buffalobillsfootball
-
Posts
474 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by buffalobillsfootball
-
-
Senator Campbell is bang on: NFL bad for Canada
Threat to CFL is genuine as Bills test waters in Toronto
David Pratt
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
If the Buffalo Bills relocate to Toronto, it will spell the death of the CFL.
Don't listen to me. Listen to him. ...In the next few weeks, Senator Larry Campbell will draft a bill to protect Canada from the NFL.
The threat is real and, yes, this is a fight worth fighting.
On Dec. 7, the Buffalo Bills will play the Miami Dolphins in Toronto. It's the first of eight regular-season and exhibition games Ted Rogers will spend $78 million on over the next five years to help fund a much bigger scheme to relocate the Bills to that city by 2013.
The result will be the death of the CFL. One hundred years of Canadian history flushed down the toilet.
"It's time that we just say 'enough,' " Campbell insists, "It doesn't make any sense politically, financially or culturally."
For the past six months, Bob Ackles, president of the B.C Lions, has been ringing the exact same alarm bells: "It would kill the Grey Cup and the CFL."
Ackles has already addressed the issue with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and has been assured of his support. It's easy to understand why.
It cuts right to the heart of national unity and will once again demand Western Canadians to ask the most important question of their time: "Why are we in this marriage?"
"I'd like to see politicians stand up and vote on this," says Campbell about his proposed bill. "I'd like to see somebody from Saskatchewan vote against it."
In the end it all comes down to money.
The Bills have the lowest average ticket price in the NFL and rank in the bottom 25 per cent of all league games in revenue generated; Toronto is the fifth-largest market in North America, with fans willing to pay $250 a ticket.
So if Rogers is willing to spend $1 billion of his own money to buy an NFL team, who's going to stop him? The NFL.
Toronto does not have a stadium that even comes close to meeting league standards.
Rogers Centre can hold a mere 53,000 fans for football, well below the minimum requirement of 65,000 and light years from the new stadiums being built in L.A. and Dallas, which will hold between 75,000 and 100,000.
Any attempt to upgrade Rogers Centre would not only be outrageously expensive, but would also leave the Toronto Blue Jays in the parking lot for at least two years.
The only answer is a new stadium, but neither the City of Toronto nor the Province of Ontario is willing to commit any money to such a project.
It leaves Rogers and his partner Larry Tanenbaum with two options: a) write a personal cheque for another $1 billion; or b) knock on the door of the federal government.
Plan B would have taxpayers from all over Canada watching their money spent to kill their own football teams.
"I want a debate on this thing," says Campbell, "I want communities to write their MPs."
Once again, we are reminded that nobody in Toronto really gives a damn who suffers, just as long as they get what they want.
That's not my opinion. It's Senator Larry Campbell's.
-
I drive from Southern NH to Buffalo for Bills games. I certainly could pick up a few riders along the NYS Thruway on my way. I'm sure others could offer rides if folks are willing to chip in for gas. A ride share board here at the Stadium Wall could be a good resource. Any thoughts? Opinions?
PTR
Anyone traveling from New England to Buffalo should just fly JetBlue from Logan. After you spend money on gas and tolls - it's just not worth it.
Do you hang out at The Harp?
-
Hmm, nah, no thanks Mr. Florida. I'm ok with one one meaninful game a year in TO but that's it.
-
Update: it appears the links no longer work - shocker.
-
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...=517836&p=2
Senator Larry Campbell is drafting a bill to protect the Canadian Football League from a full-scale American invasion, arguing that a National Football League franchise making a full-time home in Toronto would "be the demise of the CFL."Speculation on the NFL's future in Canada has been swirling anew this year, with the Buffalo Bills set to play eight games inside the Rogers Centre over the next five seasons, beginning with an exhibition game in August. Organizers have trumpeted the high demand for tickets, and some believe the arrangement will ultimately lead to the team's permanent relocation to Toronto.
"I believe that it's time that we just say, 'enough,' " Mr. Campbell said yesterday.
"We have a vibrant league. We have millions of people who watch it. We have a much more exciting brand of football. And let me tell you, I'm an NFL fan.
