May Day 10 Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 LA is deader than ever as an NFL destination. No stadium, no team. How has that worked in LA? I dont know how that worked there, but it was used as the boogeyman that got stadiums up in Minnesota and San Francisco (and probably San Diego and possibly St Louis).
papazoid Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 LA is deader than ever as an NFL destination. No stadium, no team. How has that worked in LA? LA will eventually get a team. that is a virtual certainty. Forbes says the Bills are valued at $870 million. the bills in L.A. would DOUBLE that value to $1.7 BILLION. that $400 million penalty for the bills to leave is just a speed bump.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 LA will eventually get a team. that is a virtual certainty. Forbes says the Bills are valued at $870 million. the bills in L.A. would DOUBLE that value to $1.7 BILLION. that $400 million penalty for the bills to leave is just a speed bump. Would they change their name to La Bisons?
JDG Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 LA will eventually get a team. that is a virtual certainty. Forbes says the Bills are valued at $870 million. the bills in L.A. would DOUBLE that value to $1.7 BILLION. that $400 million penalty for the bills to leave is just a speed bump. This is exactly right. For everyone who wants to dump the Toronto series, I'm not sure how the Bills stay viable in Buffalo over the next 20 years without making serious in-roads to the market. Green Bay continues to exist largely because of Milwaukee. Jacksonville is in a similar spot - but they've just moved one home game a year to London (it could be worse!) But just look at the demographics of Western New York, there's very little way the Bills will be able to earn enough revenue to be competitive relying solely upon the Buffalo-Rochester market. Its expand to Toronto to die. And I'm not sure how they do that without playing a game there. Clearly, playing a game there is not sufficient to tap the Toronto market - I think that a sustained couple years of winning has to be part of the equation too - but I think that playing at least one game (and arguably two) there is absolutely necessary part of that equation.... just not sufficient. Yes, the Bills lose the home field advantage - but don't blame the Toronto deal for that, blame the elected leaders of Buffalo, Erie County, and New York for allowing Western New York's demographics to decilne so precipitously that it is now just barely a major-league-caliber sports market. JDG The reason that number has gone up is not because of the disaster Rogers dome games, but because the Bills are actively marketing to the fans southeast of Hamilton to attend games in Orchard Park. There is very little connection between the new Canadian fans going to the dome games and having them actually cross the border for games in OP. If there is overlap in the fans attending both, it's more likely those fans would have attended the home game at the Ralph anyway. This series does zero for a true regionalization push. This is where the stats promoted by the Bills are obfuscating a bit of the real problem. Regionalization of the franchise to include southern Ontario is nice - and certainly better than not doing it - but is ultimately not going to be the sort of thing that can secure a sustainable demographic future for the franchise. The only demographics capable of doing that are Toronto's - and yes, the increase in Canadian attendance at the Ralph is probably not reflective of penetration into the Toronto market, its reflecting regionalization into southern Ontario. JDG
clearwater cadet Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 When LA is ready the NFL will expand and put a team in London and LA. The owners will not make out as well from a relocation, so there going to push for expansion. They can get a group to pay a billion dollar (X2) franchise fee that they will all split, and they will have a team in LA/ London to raise up the TV contract. They will also use the new teams as an excuse to add 2 wild card teams so they can get an extra playoff game in the TV contract. The last move you my see is a expansion team in Toronto and Mexico city, but the league is not ready for that yet.
GG Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 This is exactly right. For everyone who wants to dump the Toronto series, I'm not sure how the Bills stay viable in Buffalo over the next 20 years without making serious in-roads to the market. Green Bay continues to exist largely because of Milwaukee. Jacksonville is in a similar spot - but they've just moved one home game a year to London (it could be worse!) But just look at the demographics of Western New York, there's very little way the Bills will be able to earn enough revenue to be competitive relying solely upon the Buffalo-Rochester market. Its expand to Toronto to die. And I'm not sure how they do that without playing a game there. Clearly, playing a game there is not sufficient to tap the Toronto market - I think that a sustained couple years of winning has to be part of the equation too - but I think that playing at least one game (and arguably two) there is absolutely necessary part of that equation.... just not sufficient. Yes, the Bills lose the home field advantage - but don't blame the Toronto deal for that, blame the elected leaders of Buffalo, Erie County, and New York for allowing Western New York's demographics to decilne so precipitously that it is now just barely a major-league-caliber sports market. JDG This is where the stats promoted by the Bills are obfuscating a bit of the real problem. Regionalization of the franchise to include southern Ontario is nice - and certainly better than not doing it - but is ultimately not going to be the sort of thing that can secure a sustainable demographic future for the franchise. The only demographics capable of doing that are Toronto's - and yes, the increase in Canadian attendance at the Ralph is probably not reflective of penetration into the Toronto market, its reflecting regionalization into southern Ontario. JDG No one is arguing that Bills shouldn't be targeting southern Ontario. The argument is whether the games in Toronto are a part of that push. It's become plainly clear after five years that the TO games are a bigger negative than positive.
