Kelly the Dog Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 One thing that rarely if ever gets mentioned in the Bills moving out of Buffalo discussions is the fact that the NFL loves Buffalo and its fans. And while the city itself keeps losing population base, those Bills fans that leave the city and move all over the country remain Bills fans in huge percentages. And those are the fans that buy The NFL Season Ticket on DirectTV which is an enormous money maker for the NFL, and those are the fans that frequent sports bars that buy the Season Ticket and sell the hell out of Bud Light or whatever beer sponsors the league. The city loses people but the league doesn't. In fact, it probably makes more off those people. So as long as there is an owner willing to pay for the team to stay, the NFL doesn't at all want a team out of Buffalo, no matter how much the city or the team struggles. The NFL knows what a great thing they have going in Bills fans. Around the country you can go anywhere and people may laugh at the team but everyone seems to appreciate Bills fans. The NFL is all about money, and Buffalo makes money for them.
May Day 10 Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 (edited) this has to be oversite by the author. Although, I do think our main threat is Toronto and not L.A. I still dont understand why expansion seems so taboo with the NFL. Especially if and when the schedule increases to 18 games, the perfect universe of the divisions and schedule will be thrown off anyway. BTW Im not a Buffalo resident and I have the Sunday Ticket, buy Bills "stuff", and have season tickets in which I attend 2-5 games a season (live in Philly). The Bills move and all my interest in the NFL is literally out the window. Edited December 23, 2010 by May Day 10
CosmicBills Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 No there isn't. Unless a current owner who is looking to move is willing to give up a large ownership chunk to a stadium builder, this will never happen. A stadium builder can't drop $1 billion and expect to cover his monthly nut renting the space out to the NFL 8 times a year, maybe a BCS bowl game every few years or a "World Cup" every 50 years or so (the NCAA doesn't play men's basketball in outdoor football stadiums). Two entities build stadiums: the ownership or the public (sometimes a combo). There's no financial incentive for anyone else to build. Actually there is. The proposed stadium is a retractable roof so they can host the Final Four, BCS, MLS and concerts. The downtown proposal is public. The one in the Inland Empire is private. Both are trying to win over the league for a team. The downtown stadium has the inside track. As Dean pointed out, this has been a reoccurring debate/theme/concept in LA since they lost the team but over the past 12 months there's been a massive uptick in the amount of "chatter" about both these stadiums.
The Dean Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 As Dean pointed out, this has been a reoccurring debate/theme/concept in LA since they lost the team but over the past 12 months there's been a massive uptick in the amount of "chatter" about both these stadiums. Unless I am confused, I thought your post was about what it being said in LA at this time. And I think you are 100% accurate. That is what is being discussed. What I was pointing out is, for many years I have been reading and hearing "The Stadium IS going to be built in the next X years." "This time it's different. The stadium is moving forward.", etc. It has been a "done deal" (or so they would have us believe) for years. I'm not doubting the uptick in the past year, but I recall upticks in the past as well. And you are correct about the different stadium plans. Certainly there is a chance one, or both will be built. But, like the new Peace Bridge, I'll believe it when I see it.
Mr. WEO Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Actually there is. The proposed stadium is a retractable roof so they can host the Final Four, BCS, MLS and concerts. The downtown proposal is public. The one in the Inland Empire is private. Both are trying to win over the league for a team. The downtown stadium has the inside track. As Dean pointed out, this has been a reoccurring debate/theme/concept in LA since they lost the team but over the past 12 months there's been a massive uptick in the amount of "chatter" about both these stadiums. No...there isn't. You said: "There is also an NFL stadium being built outside of the city in the hopes of luring a team". There is no such stadium under construction, because Ed Roski won't build it until some owner allows him to buy a significant chunk of a team. The will be no further expansion of the league, so no one is waiting to be awarded a tem by the League. The "downtown proposal" is not "public". It's a private venture. What other stadium was bulit privately by an entity with no team ownership?