I've gone to the last two Super Bowls, so it's not like I'm anti-NFL. I just don't need it in Canada."
-
-
Last I heard the Bills were a private business, not a public utility.
But who knows, maybe a new "Fans Back the Bills" organization will make people feel better....sorta like chicken soup. Good luck.
Anything that help put pressure on Ralph & family to sell to a local owner vs. a Canadian/Out of town investor would help.
-
I'd really like to see this issue resolved before 5 years. If it means sharing the team, long term with TO - with most games played in Buffalo - then I'm fine with it.
But why wait 5 years?
-
-
The offseason sucks doesnt it?
ignorance is bliss...
-
Call me a pessimist but its pretty easy to put the pieces together to this tragic story...
The writing is on the wall: the Bills are as good as gone folks.
Let' see:
1) Past ten years of under-achieving.
2) Bills hire a familiar face for PR reasons: Marv.
3) Marv departs 2 years later. Was it public that it was just a two year stint? (Honestly don't know.)
4) Ralph throws Buffalo under the bus two months ago in Toronto.. gives zero reassurance to Bills fans.
5) Bills front office rebuffs any talk about lease; extension and needs - per County Executive
6) Long-time Bills rival - Miami - chosen to play in Toronto - how is this not on purpose? Bills claim they had nothing to do with it.
Personally, I'd rather them just jet now for Toronto and let the pain begin.
It's a disgrace and I simply no longer have any respect for Ralph Wilson.
-
http://www.mlive.com/business/ambizdaily/b...55207283290.xml
NFL owners: Cap not absolutely necessaryMonday, April 14, 2008
Daniel Kaplan and Liz Mullen - Business First
Could National Football League owners actually be considering life without a salary cap?
Facing labor uncertainty and rising costs, league officials and owners claim for the first time in nearly two decades to be thinking about such a scenario.
Long the foundation for the NFL's economic and popular growth, the salary cap is still the business system the league prefers, even if the union, as it maintains, does not. But while the cap was considered sacred in the past, now some owners - and even Commissioner Roger Goodell - are publicly leaving open the possibility of a future without a cap.
"Analysis that we are going through right now indicates that it is difficult for our clubs to stay up with what we have to pay the players," Goodell told reporters last week at the league's annual meeting in Palm Beach, Fla. "There are a lot of owners that aren't concerned about an uncapped season from that standpoint because the salary cap is so high right now.
"We will continue to look and make sure we can find a system that works, and my presumption is that there may be some kind of salary cap, there may not be," he added. The league also has a salary floor that is at least 85 percent of the cap.
John York, the San Francisco 49ers owner, called a cap "not absolutely necessary," though like Goodell, he prefaced his comment by saying he preferred one.
Fear of an uncapped season, in part, drove the owners in 2006 to cut a new labor deal that they now say is not economically feasible. Under the collective-bargaining agreement, the last year of the deal is uncapped, which usually gives the owners a great urgency to renew well in advance of that final season. Seen in that light, Goodell's remarks could be a negotiating strategy to convince the union the league is no longer afraid of a future without a cap.
NFLPA Executive Director Gene Upshaw responded in an e-mail, "I never wanted a cap in the first place. And I never will try to sell the players on one again."
Jeff Pash, the league's general counsel who is handling labor talks, said, "If I were the union, I would say that, too. That is the right pressure point to try to urge. If the union said 'no problem if we go to an uncapped year, we will agree to do a cap at some point,' that would change the dynamic. ... The union feels as if the uncapped year is a big pressure point. I don't know if that is right or not."
The Buffalo Bills declined to comment, citing a request from league officials that comments on the talks emanate only from the NFL.
Talk about life without a cap emerges as the league's labor arm, the Management Council Executive Committee, has been for several months mapping out various options for new labor arrangements, including one without a cap.
The league and union are sparring over the current collective-bargaining agreement, which owners -- including Ralph Wilson of the Buffalo Bills -- have denounced as disproportionately favoring the players. The owners can opt out of the deal on or before Nov. 8, which means 2010 would become the last year and one without a cap.
For that reason, some industry experts view the NFL's newfound public acceptance of a possibility of no salary cap as a labor stratagem rather than a change of heart.
