mrags Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 This is like cheering for your wife as she cheats on you knowing she has her bags packed and is just sponging off you until her new boyfriend has a house built. no. It's not. How's this for example, let's just assume your favorite Bill is Freddy Jackson. Let's also assume that the Bills are sold tomorrow and next season, they will officially be the Toronto Bills. Let's also assume that Freddy is playing. Then let's just say they play really well and make the playoffs. You mean to tell me that you won't hope that Freddy (your favorite Bill) does well and experiences a playoff win? Super Bowl appearance? Pro bowl? Answer that question honestly. I'm willing to bet you will still be a fan of the same players that you've learned to love and cheer for every Sunday. Where they play is irrelevant.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 no. It's not. How's this for example, let's just assume your favorite Bill is Freddy Jackson. Let's also assume that the Bills are sold tomorrow and next season, they will officially be the Toronto Bills. Let's also assume that Freddy is playing. Then let's just say they play really well and make the playoffs. You mean to tell me that you won't hope that Freddy (your favorite Bill) does well and experiences a playoff win? Super Bowl appearance? Pro bowl? Answer that question honestly. I'm willing to bet you will still be a fan of the same players that you've learned to love and cheer for every Sunday. Where they play is irrelevant. I root for the team, not the player. Depends on the team honestly... In most cases, no to answer your question. In this case, I would wish against Freddy. Teams are more important than an individual player. In this case Freddy would be dead to me. A player only comes to a Buffalo team... Once they leave, it depends on the team they go to. Say Freddy went to Green Bay, absolutely would be behind him. On the Toronto Bills? I hope he would suck balls! I know it is petty jealousy that drives this... Sorry.
dave mcbride Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) no. It's not. How's this for example, let's just assume your favorite Bill is Freddy Jackson. Let's also assume that the Bills are sold tomorrow and next season, they will officially be the Toronto Bills. Let's also assume that Freddy is playing. Then let's just say they play really well and make the playoffs. You mean to tell me that you won't hope that Freddy (your favorite Bill) does well and experiences a playoff win? Super Bowl appearance? Pro bowl? Answer that question honestly. I'm willing to bet you will still be a fan of the same players that you've learned to love and cheer for every Sunday. Where they play is irrelevant. I root for laundry and cities. Always have, always will. Players are interchangeable. Edited April 21, 2014 by dave mcbride
Santana Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 JBJ and his team or w/e can put in a big as high as they want. The fact of the matter is that it's not an auction and the highest bidder doesn't just get the team. The owners have to agree with it as well. I just don't see the NFL working in Toronto with a team with the Bills and that's what I'm sure they would try to do.
Pondslider Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) No city needs a NFL team. A subset of a cities population really wants and enjoys the team. Some cities have a higher percentage than others, but no cities economy depends upon the NFL and it's 8 home games a season. I didn't say the city needed the team to survive or anything. However you want to judge the psychological or economical impact on the region by having the team it's still far greater than the benefits it provides the NFL. Edited April 21, 2014 by Pondslider
bbb Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 They all talk about "bidding". It's not an auction. Knowing how strongly Ralph felt about keeping teams in their home cities, there will probably be some criteria that potential owners have to meet. And I bet he shared those with Jim Kelly. Both Kelly and Thurman Thomas have intimated as much in the past. Ralph was no dope. He also didn't want his family whacked by taxes on the sale. One billion is nice, but there's also a stadium at issue. I imagine the state of NY and Erie County will be much more willing to work with a consortium that commits to stay in WNY. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Wilson estate will not demand "highest price" for the team. Ralph had an old-fashioned love for the game that you don't see much any more. Surely his greatest fear would be to see the Bills end up with some jerk like Trump, Jerry Jones, Snyder....those guys who think of it as a business and nothing more. Oddly, if we pack the stadium the next few years to demonstrate the viability of remaining, and IF the Bills win, the price would go up. Good, or bad? I also have family connections to Bon Jovi going back 20+ years ... I haven't bothered to ask but I believe the statement. It's not relevant. All of this is speculation. Let's hope and pray for Kelly's success in beating cancer, then the rest will fall into place. I have expect to see Marv Levy out there fundraising for the cause, and if he does I'll surely send a check LOL. No kidding. Marv can talk me into anything!