Dan Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Actually there is. The proposed stadium is a retractable roof so they can host the Final Four, BCS, MLS and concerts. The downtown proposal is public. The one in the Inland Empire is private. Both are trying to win over the league for a team. The downtown stadium has the inside track. As Dean pointed out, this has been a reoccurring debate/theme/concept in LA since they lost the team but over the past 12 months there's been a massive uptick in the amount of "chatter" about both these stadiums. Someone would have to be insane to build a stadium for a football team without any signed guarantee of a team playing there. Furthermore, how do you build 2 stadiums without the guarantee of even a single team? Is this an either or situation; meaning just one of the stadiums would be built based upon whomever can lure the team in? So I guess we get news of a team moving to LA first, then news of which stadium would be built? I don't watch the final four, but is there precedence for basketball games being played in a stadium built for football? Seems really odd to me. I would think another incentive would be the possibility of the new LA stadium being a regular draw for the Super Bowl.
CosmicBills Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 No...there isn't. You said: "There is also an NFL stadium being built outside of the city in the hopes of luring a team". There is no such stadium under construction, because Ed Roski won't build it until some owner allows him to buy a significant chunk of a team. The will be no further expansion of the league, so no one is waiting to be awarded a tem by the League. The "downtown proposal" is not "public". It's a private venture. What other stadium was bulit privately by an entity with no team ownership? Plans for ... midnight ramble. Of course no one is going to build it till they get something to put in it. The point was there are two serious parties discussing it.
Mr. WEO Posted December 23, 2010 Posted December 23, 2010 Someone would have to be insane to build a stadium for a football team without any signed guarantee of a team playing there. Furthermore, how do you build 2 stadiums without the guarantee of even a single team? Is this an either or situation; meaning just one of the stadiums would be built based upon whomever can lure the team in? So I guess we get news of a team moving to LA first, then news of which stadium would be built? I don't watch the final four, but is there precedence for basketball games being played in a stadium built for football? Seems really odd to me. I would think another incentive would be the possibility of the new LA stadium being a regular draw for the Super Bowl. It's a neither nor situation. A team will have to commit to the move and give up some ownership share to make it financially feasible for the stadium builder. The NCAA Final 4 was at Ford Field one year, I think. But even if they had it there EVERY year, it wouldn't make a dent in the stadium owner's debt. Even pricing the "rent" to an NFL team per season would be difficult. The new stadiuum owner would probably have to finance at least 500-600 million. At least 30 million a year to service that debt--plus overhead/maintanence. The total gate receipts may be 6 million a week, some of which will go to the visiting team. The bulk of the rest goes to the team ownership--maybe 4 million (depending on luxury box income). How much of that is he going to want to part with in rent? The landlord needs 40-50 million a year to stay out of the red.
RTW2012 Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 RW has said what happens when he dies. Repeatedly Except he really hasn't. Repeatedly.
Talley56 Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 RW has said what happens when he dies. Repeatedly Exactly! And if I hadn't heard like 10 different versions of what he said, leading to 10 different conclusions, I'd feel better about that.
Wayne Cubed Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 Unless I am confused, I thought your post was about what it being said in LA at this time. And I think you are 100% accurate. That is what is being discussed. What I was pointing out is, for many years I have been reading and hearing "The Stadium IS going to be built in the next X years." "This time it's different. The stadium is moving forward.", etc. It has been a "done deal" (or so they would have us believe) for years. I'm not doubting the uptick in the past year, but I recall upticks in the past as well. And you are correct about the different stadium plans. Certainly there is a chance one, or both will be built. But, like the new Peace Bridge, I'll believe it when I see it. I, being from LA as well, posted similar to what tgregg posted about talk of an NFL team coming to LA in another post. It was almost identical to what tgregg has said. The biggest reason for the uptick in the stadium talk is that until recently The Coliseum was the only place for an NFL team to play. An NFL team would never move into the outdated stadium. But recently the owners of the Coliseum signed USC to a 10 year deal to play there, so they have pretty much stopped protesting a new stadium and NFL team. This gives way to private financing to a new stadium. One being an extension of the Staple and Nokia centers downtown. And the other being built 45 mins from downtown and built on privately owned land. Currently both stadium plans are on hiatus because of the NFL labor dispute.
Doc Posted December 24, 2010 Posted December 24, 2010 Almost no history and fan support make the Jags the easiest team to move, with minimal outcry over it happening. Why Wayne Weaver keeps wasting his time there is anyone's guess.
CosmicBills Posted December 25, 2010 Posted December 25, 2010 I, being from LA as well, posted similar to what tgregg posted about talk of an NFL team coming to LA in another post. It was almost identical to what tgregg has said. The biggest reason for the uptick in the stadium talk is that until recently The Coliseum was the only place for an NFL team to play. An NFL team would never move into the outdated stadium. But recently the owners of the Coliseum signed USC to a 10 year deal to play there, so they have pretty much stopped protesting a new stadium and NFL team. This gives way to private financing to a new stadium. One being an extension of the Staple and Nokia centers downtown. And the other being built 45 mins from downtown and built on privately owned land. Currently both stadium plans are on hiatus because of the NFL labor dispute. Absolutely right. But I'll also add this. As recently as 8 months ago (maybe 6), the Bills were still constantly thrown around on LA Sports Talk Radio as being in the mix for teams moving to LA, the caveat being that it would happen only when Ralph dies. But as this recent uptick in chatter started about in LA, the Bills dropped off that list. The reason, in my opinion, is because the local media in LA believes that the move to LA is going to happen soon. As in a year or two away. Whether that's true or not who knows. But it's interesting nonetheless.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 25, 2010 Posted December 25, 2010 Absolutely right. But I'll also add this. As recently as 8 months ago (maybe 6), the Bills were still constantly thrown around on LA Sports Talk Radio as being in the mix for teams moving to LA, the caveat being that it would happen only when Ralph dies. But as this recent uptick in chatter started about in LA, the Bills dropped off that list. The reason, in my opinion, is because the local media in LA believes that the move to LA is going to happen soon. As in a year or two away. Whether that's true or not who knows. But it's interesting nonetheless. True. It could also be simply that the Jags have become an obvious choice, and the Chargers and Vikings simply haven't been able to solve their local stadium issues for a few years running. It's kind of just looking for obvious as opposed to usual suspects. The main point is, the LA guys don't care whatsoever what team they get as long as they get a team. If they had their druthers, it would likely be San Diego above all others for obvious reasons, or even the Rams or Raiders returning over the Bills. But they are clearly going to jump on the first possible team. IMO, this is far, far, far from a done deal already. I would still put the chances of a stadium being built in the next couple years at less than 50-50. The NFL owners probably make more money with no team in LA threatening to move their team here and then getting sweatheart deals from the local states, counties, cities and public than they would having a team here. I sincerely doubt the Roski project ever starts. And Anschutz, from what I have read, isn't at all behind the downtown deal, which is dead without him behind it 100%.
whodat Posted December 25, 2010 Posted December 25, 2010 Isn't California broke? Amazing no one here heard you. California doesn't have a pot to piss in and your talking about them building a new stadium. In 2 years Obama will sell it (ca) to China as part of another new Stimulus or should I say stɪmjələs package at that point.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 The other article from the site the OP got the thread-starter with is probably the best one I have read on the subject. Doesn't paint a pretty picture. There is no way this deal gets done in the next year or two, IMO. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AhQxQyfExYnmuni24xRzFUdDubYF?slug=jc-nfllosangeles122110
dayman Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 (edited) Care to name them? Chargers, Bucs, Saints, and Falcons all comparatively the same as the Jags. The Falcons a little better. Saints are TERRIBLE people just forget that b/c they won the superbowl recently and sort of have a little "hotness" to them w/ Katrina emotions and the team. In time they will once again drop down. The Bucs fans suck, and the Bucs are quietly in worse financial shape than the Jaguars. Chargers fans are a joke, they have an awesome team and they don't care. Not saying the Jags fans don't suck or that they aren't necessarily the worst, but there are many other teams close in terms of shittyness. Edited December 26, 2010 by dayman
Recommended Posts