ChasBB Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Buffalo had no trouble supporting the team in the early 90s when they were winning. There is plenty of support in WNY. Toronto fan base is not needed. Start winning and the fan support will be there. Also, politicians in WNY need to address the root cause of the issue which is population loss -- due to excessive taxes and business regulations, etc. Make Buffalo a business-friendly place and the population will come back. It's all about jobs, plain and simple.
PromoTheRobot Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Buffalo had no trouble supporting the team in the early 90s when they were winning. There is plenty of support in WNY. Toronto fan base is not needed. Start winning and the fan support will be there. Also, politicians in WNY need to address the root cause of the issue which is population loss -- due to excessive taxes and business regulations, etc. Make Buffalo a business-friendly place and the population will come back. It's all about jobs, plain and simple. And this is entirely untrue. The Bills fan base has always been regional. 15% Rochester, 15% Ontario, etc. Buffalo alone could never support an NFL team. PTR Edited January 30, 2014 by PromoTheRobot
papazoid Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 This is exactly right. For everyone who wants to dump the Toronto series, I'm not sure how the Bills stay viable in Buffalo over the next 20 years without making serious in-roads to the market. Green Bay continues to exist largely because of Milwaukee. Jacksonville is in a similar spot - but they've just moved one home game a year to London (it could be worse!) But just look at the demographics of Western New York, there's very little way the Bills will be able to earn enough revenue to be competitive relying solely upon the Buffalo-Rochester market. Its expand to Toronto to die. And I'm not sure how they do that without playing a game there. Clearly, playing a game there is not sufficient to tap the Toronto market - I think that a sustained couple years of winning has to be part of the equation too - but I think that playing at least one game (and arguably two) there is absolutely necessary part of that equation.... just not sufficient. Yes, the Bills lose the home field advantage - but don't blame the Toronto deal for that, blame the elected leaders of Buffalo, Erie County, and New York for allowing Western New York's demographics to decilne so precipitously that it is now just barely a major-league-caliber sports market. JDG This is where the stats promoted by the Bills are obfuscating a bit of the real problem. Regionalization of the franchise to include southern Ontario is nice - and certainly better than not doing it - but is ultimately not going to be the sort of thing that can secure a sustainable demographic future for the franchise. The only demographics capable of doing that are Toronto's - and yes, the increase in Canadian attendance at the Ralph is probably not reflective of penetration into the Toronto market, its reflecting regionalization into southern Ontario. JDG very well said
xsoldier54 Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 No one is arguing that Bills shouldn't be targeting southern Ontario. The argument is whether the games in Toronto are a part of that push. It's become plainly clear after five years that the TO games are a bigger negative than positive. This. The people in Toronto hate Buffalo. It is a bad idea to try and promote the Bills in Toronto. The games are an embarrrasment to the franchise. It is a failed experiment and it is time to end it. There is no argument that will make it not so.
freeagentqb Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Pretty soon no area will be able to support an NFL team. With player salaries in the stratosphere and new stadium expenses......If the TV contract ever softens the whole league will implode. We'll soon be back to the model where teams share ticket revenue and the fan support will really matter......
