucas Oil Stadium) to more than $900,000. You don't even need to do the math to understand that in many cases, suite owners are paying multiple times the price of a regular ticket for each seat in their luxury box. It's unsurprising then that luxury suites are taking over. According to the executive director of the Association of Luxury Suite Directors per The Business of Sports by Brad R. Humphreys and Dennis R. Howard, "'Ten years ago, only about 3% of the seating in stadiums and arenas was designated as premium and club seating. Now that figure is approaching 20%.'” Corporations are a major consumer of luxury seating, using sports events as opportunities to impress potential clients and close business deals. But though corporations are more loyal with their wallets, they lack devotion with their hearts—and it's taking a toll on the NFL stadium experience. Game day is becoming more stuffy and corporate with the focus shifting from football. The NFL is about top-shelf liquor and market banter to CEOs who spend Sundays sheltered in their boxes where only a compelling third-and-inches-on-the-goal-line scenario may avert attention away from Blackberry screens. The Personal Seat License Personal seat licenses (PSLs) have created another hurdle of affordability that's pricing the average football fan out of the stands. A PSL essentially guarantees the rights to a particular seat in a stadium, and owning one is a prerequisite for buying season tickets at almost half of NFL stadiums. Personal seat licenses were invented so that teams could quickly generate capital for projects like building new stadiums. As you can imagine, PSLs are expensive. The Sports Business Daily reports that the right to buy season tickets at Cowboys Stadium could set you back $150,000, and prices are not relenting. At Heinz Field, the cost of seat licenses has increased, on average, by 736.35 percent from the stadium's inaugural football game in 2001 through November 2011. So while average NFL fans struggle to navigate a sputtering economy, the economic elite are driving the cost of watching live football higher than the nosebleed section. Gimmicks Teams have also started packing their stadiums with revenue-generating gimmicks that detract from the traditional game-day experience. Buff guys slinging Bud Light are rivaled by sleek bars reminiscent of upscale Manhattan nightclubs. Chicken-fingers-and-fries stands are now matched with full-blown restaurants. These features allow stadiums to mark up concession prices higher than their already astronomical rates, burning a deeper hole in fan wallets. HDTV High-definition television emerged almost in tandem with skyrocketing ticket prices, and it has provided an affordable alternative to live football. To some, the living room viewing experience is superior to the stadium. HD provides a crystal-clear picture of the action, and DVR allows control over instant replay. In contrast, the stadium experience often involves squinting down at the field from cloud level and repeating, "Wait, what just happened?" Further, stadium traffic is a nightmare and fans can easily spend more time in the parking lot than they spend in the actual stadium (tailgates excluded, of course). With technology facilitating a comprehensive home-viewing experience, stadium-going is simply becoming less enticing by comparison. Sounds like more of an opinion rather than fact, the facts of which speak otherwise. Did you even bother to read the piece? How could you have so quickly? This is a fact of modern era pro sports. The NHL and NBA have largely been ruined by it all, the NFL is not far behind. MLB I would argue too, but there are so many games that the prices aren't as high. I much prefer the "old way," like many here do, but unfortunately that's not how it works. I'd be fine with an "old time" traditional stadium and just having a team here. Granted, it'd be nice if the people running the team knew what they were doing.

Here's an excellent piece about new sports stadiums, particularly NFL stadiums. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-02-04/cnbc-super-bowl-suites/52948968/1 Some key excerpts: "Luxury suites have been growing in importance since the 1990s and are an essential part of any new stadium being built," says Emily Sparvero, assistant professor at the Sports Industry Research Center at Temple University. "In fact, most new stadiums are built not because they are physically obsolete, but they are financially obsolete," adds Sparvero. In the past 20 years, 75% of American sports teams have either built or remodeled their venues, with luxury suite additions being a major reason for the construction and renovation. ------- Whether it's the NBA, NHL or Major League Baseball, suites now account for anywhere between 5% and 20% of total team revenue, according to the latest statistics. What started out as a status symbol has evolved into a necessity. "With greater payroll expenses from player free agency, owners have to find ways to raise more revenue," says Mark Conrad, an associate professor at Fordham University's school of business. "Luxury boxes provide a constant flow, no matter how good or bad the team is playing. The payment is already made and it's part of the revenue generated by the facility." The money can be huge. While the number of suites varies — the new Yankee Stadium has 68 while Dallas Cowboys Stadium has 300 — any given suite can sell from $224,000 to more than $900,000 per year. ------- As for who's buying the suites, it's a matter of money, as well. "Corporations and high net-worth individuals are purchasing suites," says Chad Estis, president of Legends, the premium ticket sales company that handles teams such as the Cowboys and Yankees. ------- "The danger in chasing corporate dollars is that they tend to evaporate during down financial times," DeGaris argues. ------- These are not factors that favor the team staying in Buffalo. There is a little bit of hope at the bottom of the piece, but still, these things are relative. i.e., what can an owner get in another location that he can't get "here." Buffalo doesn't rank well in that regard and of the criteria listed above, Buffalo by nature is in "down economic times" due to its geographical circumstances. I just threw this out there because some keep mentioning individual ticket sales, which really don't matter in the grand scheme of things nearly as much. Also, ... "Fan loyalty is always based on team performance rather than a sense of being disadvantaged because of luxury suites," Ordine says. If the team's performance doesn't improve, we already know that tix sales suffer. fwiw

All of this is going to factor into the "stadium feasibility" stuff. Don't think for a NY second that these feasibility studies are purely about location. They'll address everything. Team owners try to squeeze every penny out of fans. Think about it, you buy tix to the game, but then they charge us, what is it now, $25 to park? What option do people have? Why not just charge an extra $5 per ticket and have free parking? There's a reason for that. Point being, this all is a huge part of whether or not a team becomes more attractive to move. What's interesting is that when Wilson passed, everyone was saying that the team likely wouldn't sell for a few years. Well that reporting has been stood on its head in a matter of about a month or so now. Now the talk is about having a new owner before this season even begins. I doubt that will happen, but I certainly expect it to be within the next 6-8 months, a position which I've held from the onset. Now that a certain amount of time has passed and emotions have cooled somewhat, I now expect the talk of the owners that would move the team, or would like to, to start surfacing as well. Particularly given the talk about the team selling within the next bunch of months. As well, it would not surprise me to see another city in the U.S., besides L.A., be talked about as a potential landing spot.