dave mcbride Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) I believe your opinion is too short sighted. In my opinion, anyone with the resources to buy an NFL franchise is thinking of long term, not short term, profitability. Any fees, fines, costs etc. to relocate the team if they so desired would be factored in as part of the one time cost of ownership. A cost which could be made up in some number of years in a larger, more profitable, market. Unfortunately I don't deal in billion dollar purchases any more than I assume you do. So you may well be right. Or at the very least the new owners could conclude that it is in their better interests to leave the team in Buffalo for 5 or 6 years for the opt-out while they make arrangements (build a new stadium for example) somewhere else. I guess we will see when the time comes. Who knows what'll happen, but I sincerely doubt that an owner intent on moving the team (and you can be sure locals will sniff out this intent immediately) will want to spend over half of a decade of the 20-30 years he has left on this earth as the reviled subject of an ugly and endless pitchfork-and-torches campaign in which all Western New Yorkers participate (or at least support). Not only will it be fueled by intense righteous fervor, the owner will ALWAYS be the bad guy. Most sane people would conclude that life is quite literally too short. As I say above, we need to focus on the reality of the situation and not simply treat it in the abstract (i.e., merely as a long-term business strategy). Edited April 13, 2014 by dave mcbride
CodeMonkey Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Look at how the famous soccer clubs in England are in the biggest markets. Oh wait, they aren't. Not that many "large markets" in England. And the ones that do have a team, if not more than one (Manchester City and Manchester United for example). And the smaller markets with teams have had these teams in most cases for longer than the United States has been the United States. Teams there do not move like they sometimes do here. Not a relevant comparison. Who knows what'll happen, but I sincerely doubt that an owner intent on moving the team (and you can be sure locals will sniff out this intent immediately) will want to spend over half of a decade of the 20-30 years he has left on this earth as the reviled subject of an ugly and endless pitchfork-and-torches campaign in which all Western New Yorkers participate (or at least support). Most sane people would conclude that life is quite literally too short. Again, look at the reality of the situation and don't treat it in the abstract. Your "reality" is predicated upon the assumption that a new owner would care what the people of WNY thought of them. They might, but they also might be thinking long term, not short term like you are. We will know when we know.
dave mcbride Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) Not that many "large markets" in England. And the ones that do have a team, if not more than one (Manchester City and Manchester United for example). And the smaller markets with teams have had these teams in most cases for longer than the United States has been the United States. Teams there do not move like they sometimes do here. Not a relevant comparison. Your "reality" is predicated upon the assumption that a new owner would care what the people of WNY thought of them. They might, but they also might be thinking long term, not short term like you are. We will know when we know. I strongly believe that most people care what millions of others think of them and would hate being villified by the media on a daily basis for years. I can't say what's going to happen, but I believe my scenario is more realistic than one in which some emotionless robot lays out a couple of spreadsheets projecting bonanza profits in Toronto, comes up with a plan to deceive Buffalonians for 5-6 years (knowing full well that it'll be fruitless), and loads up the Mayflowers come 2020. That strikes me as highly improbable. And re the long term, I'll quote Keynes: in the long run, we'll all be dead. His point was that the short and medium term really matters. And it does in this case too. Edited April 13, 2014 by dave mcbride
Montana Mike Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 The Bills are not leaving. Are you sure about that? It didn't say that in the piece. Just because the move-out fee is lower doesn't mean the injunction language doesn't apply, right? Ralph knew what he was doing!!!!! Thanks Ralph.
Chandler#81 Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Have I mentioned how easy it would be for a new owner to move the team? GO BILLS!!! Yes, but nobody listens to you.. Why isn't this thread merged or locked? Oh yeah, that's MY job..
bowery4 Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Not that many "large markets" in England. And the ones that do have a team, if not more than one (Manchester City and Manchester United for example). And the smaller markets with teams have had these teams in most cases for longer than the United States has been the United States. Teams there do not move like they sometimes do here. 1.Not a relevant comparison. Your "reality" is predicated upon the assumption that a new owner would care what the people of WNY thought of them. They might, but they also might be thinking long term, not short term like you are. 2.We will know when we know. 1 is your opinion, I realize the differences but Man U and Man C both have history which is a selling point to fans all over the world. My point in using the example, also why don't FutBall clubs move in the UK? With owners who are not even from there... Branding and who knows? Lease agreements? 2 is fact
metzelaars_lives Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) I agree with your assessment of LA as a market to a point. But other variables come in to play. The ability to absorb more local money into a new stadium for example. Its not set in stone that the Bills will leave, it's just my opinion, but I have to admit to myself that its not the best of positions we find ourselves in. Toronto is a viable market without the WNY regions support. It's viable. There are other cities with the ability to handle an NFL franchise quite successfully. I can see South Carolina successfully handling a team either in Charleston or Columbia. Texas has a couple of locations with the ability to successfully handle a team. There's also the ability to locate to one of the BIG 5 (Top 5 cities in the US population wise) to handle a 2nd team. Many options available to a new owner and the NFL. Dude you are not only not hopeful but you are no longer being rational. Charleston, SC? I know you have pointed out the less than ideal economic conditions of WNY but do you really think an owner would gamble on Charleston, SC being a better football market than Buffalo- a proven diehard football town? Buffalo may not be a big market (although if you consider a third of the fans at every home game are from either Rochester or Southern Ontario, it's actually not even that small of a market), but most importantly, it is a viable NFL market. I'm not so sure that Toronto is a viable NFL market. Clearly, LA has proven itself not to be. Now those two places are big enough and there's enough money there that it would be a viable investment regardless of the city's NFL fervor but Charleston, SC? A second team in Chicago or Houston? You are entering troll territory here. Edited April 13, 2014 by metzelaars_lives
Big Turk Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/under-lease-court-could-bar-any-new-owner-from-moving-buffalo-bills-20140412 Basically, they can leave in year 7, but any discussion or negotiations of leaving before that are a violation of the lease. This means the new owner would have to pay a $400 million fine in 30 days, and even then a court could order an injuction. This essentially means that the year 7 opt out is very unlikely to happen. Someone would basically have to build a stadium in the hopes that in 2020 the Bills would decide to play there. However, the developer wouldn't even be able to discuss the project with the Bills new owner until the opt-out came around. Does anyone really think a city/developer is going to build a billion dollar stadium without the commitment that a team will play there? The opt out is ONLY valid if the team is moving to a new stadium here, NOT for relocation. This was coming from a report that cited several executives from other teams that were privy to all the details of the lease. There is no $28 million buyout to relocate the team, its still $400 million for the duration of the lease. The $28 million basically goes to NYS to help recoup some of the stadium costs/RWS upgrades if one gets built... Edited April 13, 2014 by matter2003
oman128 Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 It's not just that it woul be expensive, it's that they have to win in court to gain the right to pay the exorbitant costs to break the lease...a victory that the language of the lease makes extremely difficult to attain. You left out the part where they win in court & build a new stadium since Rogers Centre is a relic that the NFL won't approve. You mean the same Rogers Centre that the Bills have played in for the last 5 year's? Toronto can afford a new stadium, to replace Skydome more than Buffalo.
Big Turk Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 You mean the same Rogers Centre that the Bills have played in for the last 5 year's? Toronto can afford a new stadium, to replace Skydome more than Buffalo. Can they also afford to buy the team, then pay nearly $700 million to relocate them on top of that new stadium? We are talking well in excess of $2 billion by that point
thebandit27 Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 You mean the same Rogers Centre that the Bills have played in for the last 5 year's? Toronto can afford a new stadium, to replace Skydome more than Buffalo. Yes that's the one. The NFL would not approve it as a full time venue. And there's that whole matter of winning in court that you glossed over.
HopefulFuture Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Dude you are not only not hopeful but you are no longer being rational. Charleston, SC? I know you have pointed out the less than ideal economic conditions of WNY but do you really think an owner would gamble on Charleston, SC being a better football market than Buffalo- a proven diehard football town? Buffalo may not be a big market (although if you consider a third of the fans at every home game are from either Rochester or Southern Ontario, it's actually not even that small of a market), but most importantly, it is a viable NFL market. I'm not so sure that Toronto is a viable NFL market. Clearly, LA has proven itself not to be. Now those two places are big enough and there's enough money there that it would be a viable investment regardless of the city's NFL fervor but Charleston, SC? A second team in Chicago or Houston? You are entering troll territory here. My apologies if anyone feels I am trolling. That is not my intention at all. I am merely pointing out that there may, and I stress may, be a sad day here in WNY. We must look at this from both angles. Either the glass is half full or it's half empty. But we'd be foolish if we didn't speak on all aspects of the situation. I am a die hard fan to be sure, but I cannot sit in the realm of unreasonable thought. I have to consider all and attempt to formulate an opinion based on that.
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 stayin Seems to be the case. As mcbride points out, the NFL doesn't want the PR nightmare of seeing one of their 32 fanbases rally against them for a number of years- a traditional and diehard fanbase at that. Wouldn't play well for the shield in the national media. Mr. Wilson cornered Goodell. Not fact, just the way I see it.
Rocky Landing Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Dude you are not only not hopeful but you are no longer being rational. Charleston, SC? I know you have pointed out the less than ideal economic conditions of WNY but do you really think an owner would gamble on Charleston, SC being a better football market than Buffalo- a proven diehard football town? Buffalo may not be a big market (although if you consider a third of the fans at every home game are from either Rochester or Southern Ontario, it's actually not even that small of a market), but most importantly, it is a viable NFL market. I'm not so sure that Toronto is a viable NFL market. Clearly, LA has proven itself not to be. Now those two places are big enough and there's enough money there that it would be a viable investment regardless of the city's NFL fervor but Charleston, SC? A second team in Chicago or Houston? You are entering troll territory here. The desire to get a football team back in Los Angeles is very real-- not just on the part of the numerous, deep-pocketed investors in Los Angeles, but by the NFL, and Roger Goodell, as well. And, in fact, the timing of the lease agreement may fit into the entire scenario all too well. I should note that I live in Los Angeles (born and raised in Rochester), and that an NFL team will eventually be in Los Angeles is almost a certainty. And, while much hay has been made of Buffalo's "viability" as a market, it should be pointed out that in 2012 (according to Forbes) the only two teams less profitable than the Bills were the Jags, and the Raiders. But, make no mistake-- Los Angeles is going to get an NFL team. The links below do not represent mere pipe dreams. http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/location.html http://nfl.si.com/2014/02/05/los-angeles-nfl-stadium/
metzelaars_lives Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 The desire to get a football team back in Los Angeles is very real-- not just on the part of the numerous, deep-pocketed investors in Los Angeles, but by the NFL, and Roger Goodell, as well. And, in fact, the timing of the lease agreement may fit into the entire scenario all too well. I should note that I live in Los Angeles (born and raised in Rochester), and that an NFL team will eventually be in Los Angeles is almost a certainty. And, while much hay has been made of Buffalo's "viability" as a market, it should be pointed out that in 2012 (according to Forbes) the only two teams less profitable than the Bills were the Jags, and the Raiders. But, make no mistake-- Los Angeles is going to get an NFL team. The links below do not represent mere pipe dreams. http://www.losangele...m/location.html http://nfl.si.com/20...es-nfl-stadium/ Why didn't you look at the next sentence I wrote as well? Of course you're right. I still don't think it'll ever be a football town though. My apologies if anyone feels I am trolling. That is not my intention at all. I am merely pointing out that there may, and I stress may, be a sad day here in WNY. We must look at this from both angles. Either the glass is half full or it's half empty. But we'd be foolish if we didn't speak on all aspects of the situation. I am a die hard fan to be sure, but I cannot sit in the realm of unreasonable thought. I have to consider all and attempt to formulate an opinion based on that. I am a realist. Could we lose the Bills to LA, Toronto or even London? Yes. But we are not losing the Bills to a smaller market than Buffalo in North America- especially one that has zero history as a football city.
Big Turk Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 The lease is ironclad against relocation for the duration of the lease, not just for another 6 year's. I think this keeps getting overlooked or is apparently misunderstood according to numerous "in the know" sources that are opening up about more details of the lease. The opt out is ONLY valid if the team is moving to a new stadium here, NOT for relocation. This was coming from a report that cited several executives from other teams that were privy to all the details of the lease. There is no $28 million buyout to relocate the team, its still $400 million for the duration of the lease. The $28 million basically goes to NYS to help recoup some of the stadium costs/RWS upgrades if one gets built...
Chandler#81 Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Aw, Crap! I merged the two topics the wrong way. My apologies to the original thread OP.
mannc Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) The lease is ironclad against relocation for the duration of the lease, not just for another 6 year's. I think this keeps getting overlooked or is apparently misunderstood according to numerous "in the know" sources that are opening up about more details of the lease. The opt out is ONLY valid if the team is moving to a new stadium here, NOT for relocation. This was coming from a report that cited several executives from other teams that were privy to all the details of the lease. There is no $28 million buyout to relocate the team, its still $400 million for the duration of the lease. The $28 million basically goes to NYS to help recoup some of the stadium costs/RWS upgrades if one gets built... That is contrary to everything I have read about the lease. What is your source? I have to say, a provision like the one you describe makes no sense whatsoever. Edited April 13, 2014 by mannc
Big Turk Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) That is contrary to everything I have read about the lease. What is your source? I have to say, a provision like the one you describe makes no sense whatsoever. There were several articles that said the same thing that came out. One was the former CEO of the Rams who now works for the NFL I believe who had seen and was very familiar with provisions in the lease and another one was an unnamed executive with an NFL team...I believe it might have been an ESPN story that about it Here is one article that discusses it link to buffalobills.com board http://blogs.canoe.ca/krykslants/nfl/bills-cannot-be-relocated-before-2020-the-long-reported-400m-buyout-option-does-not-exist/ Edited April 14, 2014 by matter2003
Recommended Posts