Mr. WEO Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 I dont know how that worked there, but it was used as the boogeyman that got stadiums up in Minnesota and San Francisco (and probably San Diego and possibly St Louis). The 49ers were never moving to LA. The Vikings "threat" was a one time "bogeyman" that exixted for a brief period when it looked like a stadium might be built in LAby third parties. Now that all third party stadium plans in LA are completely dead, ther is no bogeyman. LA will eventually get a team. that is a virtual certainty. Forbes says the Bills are valued at $870 million. the bills in L.A. would DOUBLE that value to $1.7 BILLION. that $400 million penalty for the bills to leave is just a speed bump. See above. No stadium. 870 million for the team, plus the moving fee, plus the lease breaking fee, plus over a billion for a new stadium....whois going to lay out over 2 billion (more than twice as much as it has cost for any purchased NFL team) to have the team in LA? This is exactly right. For everyone who wants to dump the Toronto series, I'm not sure how the Bills stay viable in Buffalo over the next 20 years without making serious in-roads to the market. Green Bay continues to exist largely because of Milwaukee. Jacksonville is in a similar spot - but they've just moved one home game a year to London (it could be worse!) But just look at the demographics of Western New York, there's very little way the Bills will be able to earn enough revenue to be competitive relying solely upon the Buffalo-Rochester market. Its expand to Toronto to die. And I'm not sure how they do that without playing a game there. Clearly, playing a game there is not sufficient to tap the Toronto market - I think that a sustained couple years of winning has to be part of the equation too - but I think that playing at least one game (and arguably two) there is absolutely necessary part of that equation.... just not sufficient. Yes, the Bills lose the home field advantage - but don't blame the Toronto deal for that, blame the elected leaders of Buffalo, Erie County, and New York for allowing Western New York's demographics to decilne so precipitously that it is now just barely a major-league-caliber sports market. JDG This is where the stats promoted by the Bills are obfuscating a bit of the real problem. Regionalization of the franchise to include southern Ontario is nice - and certainly better than not doing it - but is ultimately not going to be the sort of thing that can secure a sustainable demographic future for the franchise. The only demographics capable of doing that are Toronto's - and yes, the increase in Canadian attendance at the Ralph is probably not reflective of penetration into the Toronto market, its reflecting regionalization into southern Ontario. JDG So the reason the games aren't sold out and the suites filled is because of the "elected officials" caused a population drop? How about the Bills not putting a quality product onthe filed for a decade and a half? As others have pointed out convincingly, the Toronto games have been a disaster in all aspects except in the short term financial. Any increase in the SOuthern Ontario population attending games could be attributed to (and increased with) standard aggressive marketing. As for Toronto itself, are people who actually live in that city coming to games in Buffalo (we see they aren;t going to the Skydoem to see them)? Has the series, 6 years old now, resulted in any increase in Canadian corporate sponsorship? When LA is ready the NFL will expand and put a team in London and LA. The owners will not make out as well from a relocation, so there going to push for expansion. They can get a group to pay a billion dollar (X2) franchise fee that they will all split, and they will have a team in LA/ London to raise up the TV contract. They will also use the new teams as an excuse to add 2 wild card teams so they can get an extra playoff game in the TV contract. The last move you my see is a expansion team in Toronto and Mexico city, but the league is not ready for that yet. See above for the bolded part. It has been demonstrated that unless a new owner will build a new stadium out there, it is not feasable for a third party to build a place and rent it out to an NFL team. A pricetag of 2 billion (600 million cash for the minimum 30% dominant owner share) is prohibitove. Also, the TV contracts are locked in through 2022. After collectively laying out an astronomical $4o billion, I'm sure the networks have language in the contracts that say they aren't paying any more for any extra games the NFL may add by expansion or playoffs.