"I think it is psychological warfare," said Bill Gould, Stanford Law School professor and former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. "The players obviously believe the uncapped year is their leverage and this is an attempt to convince the rank and file it is not their leverage. It's as simple as that."
Many teams remain ardently for a cap.
Joseph Shaw Jr., partner in the Hamburg law firm of Shaw & Shaw P.C. and attorney and agent for such former Bills' players as Darryl Talley, Steve Tasker, Mark Kelso and Jim Haslett, said he would be surprised if the league's owners really do away with the cap.
"I think the salary cap is working so well for the players and owners, I'd be surprised if they'd tinker with it," Shaw said.
Shaw added he thinks the removal of the salary cap could hurt small market teams like the Buffalo Bills.
"It would put them (the Bills) in a difficult cash position as compared to some of the other teams," Shaw said. "There are other teams out there that clearly raise more revenues than the Buffalo Bills. Revenues are a concern for any owner."
Team owners agree with Shaw's opinion.
"I think it is still something that the vast majority of the owners believe we should have," said Art Rooney II, the Pittsburgh Steelers president.
Financial markets have also lent to the league and its teams in part on the confidence that the cap would keep a lid on player costs.
The idea that the NFL might be better off without a salary cap runs counter to conventional wisdom. In fact, the longest work stoppage in sports, the 2004-05 NHL lockout, was waged over NHL players' refusal to accept a salary cap.
Historically, the NFL's salary cap was envied by management of the other three major team sports leagues. But that changed with the 2006 extension, when the percentage of league revenue paid to NFL players rose from about 54 percent to about 59 percent.
"The value of [the cap] is it instills some level of discipline in the system," said Houston Texans owner Bob McNair. "But then the way it is now everybody is spending too much, so it's not having the positive impact we would have hoped."
-
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sp...a2-7ef9afaf9438
Let the games begin.
The Honourable Larry W. Campbell stood before The Senate in Ottawa this week and said: "Honourable Senators, I am sure that when the word 'culture' is mentioned, the name 'Senator Campbell' does not spring to mind. However, I rise today to speak on culture."His opening remarks clearly grasped the attention of the congregation that sometimes has trouble staying awake when the Upper House is in session.
Mr. Campbell wanted to talk about football and specifically the danger of the NFL creating a franchise in Toronto. "In February," the good Senator began, "it was announced that the Buffalo Bills intend to play eight games in the beautiful city of Toronto over the next five years. This is viewed by many as the first step toward either moving an existing franchise to Toronto or awarding the city an expansion team. What would be the result? It would be a few people turning a $1-billion investment into a $6-billion windfall at the expense of the Canadian Football League. As proud Canadians and fans of the CFL, we must make every effort to defend our own brand of football.
"We must ensure that this great cultural icon does not become extinct over the wishes of one city and one group of people in this country."
When B.C. Lions president Bob Ackles dispatched a letter in February to his Waterboys -- community business leaders -- he asked that they contact their elected officials at the municipal, provincial and federal levels of government about their concerns of the CFL's future.
Senator Campbell, a proud member of the Waterboys movement, took it a step further. He delivered the message to Ottawa in person.
-
No credit here for Wilson's foresight...
Again, hard to get sympathy for small market teams when they fail to maximize their sponsorship opportunities.
-
This is just one man's opinion.
I am Canadian, and a Bills season ticket holder, but I am against the Bills, or any team coming to Toronto.
I believe the NFL would put a team in LA before Toronto anyway.
The reason the Bills are playing in Toronto is to help this super-small market team make revenue. That's it. It's a marketing ploy, and a smart one at that. The tickets for the Toronto games are like 5 times the price of Buffalo games.
Ralph is still alive and well and the Bills won't be going anywhere, guaranteed for at least 10 years. Besides, you all heard Jim say he has partners ready to buy the Bills, and the Sabres owner is interested too.
The Bills will remain the BUFFALO Bills.
Ignorance is bliss...
Is "lets_go_bills" Russ Brandon?
I'm supposed to buy your logic when the Bills won't even discuss the lease with Erie County?
The County Executive said he is open and willing to negotiate a new lease with the Bills, but so far the team has been cool to his offers. The Bills lease at Ralph Wilson Stadium expires in 2012."It takes two to negotiate and I don't think they want, at this point," Collins said. "Keeping the Bills is high on my agenda and high on the agenda of others."
-
Is it just me or did Vic ignore his question? Odd.
-
Fans should be wary of Bills shuffle
Now, they all know the real goal here. You know it. The NFL knows it. Even Ralph Wilson Jr., who owns the Bills and is trying to make the team's eventual exit from downtrodden Buffalo as painless as possible, knows it. How did Wilson put it yesterday about the Bills' dwindling market? "We've overturned all the rocks in western New York and we had to look this way."This sucks!
The Buffalo Airport is showing that if you put cheap flights in, Canadians will come.
If Ralph puts a winning product on the field, he could charge what he wants. People will pay for it... and as BUF Airport shows, so will Canadians.
-
I 'd like some opinions here on this question,,?
Isnt it time for the NFL to take draft day on the road?
my thinking is the NFL IS loosing a great opportunity by keeping it in NYC... if they took draft day on the road to regonial nfl cities I think they would increase the draft s interest in fans .. by picking regonial cities , ie .. Pittsburg they would draw more Steelers fans ,Browns fans ,Bills fans , Cinci etc.. same as choosing San Diego so to include raiders ,Cards .. or Chicago. with Vikings ,Packers and Colts fans ..
with technology available they could easily do this anywhere .. and the best part is you would nt have to listen to the jets fans anymore ,,,hopefully . .
AND I think itd makea great offseason party,,er roadtrip !
I agree.
Since each NFL franchise is so heavily subsidized by state and local governments, the NFL should rotate meetings, conferences, and drafts as often as possible to help boost local economies.
-
Thanks for your input so far...
...yes, we need a flat panel. New build home here with a space for a flat panel, only...
thanks again.
-
Looking to buy an LCD Flat panel for the upcoming hockey playoffs.
The Vizio seems to have caught my eye. (aight, it was the price, you got me).
VIZIO GV47LFHDTV GV47LF - 47" LCD HDTV - $1799.99
Anyone have experience with the Vizio products? Good/bad/ugly?
Any advice or alternatives would be appreciated.
Thanks
-
“I just wanted a deal that was fair.”
PHOENIX — When Ralph C. Wilson Jr. voted against extending the collective-bargaining agreement last year, his decision was met with criticism, even ridicule.
The Buffalo Bills owner said at the time that he didn’t understand all the particulars of the deal, which was passed by a 30-2 vote.
“I don’t think anyone else understood it, either,” Wilson said.
What he did understand was that an agreement without additional revenue sharing would threaten his small-market franchise’s chances of survival because it wouldn’t be able to compete with the National Football League’s spiraling labor costs. He went on a yearlong campaign to spread the message that financial balance between the small- and large-market teams was vital to the league. The overwhelming approval of an expanded revenue-sharing plan Monday shows that a lot of his fellow owners have gotten the message.
“We looked over that ledge, and we didn’t like what we saw,” New England Patriots owner Robert K. Kraft said during an interview at the Arizona Biltmore Resort, where the NFL’s annual spring meetings are being held. “Ultimately, our job, our responsibility as owners, is doing what is best for the National Football League. This is not the best plan, but it is a plan that is in the best interests of all our teams.”
Under the terms of the four-year revenue-sharing agreement, the 15 richest teams will contribute $430 million ($100 million in 2006 and $110 million from 2007 to 2009) to a pool from which the needy teams will draw. The $3.7 billion shared equally by the 32 teams from the league’s television contracts is not affected by the new pool.
As many as 17 teams may get money from the pool, provided they meet the criteria to qualify for extra funds, including spending at least 65 percent of their revenues on player costs. If below that figure, a team can receive only enough money to get it back to 65 percent.
Teams also must have gate revenue equal to at least 90 percent of the league average, and if a team has a new or substantially renovated stadium, it won’t be eligible to receive money over the length of the four-year agreement.
Not every team is happy with the agreement, Wilson said. Some bigmoney teams believe they are paying too much. Small-market franchises such as Cincinnati and Jacksonville, which cast the only no votes, believe that the plan doesn’t go far enough.
“Nobody is happy,” said Robert C. McNair, owner of the Houston Texans. “So, I guess, maybe it’s a good deal that way. The important thing is, the deal got done.”
It is also important to note that the 15 large-market teams — among them, New England, Dallas, Houston, Washington and Denver — that have to put money into the revenue-sharing pool all voted in favor of the plan.
“This is a strong testament to our teams’ willingness to do what is best for the league,” Bills Treasurer Jeffrey C. Littmann said. “This wasn’t about a win. This was about making our case.”
Many of the owners said Wilson was a driving force behind this revenue- sharing plan getting approved. He lobbied owners and politicians to make sure his voice was heard.
“Ralph is one of our most respected owners, so you listen when he has something to say,” Pittsburgh Steelers owner Daniel M. Rooney said. “He and his people were very much involved. He did a good job presenting his case.”
“I’m certainly sympathetic to Ralph’s situation in Buffalo,” said Denver Broncos owner Patrick D. Bowlen. “From what I saw, he was pretty persuasive in, No. 1, keeping the team in Buffalo, and, No. 2, having some better revenue-sharing arrangements than we do. Ralph’s been around since Day One. So I think what he had to say and his input was very important.”
Perhaps Wilson should feel vindicated now that so many owners see this issue from his perspective. But that was never his aim.
“I wasn’t looking for vindication,” Wilson said. “I just wanted a deal that was fair.”
His quest for a fair deal began shortly after the owners met to ratify the collective-bargaining agreement last March in Dallas. He thought owners felt rushed because they were facing a ratification deadline.
Some owners saw it as the lesser of two evils — a flawed deal was better than no deal at all. But Wilson viewed it as giving up too much (60 percent of the gross revenues) to the players. More important, he felt that the Bills and other small-market teams would suffer without more revenue sharing.
He enlisted the services of Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who had meetings with the NFL’s former commissioner, Paul Tagliabue, and the current one, Roger Goodell, to help ensure the Bills’ long-term security in Buffalo.
Before stepping down, Tagliabue named Wilson to a “qualifiers committee” of eight NFL owners to tackle the revenue-sharing issue. Littmann served on a revenue-sharing study group named by the commissioner. After months of conference calls, meetings and debates, the deal was struck.
Had the new agreement not passed, Goodell would have had the authority to make the final ruling. But it didn’t come to that, and now the Bills and their small-market brethren can breathe a sigh of relief.
“I’m not totally satisfied, but I’m happier with this plan,” Wilson said. “It took a lot of work to make this happen.”
-
BY MARK CURNUTTE | MCURNUTTE@ENQUIRER.COM
PHOENIX -NFL owners voted 30-2 this morning - with the Bengals and Jacksonville Jaguars voting no -to adopt a four-year supplemental revenue sharing plan and terms of how teams qualify for it.
The plan is intended to help the NFL maintain competitive balance among teams located in big markets and small markets alike.
The amount of money the Bengals will receive and when has not been determined, Bengals president Mike Brown said after a meeting at the Arizona Biltmore.
A list of “qualifiers” will reduce how much teams will receive.
One qualifier is playing in a stadium that is less than 10 years old. Brown said the Bengals are hit with a 44 percent reduction in revenue sharing because Paul Brown Stadium is entering its eighth year of operation.
“The qualifiers are a reduction in the subsidy, and in our case, this program will reduce any subsidy we would receive under the new program by exactly 44 percent,” he said. “Why that number is so exact … I don’t know. But that’s how it works out.”
The plan is retroactive to 2006 and will continue through 2009, Houston Texans owner Bob McNair said. The vote last March in Dallas to extend the league’s collective bargaining agreement with the players’ union called for additional revenue sharing.
“Nobody is happy,” McNair said. “Some (teams) think they are giving too much. Some (teams) think they are receiving too little. So, I guess, maybe it’s a good deal that way.”
The top 15 revenue-producing teams – almost all of them in the NFL’s largest markets, such as Washington, Philadelphia, New York, Houston and Boston – will pay into the pool. Teams such as the Bengals, Buffalo, Jacksonville and Minnesota – which ranks last in team revenue – are among the 17 that will receive money.