apuszczalowski Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 I root for the team, not the player. Depends on the team honestly... In most cases, no to answer your question. In this case, I would wish against Freddy. Teams are more important than an individual player. In this case Freddy would be dead to me. A player only comes to a Buffalo team... Once they leave, it depends on the team they go to. Say Freddy went to Green Bay, absolutely would be behind him. On the Toronto Bills? I hope he would suck balls! I know it is petty jealousy that drives this... Sorry. Actually, by your description you root for neither, you root for the city they play in If the Bills leave Buffalo, the players and the Team are still the same, just in a different location.................. It would be against the bylaws if it already wasn't against the bylaws. What I mean by that is MLSE, the owner of the Raptors, Leafs, Jays, and Marlies, cannot own the Bills as the NFL doesn't allow corporations to own teams. The rumors have executives who are employed by MLSE as investors with Bon Jovi, but not MLSE itself. The Rogers family (of Rogers Sportsnet) are also rumored to be involved. If Jeremy Jacobs Sr sold the Bruins to his company, Delaware North, then he could potentially buy the Bills. Most don't think that will happen and that, if the Jacobs family does make a play on the Bills, it will be Jeremy Jr owning the team. I don't even think this could happen according to some reports earlier (when Jacobs was the front runner before Trump). It would still be in the family so its not permitted. As for MLSE, can't they get around it because they (Toronto) don't currently have a a pro football franchise? I thought the reason why teh Jacobs couldn't own the Bills along with the Bruins is because Boston/New England has the Patriots already? Basically if it wasn't for the pats, the Jacobs could own the Bruins and the Bills?
vorpma Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 The bottom line is New York State and Western New York have a "lousy" business climate that is not conducive for a professional sports franchise and its long term prospects. Outrages taxes, income, sales, and property not only discourage investment in New York, they have drove thousands of educated young professionals out of state along with a lot of discretionary spending cash. If there were any indications that the economy was turning around and an economic boom was in the works, Bon Jovi would not be relevant to anything. How can a city like Buffalo, located on the Lake - a great area to live - not be turning things around and attracting business and investment? I was born and raised in Buffalo and my family held season tickets from 1960 until 1986 and love the state, but truth is, it is not a magnet for business nor investment!
Campy Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) Actually, by your description you root for neither, you root for the city they play in If the Bills leave Buffalo, the players and the Team are still the same, just in a different location.................. I don't even think this could happen according to some reports earlier (when Jacobs was the front runner before Trump). It would still be in the family so its not permitted. As for MLSE, can't they get around it because they (Toronto) don't currently have a a pro football franchise? I thought the reason why teh Jacobs couldn't own the Bills along with the Bruins is because Boston/New England has the Patriots already? Basically if it wasn't for the pats, the Jacobs could own the Bruins and the Bills? I actually misspoke twice in the post you replied to. The first is for the sake of accuracy: MLSE does not own the Jays. The second is regards to the point you raised: Yes, because all of MLSE's teams are all in TO, they wouldn't break the rule about owning a pro franchise in a city other than the one the NFL team plays in. But what makes it moot is that MLSE cannot own a team because they are a corporation. An MLSE principal like Tannebaum (I think that's his name) can own it but the companycannot. Edited April 21, 2014 by Campy
Smears Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 F U Bon Jovi! Keep your silly ideas away from Buffalo. If he ends up with this team, it fails horribly. I will not support this team if he moves them to Canada.
MikeSpeed Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 no. It's not. How's this for example, let's just assume your favorite Bill is Freddy Jackson. Let's also assume that the Bills are sold tomorrow and next season, they will officially be the Toronto Bills. Let's also assume that Freddy is playing. Then let's just say they play really well and make the playoffs. You mean to tell me that you won't hope that Freddy (your favorite Bill) does well and experiences a playoff win? Super Bowl appearance? Pro bowl? Answer that question honestly. I'm willing to bet you will still be a fan of the same players that you've learned to love and cheer for every Sunday. Where they play is irrelevant. I am a fan of the team not of the individual players. Yes I do like some of them more than others, but they are all one trade/cut from being on the Patriots, Dolphins, or Jets. Just because my favorite players is now on the Patriots doesn't mean I'm rooting for them.