May Day 10 Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 The 49ers were never moving to LA. The Vikings "threat" was a one time "bogeyman" that exixted for a brief period when it looked like a stadium might be built in LAby third parties. Now that all third party stadium plans in LA are completely dead, ther is no bogeyman. http://touch.latimes...e/p2p-79109217/ http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/165562-way-too-much-pasting-of-copyrighted-material-please-read/
Campy Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Buffalo had no trouble supporting the team in the early 90s when they were winning. There is plenty of support in WNY. Toronto fan base is not needed. Start winning and the fan support will be there. Also, politicians in WNY need to address the root cause of the issue which is population loss -- due to excessive taxes and business regulations, etc. Make Buffalo a business-friendly place and the population will come back. It's all about jobs, plain and simple. As someone who now deals with nothing more than a dusting of snow once every three years, I'm not sure I buy that...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 To me it feels like the city of Toronto is like that spoiled kid who always has to have to newest and hottest toy and wont let up until they have it. CBF
Lv-Bills Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) There will 100% be a team in LA, in the near future (whatever near is deemed by the NFL). Arthur Blank was just on Sirius NFL radio, and talked very candidly about a few things. I wish we actually had a coherent, well informed owner. He was a great listen. He was asked point blank about teams in LA and London. He very clearly, and without hesitation said yes they will exist. His said there will be one, very possibly two in LA, AND one in London. He said it's pretty much a certainty. Matter of when in the near future, not if. The one thing I liked about what he said though, is that he indicated that there seems to be discussion about whether or not to expand the league or to move teams, which isn't to be taken lightly. He pretty much said it's going to happen without any kind of hesitation or beating around the bush. Edited January 31, 2014 by Lv-Bills
jimmy10 Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 I dont know how that worked there, but it was used as the boogeyman that got stadiums up in Minnesota and San Francisco (and probably San Diego and possibly St Louis). That boogeyman apparently isn't dead yet. The Rams owner just purchased a large parcel of land in LA. Granted, it used to be owned by WalMart, and he's married to one of the Waltons. And it's probably not large enough (60 acres) for a stadium plus parking... But who knows? Link below. http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2014/01/reports_rams_owner_buys_a.php
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) I have previously read that the existing design of the Rogers Centre prevents the installation of a natural grass field to replace the current artificial turf if the field continues to be used for both baseball and football. At a recent meeting to discuss the State of the [blue Jays] Franchise, team CEO Paul Beeston said that the field would be converted to natural grass when the Argos lease expires after the 2017 season, but that installation of the grass field would be expedited if the Argos left sooner (perhaps for an expanded and remodeled BMO Field where the Toronto MLS soccer team now plays). http://blogs.thescore.com/djf/2014/01/27/assorted-weekend-thoughts-012714/ We have some real issues that we have to work on, engineering-wise. We have to take down, put it in, put in some type of drainage; and apparently the big thing is air flow. . . . The fact of the matter is, we've got some things, but I would say, realistically, that 2018. If the Argos left before that, we would expedite it. The Blue Jays are owned by Rogers Communications. Interesting that Beeston made no mention about the need to keep the turf field for the Bills-In-Toronto-Series. Is this a hint that the Bills and Rogers have already decided to end the annual Toronto game? Wonder if they time an announcement of the end of the Bills-In-Toronto-Series to coincide with announcements that (i) MLSE and/or Larry Tanenbaum is buying the Argos and moving them to BMO field, and (ii) Rogers will be installing natural grass in Rogers Centre making it unsuitable for football? This would cause great joy in Bills land while the Canadians simultaneously design a new NFL stadium and try to buy the team outright when Ralph passes. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/livin-on-a-prayer-buying-bills-building-new-toronto-stadium-would-be-a-2-billion-play/article15581107/ Devious, eh? Edited February 6, 2014 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead
xsoldier54 Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 I have previously read that the existing design of the Rogers Centre prevents the installation of a natural grass field to replace the current artificial turf if the field continues to be used for both baseball and football. At a recent meeting to discuss the State of the [blue Jays] Franchise, team CEO Paul Beeston said that the field would be converted to natural grass when the Argos lease expires after the 2017 season, but that installation of the grass field would be expedited if the Argos left sooner (perhaps for an expanded and remodeled BMO Field where the Toronto MLS soccer team now plays). http://blogs.thescor...houghts-012714/ The Blue Jays are owned by Rogers Communications. Interesting that Beeston made no mention about the need to keep the turf field for the Bills-In-Toronto-Series. Is this a hint that the Bills and Rogers have already decided to end the annual Toronto game? Wonder if they time an announcement of the end of the Bills-In-Toronto-Series to coincide with announcements that (i) MLSE and/or Larry Tanenbaum is buying the Argos and moving them to BMO field, and (ii) Rogers will be installing natural grass in Rogers Centre making it unsuitable for football? This would cause great joy in Bills land while the Canadians simultaneously design a new NFL stadium and try to buy the team outright when Ralph passes. Devious, eh? Just stop. The conspiracy theories are killing me.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted February 6, 2014 Posted February 6, 2014 Just stop. The conspiracy theories are killing me. Simultaneous announcements may be a stretch, but Toronto's interest in getting an NFL team is pretty well documented.
Recommended Posts