Punch Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Neely did not specifically say Jacobs isn't interested in buying the Bills--- what he actually said was pretty much in line with what has already been implied: http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/bruins/extras/bruins_blog/2014/04/jeremy_jacobs_has_no_plans_to_buy_bills_cam_neely_says_on_fe.html Currently, Jacobs has no plans to buy the Bills, according to Bruins president Cam Neely, who spoke about the subject Thursday on the “Felger & Mazz” radio show on 98.5 The Sports Hub. “[Jeremy Jacobs] really enjoys owning the Boston Bruins; he enjoys his role with the National Hockey League, and I think he’s very passionate about this organization,” Neely said. Neely also said that, by NFL ownership rules, Jacobs would need to completely take his name off of Bruins ownership in order to own an NFL team in a different city than the NHL team is located. “With the NFL and their rules he couldn’t own a team in a different city, a professional team in a different city, and he has no interest in getting out of hockey,” Neely said. “He’s been extremely happy with his ownership here in Boston and he’s enjoying how the team is playing, and he told me that he has no interest right now, or doesn’t have any interest at all, to give up the Boston Bruins.” During the interview, Michael Felger asked Neely if there was a way to circumvent the NFL rule, in which Jacobs could technically sell the Bruins to one of his sons, or have one of them buy the Bills, to which Neely replied that he was not sure. Neely did say, however, that Jeremy Jacobs would not be willing to take his name off ownership of the Bruins.
mrags Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 With all die respect to Seabass... If I owned a team and he was my GM/President and I was thinking about selling the team to buy another team, I probably wouldn't be telling my GM/president at least until I was pretty sure about it. No sense in getting someone worked up over nothing if you don't go through with it. Would ruin the FO you have in place if you were thinking about selling.
Delete This Account Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 what Cam Neely said on the face of his exact comments was absolutely accurate. jw
bbb Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Well, Tim Graham took time out from tweeting liberal thoughts, and then berating people for saying he's a liberal - and wrote this column where he mentions "the odds getting longer" for them staying in WNY per Bon Jovi and Cam Neely: http://bills.buffalonews.com/2014/04/10/bills-ownership-stadium-updates-showing-signs-slowing/
jimmy10 Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 what Cam Neely said on the face of his exact comments was absolutely accurate. jw Right. Anyone can read between the lines and tell that was a dumb chowdahhead picking and choosing his words as carefully as his baked bean-sized brain would allow.
yall Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 DNC already services almost 1/4 of the stadiums in the NFL. The current owners would probably have no issue bending the ownership rules for one of their own.
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Well, Tim Graham took time out from tweeting liberal thoughts, and then berating people for saying he's a liberal - and wrote this column where he mentions "the odds getting longer" for them staying in WNY per Bon Jovi and Cam Neely: http://bills.buffalo...-signs-slowing/ Keep the stupid political stupid in PPP. Graham is a douche no matter what his political beliefs are. And of course Jacobs is going to say anything at this point. Why point would it serve? I think some of you put way too much stock in press conferences and media quotes. Plus, this guy's word should be taken as gospel.
ThurmasThoman Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 This is going to be the way of it for the next year, if not longer, unfortunately. No new "news" has emerged, aside from the fact that Bon Jovi is interested in bidding on the Bills. The conjecture that the Bills are going to be sold to him, and move to Toronto, is purely speculative. For Tim Graham to state that the odds have gotten longer for the Bills to stay in Buffalo is irresponsible journalism. Next week there will be a new "story", and the week after that, and the week after that.
dollars 2 donuts Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) The Bruins would likely be a stumbling block. It would be hard to trade a franchise like that for the Bills. Even if they don't work out something the children take ownership of the Bruins, it is kind of tough to turn down that lucrative NFL TV money. I don't care if they were called the Boston Dollars 2 Donuts with a picture of me on the jersey...I'm ditching them and counting the money. Edited April 11, 2014 by dollars 2 donuts
Wayne Cubed Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 This is going to be the way of it for the next year, if not longer, unfortunately. No new "news" has emerged, aside from the fact that Bon Jovi is interested in bidding on the Bills. The conjecture that the Bills are going to be sold to him, and move to Toronto, is purely speculative. For Tim Graham to state that the odds have gotten longer for the Bills to stay in Buffalo is irresponsible journalism. Next week there will be a new "story", and the week after that, and the week after that. +1 Someone else will come out of the woodwork as being the "front runners" next week. And this is the way it'll work, until they are sold. Tim falls to mention that his take on Bon Jovi first acquiring the team and then moving them, is his opinion.
FLFan Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Well, Tim Graham took time out from tweeting liberal thoughts, and then berating people for saying he's a liberal - and wrote this column where he mentions "the odds getting longer" for them staying in WNY per Bon Jovi and Cam Neely: http://bills.buffalo...-signs-slowing/ I do not care about his supposed political beliefs one way or the other, but like virtually all the crap this guy spews, his "conclusions" based on the two major events he mentions are ridiculous. The Toronto article is just a rehash of previously expressed interest for the most part, and does in fact go on to explain some of the many reasons why this scenario has extremely long odds. As for Cam Neely, I doubt he officially speaks for the Jacobs family, who understandably is keeping quiet about their intentions. If anything, Neely was simply trying to quell any potential fears of instability of the Bruins. He is not exactly a credible source on this.
jimmy10 Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 For Tim Graham to state that the odds have gotten longer for the Bills to stay in Buffalo is irresponsible journalism. Or, it's click bait, which is about as responsible as a lot of journalism is these days.
FLFan Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Or, it's click bait, which is about as responsible as a lot of journalism is these days. Exactly. I normally do not fall for this, preferring to avoid TG's articles, but did click on this one to see what the debate on this thread was about. I feel dirtier for it.
ThurmasThoman Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 +1 Someone else will come out of the woodwork as being the "front runners" next week. And this is the way it'll work, until they are sold. Tim falls to mention that his take on Bon Jovi first acquiring the team and then moving them, is his opinion. Or, it's click bait, which is about as responsible as a lot of journalism is these days. Exactly. I normally do not fall for this, preferring to avoid TG's articles, but did click on this one to see what the debate on this thread was about. I feel dirtier for it. And I would like to add to that: Absolutely nothing has come out, "officially", from anyone, ever, stating that they plan to buy and move the Bills. Ever. While, conversely, many many many parties have stated that the Bills will remain, and stay viable in, Western New York. There are other facts, too, that if you want to deal in conjectures, point strongly to the Bills never leaving western New York: as was posted on the Bills ap last week, the Bills are the 11th highest rated team, in terms of tv viewership, in the league. That means that the Bills draw more eyes than 21 other professional football teams. After a decade and a half of absolutely terrible football. Now, with Ralph's passing, you can see there are no more self-imposed restrictions on when we can play our games... so you see Bills Lions (in primetime), Bills Packers (in primetime) Bills Jets (in primetime) and maybe more... It is not a coincidence that this change in the scheduling is following Ralph's death. He didn't want us in primetime, and so, we never were. But now with him not in the picture, the league is doing what it can to maximize it's profits: and that means putting essentially a top-10 team (in terms of marketability) in the spotlight more often. And why wouldn't the Bills have a devoted following? We are an original AFL team. We are part of the history of the game. We went to four straight super bowls. You can write the history of the NFL without teams like the jaguars, the panthers, the texans... hell maybe even the chargers, the falcons or the bucs... But you couldn't tell the story of the league without the team buffalo put on the field for the late 80s and early 90s. So if you think Goodell is going to be the commissioner who pisses away one of the biggest fan bases, one of the biggest commercial draws, a defining team in his league... to a glam rocker from the 80s who wants to uproot the team and skip town before Ralph is even under ground? Never going to happen.
jimmy10 Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) That means that the Bills draw more eyes than 21 other professional football teams. After a decade and a half of absolutely terrible football. Now, with Ralph's passing, you can see there are no more self-imposed restrictions on when we can play our games... so you see Bills Lions (in primetime), Bills Packers (in primetime) Bills Jets (in primetime) and maybe more... It is not a coincidence that this change in the scheduling is following Ralph's death. He didn't want us in primetime, and so, we never were. But now with him not in the picture, the league is doing what it can to maximize it's profits: and that means putting essentially a top-10 team (in terms of marketability) in the spotlight more often. Interesting take and I don't disagree... I'm not questioning the truth of what you say, but would like to know more: How do we know Ralph "didn't want us in primetime"? Edited April 11, 2014 by jimmyo
bbb Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Keep the stupid political stupid in PPP. Graham is a douche no matter what his political beliefs are. I'm not bringing in "stupid political stupid." I'm reviewing Tim's day on twitter. Say something that would come out of a liberal mindset - this time about healtthcare. Then, have people say things against his liberal point, and he replies "my political views are none of your business." He did the same thing to me once. If his politcal views are none of our business, why is he putting them out there. And, it went on all day it appears, but somehow managed to squeeze in that article that of course is slanted in a negative way for 99% of those who would read it.
dwight in philly Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 I'm not bringing in "stupid political stupid." I'm reviewing Tim's day on twitter. Say something that would come out of a liberal mindset - this time about healtthcare. Then, have people say things against his liberal point, and he replies "my political views are none of your business." He did the same thing to me once. If his politcal views are none of our business, why is he putting them out there. And, it went on all day it appears, but somehow managed to squeeze in that article that of course is slanted in a negative way for 99% of those who would read it. so graham tweets political thoughts and when someone responds that doesnt agree with him, he calls them out ?what a douche'.. typical(fill in the blank)
bbb Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 so graham tweets political thoughts and when someone responds that doesnt agree with him, he calls them out ?what a douche'.. typical(fill in the blank) Pretty much. But, the thing that bugs me the most is that he'll tweet something political and then at some point say that you don't know nor is it your business what his political and religious beliefs are......Really? Because it seems like you just put it out there! Back to Jacobs. Delaware North put out a statement. Unless they are playing semantics, it doesn't sound like Jacobs is interested. And, just Sunday he was the supposed frontrunner!: http://wivb.com/2014/04/11/delaware-north-jacobs-has-no-intention-of-buying-bills/
Recommended Posts