CardinalScotts Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Owning an NFL franchise is a license to print money. NO one is close to losing money, even with the worst franchise that TV money is pouring in. Could they make more money ? Sure - are they not making millions ?- no they are millions every year after expenses.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Our ownership succession plan is a legitimate concern....
Malazan Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Owning an NFL franchise is a license to print money. NO one is close to losing money, even with the worst franchise that TV money is pouring in. Could they make more money ? Sure - are they not making millions ?- no they are millions every year after expenses. The problem isn't so much that they don't make money. It's that relative to the value of an NFL franchise, some teams income means they are high risk when it comes to banks financing them. If the Bills sold for 1 billion, paying back the load at 30 million a year would take 33 1/3 years without factoring in interest. Considering very few teams are purchased outright, it's certainly a factor.
BiggieScooby Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) The problem isn't so much that they don't make money. It's that relative to the value of an NFL franchise, some teams income means they are high risk when it comes to banks financing them. If the Bills sold for 1 billion, paying back the load at 30 million a year would take 33 1/3 years without factoring in interest. Considering very few teams are purchased outright, it's certainly a factor. Take LA for example, they would buy the Bills slightly north of 1 billion and have to pay another billion for a stadium??? Good luck making a profit. They will need an incredible sweet heart loan with a low interest rate (good luck) or an ownership group that has 2 billion in liquidity. You are either talking about a multi-billionaire or a group where 1 guy will need to front 30% equity, and have 29 other partners chipping in the other 70%. The Bills staying local is more viable given the long term debt situation. Factoring in what should be $100 million in stadium debt (assuming the county & ny split the tab & the bills pay the other half) the new local ownership could still outbid the LA investors and save hundreds of millions due to not having to build a stadium. They could further offset the purchase price with a 5 or 10 year Toronto deal that would give Canada 2-3 home games a year and net the Bills $200 million. The new owners would have a winning cash flow position that no other market could possibly offer. Edited September 8, 2012 by BiggieScooby
ThurmasThoman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 With the NFL trying to expand its product internationally, how much sense would it make for the NFL to move a team that is two hours away from Canada's largest city. The Bills Regional Plan into Canada is a way to grow the product . A new owner may have to play 2 to 3 games in Toronto, but they should remain the Buffalo Bills. Besides even Roger Goodell joked that if the Bills left Buffalo he would never be available to go home to his Chautauqua Lake House. People just have no concept how large/important the Toronto foothold is to the NFL. Will the Bills potentially "regionalize" (like the Patriots did,) have a stadium 45 minutes outside the city (like the Patriots do,) and rebrand themselves as the Niagra Bills (like the New England Patriots did)? Of course. But will the team in the 4th largest media market on this side of the atlantic pick up shop and move to the 2nd largest media market? No. jax>stl>oak>sd all going to go to LA first.
KRT88 Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 http://www.nfl.com/n..._headline_stack So what constitutes "Most Troubled"? The fact that they make 100 million this year vs. 200 million because they signed Mario Williams? let's see, the owner dies, there's no new lease agreement, the team goes up for auction and a LA group bids 2 billion and then they leave. That's trouble. Add in a dying city, whose population is 1/2 what it was 50 years ago, a dead economy, the lowest ticket prices in the NFL, high state taxes, exactly what part of this equation can't you see? I hate it all but none of this is non truthful.
QCity Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Michael Ozanian, executive editor at Forbes, said the small market, old stadium and ownership uncertainty all led to the "most troubled" description. A fair assessment. We have trouble selling out with the cheapest tickets in the NFL and play a home game in another city. This fanbase needs to get over its inferiority complex.
section122 Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) So last year they were in the top 10 most profitable franchises http://www.wgrz.com/sports/article/134157/4/Forbes-Mag-Bills-Among-NFLs-10-Most-Profitable-Teams This year they are in the most trouble yet there was one team last year that lost value and it was the bengals http://m.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/#/articles/view/page_9286532 3 teams lost money last year the steelers, lions, and raiders. http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/ 12 teams that are carrying higher debt values and 3 more that carry the same (placing the bills exactly in the middle) - from same link above. All of these were pulled from Forbes lists/info. The same lists and info I would think the guy used to make his conclusion. I just don't think it was a very good one. For my money the rams are the most troubled. I feel very strongly they will be moving and doing it within 5 years. People are mad about Toronto?! Imagine if Ralph had made it London like the the new rams owner! They already have ties with l.a. and so does the owner. There worth less than bills and saw less of a profit than the bills. That's my bet. Edited September 8, 2012 by section122
Recommended Posts