LGB Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 There has been talk about building a new stadium in Niagara Falls, but maybe the Bills could move down the thruway to Darien Lake - closer to Batavia/Rochester/Syracuse.
BillsFan74 Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 I never understand these articles that ignore the 800lb gorilla in the corner regarding the NFL in Canada. First off the NFL can't figure out their labor issues in the United States how are they going to negotiate that into a CBA. Some people don't realize that players get paid and pay tax in the city and state they play the game in on Sunday, I don't think the players want to pay canadian taxes at all. Secondly Canada's law are problematic with arrests for DWI, Gun charges, assault charges so some guys may have a hard time playing there another potential issue. Look at the Blue Jays and Raptors not being able to attract free agents, drafted players can't wait to leave. I see a ton of problems with the NFL in that market.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 The territorial rights rules also imply an indemnification fee paid to the Bills if a team were to want to move within their territory while the Bills still existed. In other words, a cash fee so that the Bills owner can recoup money lost by sharing his market. But it's hard to see a team in Toronto…especially if a team still exists in Buffalo.
Hplarrm Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 My sense is that these are the "rule" which govern a Toronto frsnchise question 1. No. 1 is that it is all about the money. What makes the most money for the decision-makers. 2. No. 2 is that it is all about the money. What makes the most money for the decision-makers. 3. See rule 2 and if you have any doubts see rule #1. 4. Who is the decision-maker. A. The team owners as a whole. The rule is that 75% of the teams need to vote for a new franchise to be approved, and this means that ONLY a general consensus choice which aligns with the general previously chosen NFL expansion strategy will be approved. The decision-making is not going to be driven by the needs, desires and profits on any one owner it will be driven by what is profitable for the league as a whole based om the social compact the team owners have developed over the years which basically realizes the vision of Pete Rozelle. B. However, the current labor dispute is one which is described by such baf blood and argument between the NFL and the NFLPA that it simply defies the logic that given the many billions in gross receipts that the NFL has signed, sealed, and delivered from the TV networks if they merely deliver a product why are they fighting. The answer is they are basically fighting over who owns the league. The actual answer is that neither the NFL nor the NFLPA is the "owner" of the league. They are fighting over who controls the league and who directly divides the profits. The actual answer of who owns the league is who pays the money. This is abstractly the fans you and me who buy tickets, watch TV games, watch commercials, etc who ultimately are the reason the game exists. However, in reality it is the TV networks who actually write the checks that own the game. You see it every game which has an hour on the clock, used to maybe approach 2 hours, but now routinely lasts over 3 hours, the flow the game broken up with TV timeouts and then comes to a screeching end with sudden death TO because we have to switch to the next game or prime time. However, the owners exercised virtually complete control of the game into the 70s and 80s stemming from the Halas days. In the mid-80d the NFL owners overplayed their hand. The courts had been moving virtually across the board in major sports ruling in favor of individual freedom and against the owners on issues such as the reserve clause in the MLB. MLB had a much clearer exemption from anti-trust laws than leagues like the NFL, but they lost in court in rulings like the Curt Flood case which denied owners the ability to force an individual to negotiate with one and only one team (the reserve clause effectively held down salaries and forced good players such as Richie Hebner of the Pirates to take a job digging ditches in the offseason to make ends meet despite being an all-star level player. The end of the reserve clause in baseball leaked over to sports like the NFL where players like Mike Ditka was once quoted as saying George Halas threw around nickels like they were manhole covers The NFLPA tried to use outmoded AFL-CIO tactics under Ed Garvey and the owners used a lockout and replacement player gambit to so effectively kick the NFLPA butt that it actually allowed a talented tenth of players led by Gene Upshaw to sell the demoralized players on a tactic suggested by some rich NYC lawyers of decertifying the union as a bargaining agent, Yhe courts had taken a classic American stand for individual rights in freeing the players to sell their services in a freer market but they were cognizant also of precedent and did allow the NFL to pursue the anti-free market approach inherent in their social compact approach by only allowing the restraints of the draft IF the players had a union which could negotiate the terms of a comprehensive bargaining agreement with the owner. Effectively at that point the NFLPA surged beyond the old AFL ways to actually become "partners" with the NFL in restraining trade through the draft. This is why the decert is such a potent threat. Without a certfied bargaining agent to partner with the team owners to restrain free trade, the team owners run the risk of being declared by the courts of illegally and unconstitutionally restraining individual rights to free trade by forcing individuals to be assigned to one and only one employer. The constitutional alternative for the owners without the draft and other constraints like the banning of adults from even signing contracts until they are 21 is to enter into personal services with whatever individual players they can arrange. The owners ran kicking and screaming to agree to a CBA which recognized the players as partners in collusion that the courts allowed. When the next CBA negotiation rolled around Gene Upshaw publicly announced that the new deal would assign at least 60% of the total receipts to the NFLPA through the salary cap. The final deal awarded an officially calculated 60.5% if the total take to the players. Even though the actual figures turned out to be a little less, the players now comfortably get a majority of the total receipts and the NFLPA is not only a partner but measured by their receipt of a majority of the take they are the majority partners. The two sides are arguing so bitterly because the stakes are a determination of who really is the majority partner in this enterprise. What I think this means for a franchise in Toronto (or whether the Bills remain in Buffalo) is ironically not much. It makes a significant difference who wins this fight as to who will be in control of the NFL. However, it makes little difference to the average fan whether the boss is the owners or the players. Football will remain the same without regard to who is in control. Wiyhout regard as to who controls the league the fiscal dynamics are the same. The league is committed to a path of internationalization and this means a Toronto franchise is the obvious thing. The new owner will pay a big chunk to Mr. Ralph to encroach on his territory but the Bills will remain in Buffalo in the same conference as the new Toro nto team creating a natural rivalry. Everybody profits.
Dragonborn10 Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 RW is a freaking genius. He proved NFL football wouldn't work in Toronto by putting this craptastic collection of bad players together and playing some of the worst football of the last 30 years in those Toronto games. The games were so bad they couldn't sell out and the fans just said no thank you. Now the NFL won't put a team up there so RW keeps all the Ontario money flowing to him. Damm he's good!
BillsfaninFl Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 There is a new breed of owners in the NFL. Forget about the cultural rules that used to be considered. The new owners who push the league around (Jones, Snyder, etc.) don't care about whether the NFL will be going strong in 20 years. They want as much money as they can get, now. Toronto will have a team, even if it will eventually fail. Just like Los Angeles will have another team even if it will eventually fail.
Mr. WEO Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 There is a new breed of owners in the NFL. Forget about the cultural rules that used to be considered. The new owners who push the league around (Jones, Snyder, etc.) don't care about whether the NFL will be going strong in 20 years. They want as much money as they can get, now. Toronto will have a team, even if it will eventually fail. Just like Los Angeles will have another team even if it will eventually fail. A super majority of the owners have to approve any new owner. The same majority would also have to approve a move to Toronto. This "new breed" stuff (Jones has been owner for over 20 years) and the paranoia around a couple of owners are reaching ridiculous heights on this board. The owners who moved their teams (to make more money) were all "old breed" guys.
Pirate Angel Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Probably a bargaining chip to get the bills on the cheap because he knows the league will never support 2 teams in what it considered one greater area. San Fran and Oakland.....New York and New York...no that would never happen
billsfreak Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Why? Are 75% of Bills fans wanted for some kind of crime that would keep them from crossing the border? Maybe not that high of a percentage are criminals, but I believe after delaying a half a dozen times, you do need a passport to cross the border now. Not alot of Western New Yorkers that I have met do alot of international traveling to have a passport.
eball Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 RW is a freaking genius. He proved NFL football wouldn't work in Toronto by putting this craptastic collection of bad players together and playing some of the worst football of the last 30 years in those Toronto games. The games were so bad they couldn't sell out and the fans just said no thank you. Now the NFL won't put a team up there so RW keeps all the Ontario money flowing to him. Damm he's good!
CodeMonkey Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Maybe not that high of a percentage are criminals, but I believe after delaying a half a dozen times, you do need a passport to cross the border now. Not alot of Western New Yorkers that I have met do alot of international traveling to have a passport. So far anyway, all you need is a "enhanced" drivers license that lets you drive to Canada. U.S. CITIZENS RETURNING TO THE U.S. AFTER VISITING NIAGARA FALLS CANADA ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A PASSPORT, PASSPORT CARD OR ENHANCED DRIVERS LICENSE AT THE IMMIGRATION CHECKPOINT. Link It costs a bit more but I don't think enough to stop the people paying for season tickets from getting one. Now would they go is another matter altogether.
papazoid Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 LOL......Toronto Councillor admits he had no clue what he was talking about regarding Saints( and probably the rest of the story). http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/06/toronto-councillor-admits-he-had-no-clue-what-he-was-talking-about/
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) LOL......Toronto Councillor admits he had no clue what he was talking about regarding Saints( and probably the rest of the story). http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/06/toronto-councillor-admits-he-had-no-clue-what-he-was-talking-about/ Nice find! On the other hand, SI's Peter King reported a few years ago that a "Canadian consortium" offered a billion dollars for the Saints after Hurricane Katrina. King never identified the potential buyers, but a Toronto paper speculated that they were from Toronto. Here's the link to the 2006 Canadian article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/article843833.ece Note that the 2006 billion dollar offer for the Saints was before RW made his Toronto deal. Sure seems to me like if the "Canadian consortium" was from Toronto, the Canadians would have at least asked for an option to buy the Bills upon Ralph Wilson's demise as part of the negotiations for the Bills in Toronto series. Edited May 6, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead
Marv's Neighbor Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Hope they're successful. hope it's NOT the BILLS, hope it mirrors the success of NFL Europe and quietly folds.
zow2 Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 I really don't think the Bills WANT to move to Toronto and I don't think Toronto necessarily wants the Bills. The folks up there know it's Buffalo's team and they don't even support the games up there very well. I dunno, i just don't see it as a very good NFL market up there.
Recommended Posts