Gordio Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 I doubt the fans would do it, but if Jon Von Blowme bought the team with the intention of moving it to Toronto, I'd say stay home and let him host games in an empty stadium until 2020. I agree with this sentiment. I know if the Toronto group wins the bid & the move to Toronto is coming I won't go to another game. What is the point?
CodeMonkey Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 I agree with this sentiment. I know if the Toronto group wins the bid & the move to Toronto is coming I won't go to another game. What is the point? I guess the point would be what it always is. To go and have a good time at the game or the sports bar or at home or whatever your preference.
Gordio Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 Actually, by your description you root for neither, you root for the city they play in If the Bills leave Buffalo, the players and the Team are still the same, just in a different location.................. I don't even think this could happen according to some reports earlier (when Jacobs was the front runner before Trump). It would still be in the family so its not permitted. As for MLSE, can't they get around it because they (Toronto) don't currently have a a pro football franchise? I thought the reason why teh Jacobs couldn't own the Bills along with the Bruins is because Boston/New England has the Patriots already? Basically if it wasn't for the pats, the Jacobs could own the Bruins and the Bills? You are correct. Most people do not understand this rule. An owner could own another sports franchise as long as their is not an NFL team in that market. If there is no NFL team in the market he is allowed to own an NFL franchise in a different city. So for instance, Mark Cuban could not put a bid in for the bills since the Mavericks play in Dallas, which also is home for the Cowboys. But the owner of the UTah Jazz could make a play for the bills since there is no NFL franchise in Salt Lake City. I guess the point would be what it always is. To go and have a good time at the game or the sports bar or at home or whatever your preference. I am just saying I wouldn't really want to support the team anymore knowing that they are going to be in Toronto in a few years. That is my point.
CodeMonkey Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) You are correct. Most people do not understand this rule. An owner could own another sports franchise as long as their is not an NFL team in that market. If there is no NFL team in the market he is allowed to own an NFL franchise in a different city. So for instance, Mark Cuban could not put a bid in for the bills since the Mavericks play in Dallas, which also is home for the Cowboys. But the owner of the UTah Jazz could make a play for the bills since there is no NFL franchise in Salt Lake City. Whew man. The NFL sure loves making things complicated don't they. I am just saying I wouldn't really want to support the team anymore knowing that they are going to be in Toronto in a few years. That is my point. So knowing they would be gone in 5 or 6 years would not allow you to enjoy going to a game now? Is your reason for going supporting the team financially or having a good time and cheering for them? I get being disappointed and even pissed off about a move. But if you enjoy going, why not continue as long as you can? I guess this is all rhetorical. I just don't get it. For example, i don't go to games now but I do enjoy watching the games on TV with my family. I strongly suspect we would stop watching the games when the team moved, but we still would watch until then because we enjoy it. Edited April 21, 2014 by CodeMonkey
pi2000 Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 My real question to everyone is this though, assuming this is true. Do you think 1 Billion is enough to get the Bills? Is this a nail in the coffin, or is 1 Billion not enough. Thoughts? We're half way there.
K-9 Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 You are correct. Most people do not understand this rule. An owner could own another sports franchise as long as their is not an NFL team in that market. If there is no NFL team in the market he is allowed to own an NFL franchise in a different city. So for instance, Mark Cuban could not put a bid in for the bills since the Mavericks play in Dallas, which also is home for the Cowboys. But the owner of the UTah Jazz could make a play for the bills since there is no NFL franchise in Salt Lake City. I am just saying I wouldn't really want to support the team anymore knowing that they are going to be in Toronto in a few years. That is my point. If Jacobs divested himself of any interest in the Bruins he could own an NFL team. Or if any of his sons gave up his interest in the Bruins he, too, could own the Bills. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts