Rocky Landing
-
Posts
6,925 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rocky Landing
-
-
Unfortunately, ROI in a market like Los Angeles or Toronto is a lot higher than keeping the team in Buffalo. I don't know about Toronto, but in Los Angeles, a new stadium would be publicly funded, and if someone had a team to bring to LA, would be as good as built.Look up the TV contracts for NFL football. It is nearly impossible to lose money. Now, making back your investment will take a heck of a lot of time, but considering $400M penalty, legal fees, NFL relocation fees + a share of a billion dollars for a stadium in another locality, that's way more than a billion to make back...
-
Actually, the economic impact of an NFL franchise is much greater than you are describing (especially for a small city like Buffalo), and goes far beyond "8 days a year." Besides the income generated by fan based activities, there are hundreds of jobs from coaches all the way down to janitors. Even a venue like RWS gets constant upgrades and maintenance which is largely paid for by the Bills-- plumbing contractors, carpenters, electricians, etc. A certain amount of the substantial television revenue gets reinvested locally. And, if there were a new stadium project, Buffalo would be looking at literally thousands of well-paying jobs. A substantial amount of the incomes from these jobs would be pumped right back into the local economy. A couple years ago, I was in Miami on business and was given a tour of the new Marlins stadium as it was being built, and the number of jobs that were created for that project was in the tens of thousands.A big blow? It's 8 days a year. 2 preseason games that really don't count. Decent teams might get a playoff game and good teams get multiple. Buffalo has had none for 15 years. Even if those businesses showed a HUGE increase on game days, there are simply too few of them to make a significant difference to any store or shops bottom line for the year. And if by some miracle some business did show a significant impact on their bottom line from those few days, they would be insignificant compared to all the businesses in the Buffalo area.
A NFL team is a "nice to have" for the minority of people who are hard core fans, but certainly not a big blow to a city.
-
As there has been some confusion-- even in the press-- about what a new Bills owner may, or may not plan for the future of the Bills, I finally just went and found an online copy of the Non-Relocation Agreement and read it for myself. (Here is the link: http://www2.erie.gov...n Agreement.pdf )I obviously disagree. Any city building a new stadium for the relocated Bills would have to do so without even a tentative deal from the team, as the lease forbids the team from even planning a relocation during the lease term. Or do you think an out of town owner will easily win a court battle with Erie County, then pay the $400 M in damages and then get a stadium built? Seems like a bridge too far to me.
Schumer's relationship with Goodell and his position on the Senate Finance Committee puts him in a position to threaten the NFL's tax exempt status. Don't you think that that tax exempt status is worth more to the NFL than any revenue deficiency caused by a Buffalo-based team? The NFL knows where it's bread is buttered. And we've not even discussed any provisions of the Wilson estate which could favor a local owner.
But I guess I'm not as imaginative as you are, Code.
Unfortunately, I think you are wrong regarding the building of a stadium to which the Bills would be relocated. Sections 3, and 4 deal with this issue. The agreement states that the Bills may not "enter into any contract or agreement to sell, assign or otherwise transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, intends to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." That phrase, "during the Non-Relocation Term" is reiterated several times in sections 3, and 4. Note that there is no comma in the phrase, "...transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." In other words, there is no language in the Non-Relocation Agreement barring the Bills from selling the team to a person who intends to relocate the Bills after the Non-Relocation Term. That's how I read it.
-
Perhaps you didn't read the article. Not dead.Could it?---Jeez, someone started a second thread to rehash this exact topic and it's still on the top half of TSW page 1! Yes itcould.
And thanks for supplying more links describing the AEG stadium plan as dead. IN fact, the only thing more dead is the Roski City of industry plan.
Stan Kroemke is the ONLY guy with the motive and the means to get his team to LA in a stadium of his own.
Not many outside of the Brown's fan club (PBS, The Atlantic, etc) believe that bugdet is sound or balanced. The "balanced" budget deosn't include unfunded civil pensions and health care (combined 400 billion and growing)---oops! And then thorw in the totally wacky high speed rail fetish project that no one wants but has to be built..
Now, since you have asked me for published evidence of my assertions (which I certainly have), perhaps you could provide some evidence that the Bills current lease bars them from considering any future plans beyond the terms of the lease.
And, regarding the budget, that is why I included the parenthetical "arguably."
-
California has just balanced its budget (arguably), and the money for an NFL stadium is already there.I just don't see a publicly funded stadium being built in LA. CA has been broke for the last decade. My money is on St. Louis moving at some point. Just a guess like everyone else.
Toronto concerns me more as the Bon Jovi group has a principle investor who is worth at least 2 billion. The NFL doesn't like investor groups, but if one of the principles has that kind of capital, we could be in trouble. They could say they are keeping it in Buffalo, while they build a Toronto stadium, the NFL regionalizes more with the first Canadian team, and they start playing a couple of games in Toronto. After 2020, they move into their new stadium and become the Toronto Bills or even change the last name.
That to me seems viable and a nightmare. I'm done with the Bills and can hate Mrs. Wilson just like when you bring up the name Modell in Cleveland.
-
I'm not sure how a lease could prevent an investment group from building a stadium in a different state, regardless of its intended purposes. Nor do I see how a lease could dictate the future intentions of an entity renting a space. I certainly haven't read the lease, but does it (or even could it) really dictate that the Bills cannot decide future plans beyond the terms of the lease until the lease is expired? That doesn't make any sense to me.Can you share your new info on the AEG field plan? The NFL says it's dead. The owner of AEG just tried to sell the company 2 months ago, then fired his CEO--and abruptly took the company off the market. Why do you insist it's not a dead plan?
As far as I understand, the lease prohibits any plans for moving (like...building a new stadium out of town) until 2020.
Be that as it may:
This article was actually posted today.
]http://www.ladowntow...19bb2963f4.html
Considering the amount of time that it would take for AEG to bring in an NFL team, Farmer's Field may be a non-starter. A quote from the article: "Though AEG continues to pursue a stadium and a deal with the NFL, city officials recognize that they can no longer rely solely on that vision." Of course, the crux of this article is that the Farmer's Field portion of AEG's contract with the city of LA is due to expire, and the city would like to move on with the rest of it. But, I think that the city of LA is very much on board with the notion of building Farmer's Field.
This is AEG's current website: http://www.farmersfield.com
The strongest alternative to Farmer's Field is the City of Industry plan called "Grand Crossing." http://www.losangele...ballstadium.com
It's really not as crazy as it sounds. The acreage, logistics, parking, area of SoCal it would serve, and traffic issues all make it a better choice. The one thing that the AEG/Farmer's Field plan has going for it is the gung-ho support of the city of Los Angeles.
For the record: I am not predicting that the Bills are going to move to Los Angeles, and I would be very depressed if they did. I think that Both the Rams, and Raiders are more likely outcomes. But, I do think that it is a distinct possibility, and I also think that the timing of the lease agreement (assuming it doesn't contain the poison pill you suggest), and the Bills impending sale (which could easily be two years away) just might increase the odds of it happening.
-
This is delusional thinking. Their is a low chance Trump would move the team.There's a 0% chance he would move the team.
-
I absolutely agree with this. BOPA.Pretty much any defensive player @ 9 other then Clowney or Mack. Both will be gone so if the pick isn't offense, I will definitely be saying wtf.
The offense is just so far behind & they invested a 1st in Manuel last year; they need to get him some help. I'm all for the first 3 picks going offense unless someone shocking falls. The line definitely needs a new RT & getting a OG that could push for a starting job would be nice. Also need a new TE. Too many holes on offense to ignore
-
What'd I miss? Is something going our way?I think and hope you are right. But part of me just kind of expects the inevitable punch to the gut we generally get anytime things seem to be going our way.
-
Who knows? Maybe he'll operate the team at a loss and use it as a tax deduction.Trump would triple the ticket price, turn the whole thing into a tawdry tacky circus like Jerry Jones has done, and move the circus to Vegas or LA. No thanks.
I'm resigned to becoming a Saints fan in 2020.
-
I haven't read through this thread, so I'm sure I'm probably the fiftieth person to say this, but: I can't believe we're in a position where I'm hoping that Donald Trump buys the Bills.
I think this is more true of investment groups that would be likely to move the Bills out of WNY. If a potential buyer is serious about keeping them in WNY (as the Donald says he is), then the press coverage would help the sale. In fact, I will guess that whoever buys the Bills (whether they plan to keep them in WNY or not) will express their desire to keep them in Buffalo-- right up until the time that they don't.The real players for ownership of the Bills will remain quiet throughout the process.
I should stop posting on this subject. I'm getting to be a real downer.
-
It would be easier to ignore if it had only been one injury, and only one knee.Kelly gets hurt. Greatest comeback in NFL history next. Kelly starts Super Bowl and we loose. It happens. Injurys are part of the game. Why do you all put the burden on the poor rookie. He got hurt. Get over it.
-
You're kind of making my point for me regarding operating margin. There are several franchises worth much more than the Bills with lower margins (again, expressed as a ratio). Neither operating margins nor operating income are tied to valuation, and indeed, these figures can vary dramatically from year to year, depending on variable costs, business plans, etc, as well as market trends. I'm not sure what you mean by, "operating income is as close to margin as they get."For the purpose of Forbes's reporting, operating income is as close to margin as they get. Even so, the Bills were ahead of the teams I listed, not those you listed.
Also, that SI article simply recaps that the Ed Roski stadium idea came out in 2008 and nothing much has happened since. It also says that the AEG plan came up in 2010. In fact, the evidence Is easy to find, as you say. Simply Google "AEG stadium dead" and the first hit is a Yahoo Sports article.
It quotes NFL sources as saying the AEG plan is "essentially dead". Why? As I have said all along, the business plan of building a stadium as a landlord only is doomed.
"The numbers just don't work, no matter how you look at the deal," a league source said in February. "It's either too hard for AEG to make money [and pay the debt on the stadium] or too hard for the team. I just can't see a way for it to work."
So, the league has given up on this model, which includes Roski's dud of a plan.
The Rams owner is the only viable stadium builder in LA.
Regarding Los Angeles, you may be right that "the business plan of building a stadium as a landlord only is doomed." But, that's not really what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about the future owners of the Bills. And, quite possibly, the timing of the lease, and the amount of time it would take for an LA stadium to be built (and, no, the AEG/Farmers Field plan is not dead) could work out perfectly for an investment group to buy the Bills with the intention of moving them to LA. This seems obvious to me. (And, despite his current platitudes regarding keeping the Bills in WNY, I believe Goodell, and the NFL would be on board.) The fact that the Bills- the third lowest valued team- has a decent operating margin, makes them more attractive to such a scheme, not less.
-
First of all, you didn't say "operating income." You said "operating margin." A very different beast. Operating margin is expressed as a ratio. I could literally operate a lemon aid stand with a higher operating margin than the Cowboys (currently, the highest valued team in the league). Be that as it may, I don't follow teams like the 49ers closely enough to know why their operating income this year would be as low as it is. But, I will bet that if you look at the numbers for the operating income of a team like the Cowboys, it would vary greatly from year to year, especially in relation to their operating margin. Operating income is not an indicator of valuation.That's the same article. Go to operating income. Essentially profit.
As for LA, not snark, but fact. A few years ago, there were 2 "serious" stadium projects in the works (AEG and that goofball in the City of Industry). Both went belly up without breaking ground. The model of building a stadium on spec is doomed. It will only work if a new owner moving to LA builds his own stadium. The guy who owns the Rams is the only viable candidate.
As for the plans for an LA stadium, neither the Grand Crossing plan, nor the AEG plan are "belly up." The evidence for this is easy to find, but I offer up the following link: http://nfl.si.com/20...es-nfl-stadium/
Here's another one that's downright amusing: http://www.losangele...m/location.html
Truly, that an NFL team will find its way to Los Angeles is a near certainty. And, any Buffalo fan that doesn't think that the Bills are in jeopardy of being moved to LA is in denial.
-
I've read those statements as well, but I'm not sure that I trust what comes out of his mouth. They read to me more like vague platitudes designed to keep everyone calm. I don't believe he really cares if the Bills stay in Buffalo. I do know that he wants a team in LA. I would assume that any concrete plans to move the Bills would not be made public until the last, possible moment. It's fine to air speculation. But, imagine how badly ticket prices would fall if everyone knew that the Bills would be gone in seven years.He's referenced on several occasions about keeping the Bills in Buffalo. Here's his latest statement after Ralph's passing "“We all know they have a lease. We know the terms of (that) lease, and we also know we have to find a long-term solution to keep the Bills there, and that’s what we’ll continue to work to do, but that’s not our priority right now in the next few days.”
-
The desire to get a football team back in Los Angeles is very real-- not just on the part of the numerous, deep-pocketed investors in Los Angeles, but by the NFL, and Roger Goodell, as well. And, in fact, the timing of the lease agreement may fit into the entire scenario all too well. I should note that I live in Los Angeles (born and raised in Rochester), and that an NFL team will eventually be in Los Angeles is almost a certainty. And, while much hay has been made of Buffalo's "viability" as a market, it should be pointed out that in 2012 (according to Forbes) the only two teams less profitable than the Bills were the Jags, and the Raiders.Dude you are not only not hopeful but you are no longer being rational. Charleston, SC? I know you have pointed out the less than ideal economic conditions of WNY but do you really think an owner would gamble on Charleston, SC being a better football market than Buffalo- a proven diehard football town? Buffalo may not be a big market (although if you consider a third of the fans at every home game are from either Rochester or Southern Ontario, it's actually not even that small of a market), but most importantly, it is a viable NFL market. I'm not so sure that Toronto is a viable NFL market. Clearly, LA has proven itself not to be. Now those two places are big enough and there's enough money there that it would be a viable investment regardless of the city's NFL fervor but Charleston, SC? A second team in Chicago or Houston? You are entering troll territory here.
But, make no mistake-- Los Angeles is going to get an NFL team. The links below do not represent mere pipe dreams.
http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/location.html
-
Well, not even close-- unless you choose to remove the games he didn't play due to injury from the data curve, which is completely contrary to my point.The normalized production of EJ's and Flacco's rookie seasons are vitually identical. As far as 2013 goes, Flacco returned to rookie/EJ-like production once again in what was his sixth year. I do not think Flacco is elite nor is he on a HOF path. I doubt he can justify that contract he received espcecially since Baltimore had to purge their roster to accomodate it.
He has held the starting job for 6 years (and not missed a game) and been good enough to get a consistently good team to the playoffs multiple times. Winning it all was surprising to me but Ozzie Newsome is generally credited with being one of the best organizational talent evaluators in the NFL and Flacco did not screw it up when they got their chance.
So, using Joe Flacco as the standard for EJ is not really setting the bar too high, imo.
And, really, that's only one reason that a normalization curve is deceptive in this comparison. One of EJ's biggest criticisms has been that he is inconsistent. A normalized production metric will mask inconsistency.
-
I was going by a Forbes article on the subject of team profitability. Here's the link: http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/In 2012 (reported in 2013), the 4 teams with a lower operating margin were SF, Detroit, AZ and Tampa. Actually, the Bills often rank in the top 10.
LA hasn't been able to get their stadium situation settled for over 20 years. It won't likely happen by 2020. Toronto is a more likely threat.
Saying that "LA hasn't been able to get their stadium situation settled for over 20 years," is little more than snark. I live in Los Angeles (and for the record, would be depressed by the Bils moving here), and I can say that building a new stadium is only a matter of time. There have been several plans floated, and the money and resources are definitely there. A team moving to Los Angeles is almost a certainty. Let's hope it's not the Bills.
-
I have to wonder if Roger Goodell isn't quietly working behind the scenes to try to get the Bills to Los Angeles. Over the last few years, he has been quite vocal about his desire to get a team in LA, and now he has been a little too quiet on the issue. And, the $400mil lease restriction could time out perfectly as it could certainly take that long for LA to get their stadium situation settled/built.
On the other hand, I suspect that Goodell, and the NFL would be quite satisfied with the Bills moving to Toronto, as it has been the plan/dream to make the NFL "international," and that would be a logical next step in that direction.
In 2012, only the Jags, and the Raiders were less profitable than the Bills. It will be tragic if they move, but it sure isn't unlikely.
-
Admitting that you might be wrong is a symptom of an active, and open mind. Plus, it helps engage those that you are debating by giving them a sense that there may, indeed, be a reason to debate you. I was being a bit snarky in referencing the "IMO" tag. But, my point is that to state a prediction as something that is incontrovertible fact (as was the poster I was replying to, and many others on these boards), hurts one's argument far more than "IMO" by making them seem close-minded, and immune to counterpoint. "I don't believe that EJ will ever be above average," sounds a lot more intelligent than, "EJ will never be above average."I hate this misconception. Just about everything posted on here is ISO. It's not necessary to put after every little thing, ESPECIALLY when the point clearly is not a fact.
Not to mention the fact that IMO hurts an argument. Why would you ever admit you might be wrong? Stick to your convictions.
IMO.
(Personally, I fear, and suspect that EJ will not develop into an above average QB. But, I would be an idiot to simply say "he never will" and, to quote the poster I was criticizing, "that's all there is to it.")
-
At least stick an "IMO" at the end of a post like that.He does not and has never had a "feel" for the game. That's all there is to it. He's not going to ever go out there and anticipate and confidently zip the ball around manipulating and destroying defenses. He's a cautious "take what is there" QB. Not going to be anything better than average (at best).
-
It's a fine line between optimism, and denial.
-
Good point.So did Mr. Butt Fumble.
-
I appreciate the optimism, and all, but Flacco made it to the conference championship his rookie year, starting every game. If your prediction is going to come true, EJ has some catching up to do.In defense of Charley Casserly, there is way more to a QBs draft evaluation than college tape. Lets say his opinion is largely true, it still does not say "these 7 are better NFL prospects." Because, in their present state, no rookie QB is good enough to be elite in the NFL. It's all about what they are likely to become rather than what they currently are.
I do not think any team did a more thorough job of QB evaluation for the 2013 draft than the Bills. This went far beyond his college game tape which, which, along with the combine, is probably all the info Casserly has access to anymore.
http://espn.go.com/n...s-espn-magazine
“Patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet.”
Prediction: EJ Manuel will be at least as good a QB as Joe Flacco.
Bon Jovi: 1 Billion
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted