Kurt Warner says NFL players must give back money

[Sisyphean Bills]

The game is. Doesn't matter who specifically plays it.

 

The caveat being that it's the best of the best. And the players are free to pursue careers in other professional leagues.

That's exactly right, Doc. The product is clearly the game, the sport, the experience. In fact, some of us watch a lot of college football because we find it very entertaining. (It was vastly more entertaining than watching a Dick Jauron coached team grind out another close loss to Cleveland.) No doubt it is a somewhat different form of the sport, but as a football fan I rather enjoy it.

[K Gun Special]

It's an entertainment business. The players are not the product. They are employees that are a part of producing the entertainment.

 

Right that's why TV markets Brady v Manning etc etc, and teams make a killing on jersey sales and whatnot.

 

Its not just about the game, the players are a huge part.

 

Tell the fans at the Ralph or in Green Bay its just entertainment. Sports are far more than entertainment, especially the NFL.

 

Geez, even the owners arent taking that drastic of a position.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Jamarcus could be a principal owner of a franchise in the NewFL. Get him on the phone!

Why not? I mean it's also a "fact" that corporate America, after they file bankruptcy papers, will be chomping at the bit to sign up for another doubling of advertising rates. Some things are just obvious.

 

Right that's why TV markets Brady v Manning etc etc, and teams make a killing on jersey sales and whatnot.

 

Its not just about the game, the players are a huge part.

 

Tell the fans at the Ralph or in Green Bay its just entertainment. Sports are far more than entertainment, especially the NFL.

 

Geez, even the owners arent taking that drastic of a position.

You claimed to be someone involved in player contracts. If that is true, you are obviously not impartial on the issue and there is no ambiguity as to your personal motives.

 

I am not and never claimed to be an NFL owner, your attempts to draw parallel on that issue notwithstanding.

 

To be very direct, I was stating a personal opinion of my own person. I am a football fan, mac. I have never bought a Manning or Brady jersey. I wouldn't shed a single tear if they never play another down of football. I won't even cry if there is no NFL season this year. There is other football and I have other interests as well. Put that in your "it's nothing more than players" pipe and smoke it.

[K Gun Special]

Why not? I mean it's also a "fact" that corporate America, after they file bankruptcy papers, will be chomping at the bit to sign up for another doubling of advertising rates. Some things are just obvious.

 

 

You claimed to be someone involved in player contracts. If that is true, you are obviously not impartial on the issue and there is no ambiguity as to your personal motives.

 

I am not and never claimed to be an NFL owner, your attempts to draw parallel on that issue notwithstanding.

 

To be very direct, I was stating a personal opinion of my own person. I am a football fan, mac. I have never bought a Manning or Brady jersey. I wouldn't shed a single tear if they never play another down of football. I won't even cry if there is no NFL season this year. There is other football and I have other interests as well. Put that in your "it's nothing more than players" pipe and smoke it.

 

 

i didn't say on what side i was involved in contracts, so draw any inference you may like. The point is that I do have some basis for my statements other than just how I feel about the issue although you imply the same.

 

You may have never bought one of those jerseys but millions of people have. There is a reason attendance increases when certain teams play on the road. People love the game, but they love the players too.

Edited June 14, 2011 by K Gun Special

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Okay.

 

So how much is it worth that for the most part, the best players are in the NFL?

 

What value does that add to the league as far as ratings and attendance and paid interest?

 

What if the game/product was played by a group of 1800 inferior players than the ones playing now?

 

Not sure what your point is. Of course the best players want only to play in the NFL--it's where they will find fame and wealth. When they can no longer play, they are very easily replaced as there is, literally, an endless supply of NFL caliber players. The highest level of play continues, no matter the names of the players.

My point is that the value of the aggregate of players now playing in the NFL (actually in a work stoppage at the moment) would be reflected in the difference in revenue that would be created if they were replaced by the next best 1800 players.

 

Would anyone notice the difference in play?

 

Why do some people enjoy watching college football and some do not?

 

Why do some people enjoy watching Arena Football?

 

Again, if you secretly replaced the top 1800 players with the next best 1800 players, would anyone notice?

 

The answer to that question is a large part of the answer towards what the players are ultimately worth to the game.

 

 

[Ramius]

i didn't say on what side i was involved in contracts, so draw any inference you may like. The point is that I do have some basis for my statements other than just how I feel about the issue although you imply the same.

 

You may have never bought one of those jerseys but millions of people have. There is a reason attendance increases when certain teams play on the road. People love the game, but they love the players too.

 

But Sisyphean's point is, that when Peyton and Brady leave the game, the game won't lose millions of fans, even if millions of fans buy Manning jerseys. They'll simply buy Jim Bob Martin jerseys when he's drafted #1 overall, and continue to root for the Colts.

 

NFL fans are fans of both the game and the players, but its the game that keeps them coming back year in and year out, not the players.

[K Gun Special]

But Sisyphean's point is, that when Peyton and Brady leave the game, the game won't lose millions of fans, even if millions of fans buy Manning jerseys. They'll simply buy Jim Bob Martin jerseys when he's drafted #1 overall, and continue to root for the Colts.

 

NFL fans are fans of both the game and the players, but its the game that keeps them coming back year in and year out, not the players.

 

 

Thats a pretty tough sell. Because popular players are usually the best and help teams win and Winning gets people in the seats.

 

There is a reason the NFL markets players the most.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

My point is that the value of the aggregate of players now playing in the NFL (actually in a work stoppage at the moment) would be reflected in the difference in revenue that would be created if they were replaced by the next best 1800 players.

 

Would anyone notice the difference in play?

 

Why do some people enjoy watching college football and some do not?

 

Why do some people enjoy watching Arena Football?

 

Again, if you secretly replaced the top 1800 players with the next best 1800 players, would anyone notice?

 

The answer to that question is a large part of the answer towards what the players are ultimately worth to the game.

 

 

 

But Sisyphean's point is, that when Peyton and Brady leave the game, the game won't lose millions of fans, even if millions of fans buy Manning jerseys. They'll simply buy Jim Bob Martin jerseys when he's drafted #1 overall, and continue to root for the Colts.

 

NFL fans are fans of both the game and the players, but its the game that keeps them coming back year in and year out, not the players.

You could make that argument in the context of the constant attrition and turnover that happens as players enter and leave the league. In this context, at any one time, there is a critical mass of great players that draw fans.

 

However in the context of a draconian work stoppage where the owners would say, "the game is the product, not the players" it becomes somewhat different because you're not only talking about one or two superstars anymore.

 

Again, how would NFL fans feel about all 1800 or so players being swept out and replaced by generally lesser players?

 

Or finding a middle ground for this discussion, what would happen to the NFL if even just the top 100 players were removed from the game? The top 200?

 

This discussion is ultimately about how much all of the players are worth to the league. Without the best players, the product (the game) suffers.

 

So again, the question remains (and I honestly can't even imagine an answer), what are the players worth?

 

Ultimately the players are worth what both sides agree to (what the market will bear) but from a purely academic standpoint, the players also have a value apart from their market value.

 

How much would the game suffer (loss of revenue) if the product was inferior?

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

You could make that argument in the context of the constant attrition and turnover that happens as players enter and leave the league. In this context, at any one time, there is a critical mass of great players that draw fans.

 

However in the context of a draconian work stoppage where the owners would say, "the game is the product, not the players" it becomes somewhat different because you're not only talking about one or two superstars anymore.

 

Again, how would NFL fans feel about all 1800 or so players being swept out and replaced by generally lesser players?

 

Or finding a middle ground for this discussion, what would happen to the NFL if even just the top 100 players were removed from the game? The top 200?

 

This discussion is ultimately about how much all of the players are worth to the league. Without the best players, the product (the game) suffers.

 

So again, the question remains (and I honestly can't even imagine an answer), what are the players worth?

 

Ultimately the players are worth what both sides agree to (what the market will bear) but from a purely academic standpoint, the players also have a value apart from their market value.

 

How much would the game suffer (loss of revenue) if the product was inferior?

 

Fans root for their teams, and by inference, the players (any players) on that team.

 

It is assumed that the guys in the NFL are the "best of the best", but how do we know? Despite all of the work that goes into scouting these guys, busts are routine every year. And every year, 7th rounders and undrafted players become starters.

 

You're looking at the wrong end---I would bet that at least 1000 of your 1800 players are in for a handful of plays, if any, each game. These guys are "the best of the rest". They could easily be replaced with another 1000 college guys who pro scouts completely whiffed on.

 

The Bills roster has been completely replaced several times over since their heyday 20 years ago. The product is clearly inferior, yet the "game" (for the Bills) has not suffered one bit. The money keeps rolling in.

 

In general, I don't think pointing out that if the NFL (or any company) wiped out it's workforce and replaced it with a group of poorly skilled employees it would cause it's product to suffer is a very strong argument. In fact, it underscores the fact that the end product is what is important, even if a highly skilled work force makes it so.

[Sisyphean Bills]

You could make that argument in the context of the constant attrition and turnover that happens as players enter and leave the league. In this context, at any one time, there is a critical mass of great players that draw fans.

 

However in the context of a draconian work stoppage where the owners would say, "the game is the product, not the players" it becomes somewhat different because you're not only talking about one or two superstars anymore.

 

Again, how would NFL fans feel about all 1800 or so players being swept out and replaced by generally lesser players?

 

Or finding a middle ground for this discussion, what would happen to the NFL if even just the top 100 players were removed from the game? The top 200?

 

This discussion is ultimately about how much all of the players are worth to the league. Without the best players, the product (the game) suffers.

 

So again, the question remains (and I honestly can't even imagine an answer), what are the players worth?

 

Ultimately the players are worth what both sides agree to (what the market will bear) but from a purely academic standpoint, the players also have a value apart from their market value.

 

How much would the game suffer (loss of revenue) if the product was inferior?

The NFL really is just another entertainment businesses. There are movie stars, rock stars, and football stars. Some fans are devoted to the star and follow (worship) that individual. To them, what toothpaste Tom Brady uses really does matter. And they really do want to know whether Peyton Manning wears boxers or briefs. I get that. On the other hand, there are others that go to NFL games and couldn't care less. It's not a one size fits all situation.

 

Like other entertainment, there are people/fans that will go to, say, any sort of movie in which <insert star> has a role. It doesn't matter what the movie is about or if every critic says, "this movie is horrible, save your money." They're going no matter what. It's not the art; it's not the story; they want to see their heart throb larger than life. And, the production company knows that.

 

But that doesn't mean there is a contradiction nor even an inconsistency if someone else can separate the art (or the sport) from the individuals involved. It is hard to separate the talent and draw of, say, the latest Disney star from the machine that is Disney that propels the latest kid they get under contract into an icon for their young viewers. Is every Disney-created star "the best"? Not in my opinion. What they lack in true vocal talent they more than make up for in promotion. Now if you ask some pre-teen kid, you might get a very different answer.

 

Just like Disney does when the kid hits 18, when the football star has played out, another player fills the void.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

In general, I don't think pointing out that if the NFL (or any company) wiped out it's workforce and replaced it with a group of poorly skilled employees it would cause it's product to suffer is a very strong argument. In fact, it underscores the fact that the end product is what is important, even if a highly skilled work force makes it so.

Well, first of all, I was only asking questions… probably questions that can't really be answered but questions that ought to be asked nonetheless.

 

And the reason I'm asking these questions is to try to figure out to what degree "the game is the product" and to what degree "the players are the product." I think the truth lies somewhere between the two.

 

I was not making any statements earlier but now that we're at that point, I do think the sport would suffer (reduced revenues) if you took away a critical mass of the top players.

 

Decent quarterbacking in particular is in very short supply in the NFL and most lousy games are a result of lousy quarterbacking. If there was an epidemic of bad quarterbacking, I think that would affect the product and therefore its popularity.

 

I did not watch any UFL games so I wasn't able to test this theory by watching JP Losman win a championship.

 

With only a few exceptions, I generally don't watch college football because there are several glaring moments each game where I have to remind myself, "these guys are not pros, and most of them won't play in the NFL."

 

Things like missed field goals, bad passing attacks, receivers who can't get one foot down, much less two… those things ruin college football for me.

 

After kicking this around, I think that many of the players in the NFL ARE interchangeable/replaceable but that there are a group of elite players who drive the NFL's popularity. It's why these players generally are paid more.

 

IMO, if you took away the top 100-200 players, the game would suffer lost revenue. I just don't know to what degree.

Edited June 14, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[Doc]

Well, first of all, I was only asking questions… probably questions that can't really be answered but questions that ought to be asked nonetheless.

 

And the reason I'm asking these questions is to try to figure out to what degree "the game is the product" and to what degree "the players are the product." I think the truth lies somewhere between the two.

 

I was not making any statements earlier but now that we're at that point, I do think the sport would suffer (reduced revenues) if you took away a critical mass of the top players.

 

Decent quarterbacking in particular is in very short supply in the NFL and most lousy games are a result of lousy quarterbacking. If there was an epidemic of bad quarterbacking, I think that would affect the product and therefore its popularity.

 

I did not watch any UFL games so I wasn't able to test this theory by watching JP Losman win a championship.

 

With only a few exceptions, I generally don't watch college football because there are several glaring moments each game where I have to remind myself, "these guys are not pros, and most of them won't play in the NFL."

 

Things like missed field goals, bad passing attacks, receivers who can't get one foot down, much less two… those things ruin college football for me.

 

After kicking this around, I think that many of the players in the NFL ARE interchangeable/replaceable but that there are a group of elite players who drive the NFL's popularity. It's why these players generally are paid more.

 

IMO, if you took away the top 100-200 players, the game would suffer lost revenue. I just don't know to what degree.

It's all relative and not all players are created equal. So some of them will have to be better than others, and those are the "stars." But as we've seen, you remove on star and usually another takes his place.

[Orton's Arm]

Almost all the players in the NFL were born (or at least raised) in the USA. But America only has about 5% or less of the world's population. Suppose there was an easy way to identify NFL-level talent among the world's other 95%. This hypothetical talent evaluation method would allow the NFL to potentially increase its talent level by a factor of twenty.

 

What effect, if any, would that dramatic increase in player talent have on the NFL's revenues? Of the people you know who don't currently watch football games, how many would start watching them as a result of this dramatic increase in player talent? I suspect that this increase in talent wouldn't cause any increase in Americans' football viewing, and might actually cause a decrease. Part of the appeal of the NFL is when some local talent does well for himself. Most of that local talent would be driven out of the league by players from other countries.

 

At least to me, expanding the league's available talent by a factor of 20 would be a lot like printing more money. Doing so makes the talent/money you already have seem a lot less valuable than it once did. If dramatically increasing the league's level of talent would fail to make it much better, would a noticeable decrease in its level of talent make it significantly worse?

 

On another matter, one or two people have said that professional sports is "different" from other business endeavors. What aspect, specifically, about professional sports makes it necessary for individual athletes to earn over eight times as much (on a percentage of profits basis) as the most highly paid CEO?

[Ramius]

Well, first of all, I was only asking questions… probably questions that can't really be answered but questions that ought to be asked nonetheless.

 

And the reason I'm asking these questions is to try to figure out to what degree "the game is the product" and to what degree "the players are the product." I think the truth lies somewhere between the two.

 

I was not making any statements earlier but now that we're at that point, I do think the sport would suffer (reduced revenues) if you took away a critical mass of the top players.

 

Decent quarterbacking in particular is in very short supply in the NFL and most lousy games are a result of lousy quarterbacking. If there was an epidemic of bad quarterbacking, I think that would affect the product and therefore its popularity.

 

I did not watch any UFL games so I wasn't able to test this theory by watching JP Losman win a championship.

 

With only a few exceptions, I generally don't watch college football because there are several glaring moments each game where I have to remind myself, "these guys are not pros, and most of them won't play in the NFL."

 

Things like missed field goals, bad passing attacks, receivers who can't get one foot down, much less two… those things ruin college football for me.

 

After kicking this around, I think that many of the players in the NFL ARE interchangeable/replaceable but that there are a group of elite players who drive the NFL's popularity. It's why these players generally are paid more.

 

IMO, if you took away the top 100-200 players, the game would suffer lost revenue. I just don't know to what degree.

 

But, that revenue loss from removing the top 200 players would be short term. In 2-3 years, there'd be a new group of "top 200" players taking their place.

[Dopey]

You post like a 6 year old.

And you post like a 5 yr old. So there.

[Hplarrm]

But, that revenue loss from removing the top 200 players would be short term. In 2-3 years, there'd be a new group of "top 200" players taking their place.

I agree with the post above that fans are loyal to their teams and that players come and go routinely and they root for the players who they know right now.

 

However, I think the mistake that many make is confusing the owners with the teams. I think fans define their teams right here and right now by the players who are on them. If the players suddenly changed they would notice and be influenced by that.

 

If the owner suddenly changed it would be noticed bu the game would proceed ahead easily.

 

My sense is that right here and right now, the owners have provided the players with another opportunity to remake the game and continue to lessen the owners as a drag on the game.

 

The best move for the top 200 to make right now as best as I can see is to use the work stoppage to get free agency and to establish the NewFL.

 

If Fitzpatrick, Evans, Lindell, Poz, and a few others started the Buffalo Thrills who played their games at UB or some college stadium and funded it through cash from the TV networks as part of a package with the NE Cats QB'ed by Brady, ets.. the Indy Dolts QB'ed by Manning, et a;. etc I would be as curious and interested in the new product as the old.

 

The hard part of the players would be to calibrate the new entity so as to mostly weaken and remove the old NFL as a drag but not to kill the stupid current NFL owners because they are a source of cash.

 

Things would be much more economically efficient with a greatly diminished power for the Snyders of the world.

[K Gun Special]

Almost all the players in the NFL were born (or at least raised) in the USA. But America only has about 5% or less of the world's population. Suppose there was an easy way to identify NFL-level talent among the world's other 95%. This hypothetical talent evaluation method would allow the NFL to potentially increase its talent level by a factor of twenty.

 

What effect, if any, would that dramatic increase in player talent have on the NFL's revenues? Of the people you know who don't currently watch football games, how many would start watching them as a result of this dramatic increase in player talent? I suspect that this increase in talent wouldn't cause any increase in Americans' football viewing, and might actually cause a decrease. Part of the appeal of the NFL is when some local talent does well for himself. Most of that local talent would be driven out of the league by players from other countries.

 

At least to me, expanding the league's available talent by a factor of 20 would be a lot like printing more money. Doing so makes the talent/money you already have seem a lot less valuable than it once did. If dramatically increasing the league's level of talent would fail to make it much better, would a noticeable decrease in its level of talent make it significantly worse?

 

On another matter, one or two people have said that professional sports is "different" from other business endeavors. What aspect, specifically, about professional sports makes it necessary for individual athletes to earn over eight times as much (on a percentage of profits basis) as the most highly paid CEO?

 

This has been talked about ad nauseum. You dont know the profits of all the NFL teams so how can you make that comparison? Apparently its being made by using a $10 million dollar player against the not for profit Packers, who are not out to make a profit, unlike the CEOs mentioned in this thread. The top paid CEO btw had a pretty low base salary, and nearly all of his compensation was bonus related, which is not allowed in the NFL generally. Again, please stop using this comparison it doesnt hold any water.

Further, as I've said several times, professional sports are afforded special protections under the law. Law schools teach years worth of classes designed specifically on professional sports. Here is an article by ross tucker explaining how the NFL isnt like your beloved fortune 500 companies. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ross_tucker/05/05/business/index.html

 

The NFL also isnt like other businesses in that they arent capitalist, they share revenues, expenses profits etc. Indeed, in what other business do the owners ask for guaranteed profits? esp where their employees are the product?

Most of the team owners are independently wealthy - their sole purpose of owning a franchise isnt to earn mega profits like in the private sector. They want to win. See Mark Cuban, Pegula. Yea no one wants to lose money, no one is either, but its still not like a mega corporation in that regard.

 

The whole out of the country talent thing you discuss is off point. Adding more talent would have no positive effect but actually a negative effect?

 

You are actually trying to say that if there was more talent, less people would watch football? Lets see in soccer they have something called the champions league, full of the best teams, and it does pretty well.

 

The playoffs, arguably have the most talented teams, charge higher ticket prices and have better TV ratings.

 

So no, more talent would not be a bad thing.

Edited June 14, 2011 by K Gun Special

[Mr. WEO]

This has been talked about ad nauseum. You dont know the profits of all the NFL teams so how can you make that comparison? Apparently its being made by using a $10 million dollar player against the not for profit Packers, who are not out to make a profit, unlike the CEOs mentioned in this thread. The top paid CEO btw had a pretty low base salary, and nearly all of his compensation was bonus related, which is not allowed in the NFL generally. Again, please stop using this comparison it doesnt hold any water.

Further, as I've said several times, professional sports are afforded special protections under the law. Law schools teach years worth of classes designed specifically on professional sports. Here is an article by ross tucker explaining how the NFL isnt like your beloved fortune 500 companies. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ross_tucker/05/05/business/index.html

 

The NFL also isnt like other businesses in that they arent capitalist, they share revenues, expenses profits etc. Indeed, in what other business do the owners ask for guaranteed profits? esp where their employees are the product?

Most of the team owners are independently wealthy - their sole purpose of owning a franchise isnt to earn mega profits like in the private sector. They want to win. See Mark Cuban, Pegula. Yea no one wants to lose money, no one is either, but its still not like a mega corporation in that regard.

 

The whole out of the country talent thing you discuss is off point. Adding more talent would have no positive effect but actually a negative effect?

 

You are actually trying to say that if there was more talent, less people would watch football? Lets see in soccer they have something called the champions league, full of the best teams, and it does pretty well.

 

The playoffs, arguably have the most talented teams, charge higher ticket prices and have better TV ratings.

 

So no, more talent would not be a bad thing.

Enough with this "the players are the product" nonsense. The players are not "made" by the NFL. They are paid entertainers playing in an NFL production (the game=the product). Just like actors on a TV show or in the movies. They are under contract to play games.

 

And of course the Packers are there to make a profit--and they do.

[Doc]

No doc, the citizens of Erie, especially the non football fans, did not have an opportunity to voice their choice on whether their money would go towards "Ralph Wilson Stadium"--they were given no "option". The citizens of Arlington actually voted on the issue. That's a fundamental difference that renders your point senseless.

Why? Is there any doubt in your mind that had the RWS upgrade/upkeep and subsequent lease renewal for 10 years been put to a vote, it wouldn't have passed with flying colors? Obviously it would have. The people of Erie county aren't stupid. So whether there was a vote (which would have cost the county even more money) or not is moot. The Bills bring money/jobs to the region, it's Erie County's stadium and it's not like their ticket prices increased by 25% and they had to purchase PSL's for thousands of dollars because it was a new stadium.

As for the OR, perhaps I can expect the hospital to rename it "Mr. WEO OR" then, eh?

You can put your name on it if you like. Makes no difference either way.

Ooops--guess it doesn't now, huh! Not much else you can say, perhaps, once you get the facts straight. Anyway, the G3 program was available to Ralph at any time to use to defray the costs of renovation to the "Ralph Wilson Stadium" and to bring relief to the economically suffering fans of Erie County.

The G3 program didn't exist back then (1998). It was created in 1999.

We've been over this. The majority of owners felt it was best not to stop football (there is no question there would have been a decert/lockout, doc) in 2006. The 30-2 vote should make this obvious to you. The owners knew they could opt out soon if they wished and they would structure the upcoming TV contract renewals to benefit them in case there was a work stoppage in 2011. In business, it takes a couple hundred million to make an extra billion. If there were missed games in 2007 or 2008, the TV contract renewals would have been worth far less than they are now.

Yes, we've been over this and apparently you didn't pay attention too well. By the end of 2005, the TV contracts had been negotiated and were to run from 2006-2011. So you see, the network contracts weren't a concern to the owners since they were over and done with and locked-in for 5 years, when it came time to hammer-out a new CBA. Maybe they were afraid because they wanted "lockout insurance," but as we saw, the "lockout insurance" they inserted in 2010 was struck-down by a judge. And again, there was NEVER any mention of "the situation changing" by the owners at any time. They talked about opting-out just months after passing it, opted out 2 years later, and even played without a cap for a year. If they could go back to 2006 and do it over again, to a man, they all would.

Benson threatened to move his team to San Antonio as bloated corpses were floating through New Orleans! DOes that make him "old guard" or New guard"?

I'd say old guard. Davis, Irsay, Modell, and Adams are the only owners who have moved their teams, and they're all old guard.

[Mr. WEO]

Why? Is there any doubt in your mind that had the RWS upgrade/upkeep and subsequent lease renewal for 10 years been put to a vote, it wouldn't have passed with flying colors? Obviously it would have. The people of Erie county aren't stupid. So whether there was a vote (which would have cost the county even more money) or not is moot. The Bills bring money/jobs to the region, it's Erie County's stadium and it's not like their ticket prices increased by 25% and they had to purchase PSL's for thousands of dollars because it was a new stadium.

 

You can put your name on it if you like. Makes no difference either way.

 

The G3 program didn't exist back then (1998). It was created in 1999.

 

Yes, we've been over this and apparently you didn't pay attention too well. By the end of 2005, the TV contracts had been negotiated and were to run from 2006-2011. So you see, the network contracts weren't a concern to the owners since they were over and done with and locked-in for 5 years, when it came time to hammer-out a new CBA. Maybe they were afraid because they wanted "lockout insurance," but as we saw, the "lockout insurance" they inserted in 2010 was struck-down by a judge. And again, there was NEVER any mention of "the situation changing" by the owners at any time. They talked about opting-out just months after passing it, opted out 2 years later, and even played without a cap for a year. If they could go back to 2006 and do it over again, to a man, they all would.

 

I'd say old guard. Davis, Irsay, Modell, and Adams are the only owners who have moved their teams, and they're all old guard.

It is precisely because the new contracts were freshly minted that the owners didn't want to stop playing at that time. That a judge would find the lockout insurance no good in the future has no bearing on whether you take out the insurance. Another judge (or judges in this case) will as likely find in your favor on appeal. But we will never know because,a s predicted, this all will be settled well before the courts hear all arguments.

 

You are free to continue to believe that the economic conditions in 2008 played no part in the ultimate decision to opt out.