New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft called the agreement important and said owners must unify after becoming fractured last year during talks to extend the labor agreement.
The issue is complicated, and more details will be available later today when NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell or one of his spokesmen addresses the media.
Essentially, there is an undeniable growing rift in team revenue between teams in large and small markets in the NFL. The cause is increased unshared revenue streams generated by large-market teams with new stadiums – such as Washington, New England and Philadelphia.
The growing gap in revenue threatens the competitive balance that has helped the NFL grow into the nation’s top spectator sport with revenues around $6 billion.
Shared revenue is the major reason teams in small markets such as Cincinnati, Green Bay, Jacksonville, Kansas City and Buffalo have been able to compete with teams in large cities such as New York. Major League Baseball, by comparison, does not have extensive revenue sharing, and teams in many small markets – including Cincinnati – face a competitive disadvantage because of limited payroll.
Brown said last month that the Bengals might not be able to compete well into the future unless core issues of revenue disparity were addressed.
With his no vote and comments today, he said the measure is a short-term solution.
“I don’t favor it. It’s a stopgap solution,” Brown said this morning. “We have deeper problems than qualifiers. We have problems with subsidies in the league.”
Brown said teams in the NFL have been subsidized through stadium loans and grants to teams.
-
http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/NO/10089153
Saints staying in New Orleans through 2010
NFL.com wire reports
BATON ROUGE, La. (March 26, 2007) -- The New Orleans Saints have come to an agreement with state officials that will keep the team in Louisiana through the 2010 season.
Both sides agreed to toss out contract exit clauses that would have let the NFL team leave the state within the next four years.
"For the foreseeable future, Louisiana's team will keep marching to victory right here," Gov. Kathleen Blanco said at the Governor's Mansion, announcing the latest developments in ongoing negotiations to keep the Saints in New Orleans.
The contract had allowed the Saints to opt out of its current deal with the state by repaying about $70 million the state has provided in inducements to the team. But the Saints will drop that termination clause, and the state will eliminate its ability to opt out of the contract.
Both sides agreed to continue negotiating on a long-term agreement that could keep the Saints in New Orleans beyond the current contract.
Saints owner Tom Benson is "committed over the next four years to get a long-term deal done here and to stay here forever," said team spokesman Greg Bensel.
The current $186.5 million contract with the Saints was negotiated in 2001 by former Gov. Mike Foster's administration and involves making annual payments to the team on top of other subsidies through 2010.
Those state payments will continue. Blanco said she didn't agree to give the Saints any more money -- but ongoing upgrades to the Saints' home stadium, the New Orleans Superdome, will continue.
Hurricane Katrina caused extensive damage to the Superdome in 2005. The state repaired the domed stadium and invested another $185 million into improvements and upgrades long sought by Benson.
Benson was in Phoenix for the NFL owners' meeting and was not at the Governor's Mansion for the announcement of the contract changes.
-
Report: NFL settles revenue-sharing issue
The National Football League committee assigned to create a system for needy teams to tap a new revenue-sharing pool has reached an agreement, sources told the SportsBusiness Journal.
The deal comes as owners gather for the NFL's annual metting in Phoenix.
The issue has been a major source of concern for the Buffalo Bills. Owner Ralph Wilson has questioned the long-term viability of the franchise in Buffalo without a settlement that is favorable to small-market teams such as the Bills.
The committee has been struggling for months to arrive at a solution on how to distribute up to $900M over six years to low-revenue clubs. High-revenue clubs wanted more performance hurdles built into the system, while many teams in smaller markets complained they would be penalized for market size. Details of the decision of the eight-team committee, which includes the Bills, could not be determined.
The full ownership must still approve the committee's recommendation, but it is very rare for the league to ignore a committee recommendation. If the committee's recommendation does not get the 24 owner votes necessary to win approval, then Commissioner Roger Goodell would decide the issue. However, that appears unnecessary now.
Jaguars: Ticket sales behind '06 pace
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Anyone going to the Bills-Jags game in FL?