Poloncarz confirms there are suitors who want to move the team

[The Wiz]

Where did you hear/read that? Have you got a link?

 

If that's the case, I'd put odds on that the team is going to Toronto.

It was discussed a while back here and on WGR. I remember them talking about the TV ratings/viewings. Outside of the US is not considered as part of the home territory even though it is so close. Since the NFL doesn't consider Canada in the "home territory", they can't get around the relocation fee. I'm assuming they are referring to the "black out" area as home territory which is why no one has shot down the idea of a stadium in Rochester other than it not being in Buffalo.

 

I'll see if I can get more details but the main point was basically anything outside of the US, the NFL doesn't count toward their final numbers.

[Ronin]

I agree with you totally. LA has flamed out a few times now and Toronto has been a bust for the Bills. The only thing that matters is a winning franchise no matter where it is.

 

Again, not true, look at the Jets. They've had one meaningful season in terms of playoffs in the last 15 years. They've made the playoffs a half dozen times, but often backing in and only twice over the last 7 seasons, yet they're one of the most profitable franchises in the league.

 

Dallas, Washington, and Houston are even worse and they all made significantly more operating revenue than the Jets.

[thebandit27]

I'll answer with a question, and a couple of related questions.

 

Have you ever heard of a buyout of a lease?

 

Have you ever heard of politicians being corrupt after the fact and having taken money or bribes of some sort for some action taken?

 

Do you really believe that those involved in the sale of the team have you and the rest of us fans anywhere near their top priority in determining what happens to this team and who it is sold to? We can start with Mary Wilson and those on the trust. Do you really think that their first priority is not money?

 

If you can't connect those dots, I simply don't know what to say. Leases are bought out all the time. I've laid out this scenario several times, but you and others talk as if any would-be new owner would have no leverage at all, and I'm talking behind closed doors. They would have leverage.

 

You can ignore that, which I've expressed numerous times already, and apparently you do ignore it. But that's to your own detriment then.

 

I've said this too, just like they said shortly after Wilson kicked that the team wouldn't be sold for years, and everyone here and other Bills forums believed that, I believe that I was the only one saying "nonsense," and that the team would be sold sooner than that. I'm sure you disagreed then too, but it happened. Now they're saying presumably by October. Not saying that will definitely happen, but I did say that it wouldn't take the years that they said.

 

Same thing with this notion on the lease. There are a hundred ways to break a lease. Even 2020 requires a buyout. Let me throw this out, suppose an owner, possibly supported by other league owners, says we'll double (or whatever) the 2020 buyout, and quietly lines the pockets of the politicians making the decision, if you let us out now (or sooner) you don't think that this would be a factor? If you don't then you'd have to be naive in a world whereby money trumps integrity and ethics on a daily basis now at that level.

 

 

 

Where did you hear/read that? Have you got a link?

 

If that's the case, I'd put odds on that the team is going to Toronto.

 

I've answered your questions by telling you to go read the lease...obviously, you haven't.

 

It sounds like your answer is simply that the County's "corrupt politicians" will simply agree to let the team not fulfill their end of the lease...nice theory.

 

And dropping.... which you didn't mention... probably as a result of an aging population. As I just wrote in another thread.... these are meaningless rankings because they measure the percentage of viewers. So Buffalo as a high percentage, lets arbitrarily say 50% of the 2.5M or 1.25M. That number is obviously used as a proxy for fans but the NFL sees it as a proxy for income. What if in LA, which every says isn't an NFL market, they weekly pulled on 15% of the population. That's 15% of 17M people, or 2.55M people, or equivalent to everyone on the Bills market watching! Yeah this doesn't include the southern Ontario market and the numbers would be higher but the point is, simple math folks. From a business standpoint, you can't argue that big cities mean big money and big profits.

 

Dropped for 2 consecutive seasons, yes. I would attribute that far more to play on the field than population demographics, but since there's no causation analysis, we can't really say.

 

Also, as I've pointed out, there really isn't a gap between Buffalo's ability to generate revenue and that of larger cities like SF and Atlanta, and what you're claiming is that the individual TV market money is going to jump significantly if and when a team moves to L.A.

 

Given that the Giants and Jets are barely cracking that number, and L.A. has been indifferent enough to lose 2 separate franchises, I'm not sure that assumption holds water. Also, we'd need to compare that 15% market share to the current TV market in Los Angeles, since the people watching the NFL now will still be watching it then. Best I can find is a link to this article, that indicates the the highest-rated games top out around a 13:

 

http://variety.com/2011/tv/news/nfl-in-l-a-is-a-ratings-conundrum-1118032887/

[K-9]

And dropping.... which you didn't mention... probably as a result of an aging population. As I just wrote in another thread.... these are meaningless rankings because they measure the percentage of viewers. So Buffalo as a high percentage, lets arbitrarily say 50% of the 2.5M or 1.25M. That number is obviously used as a proxy for fans but the NFL sees it as a proxy for income. What if in LA, which every says isn't an NFL market, they weekly pulled on 15% of the population. That's 15% of 17M people, or 2.55M people, or equivalent to everyone on the Bills market watching! Yeah this doesn't include the southern Ontario market and the numbers would be higher but the point is, simple math folks. From a business standpoint, you can't argue that big cities mean big money and big profits.

 

Certainly in terms of corporate dollars.

 

But not in terms of TV revenues since the NFL forbids local TV contracts. A team in LA wouldn't move the needle in terms of increased TV viewership. And if that 15% of the larger market means "more eyes" for advertisers, it better also mean that the other local affiliates aren't drawing even MORE viewers with other programming, which was the case in the past with the Rams and Raiders. Local advertising drives the local affiliates and local advertisers in LA didn't like paying the premium to the local affiliates when they were lagging behind competing stations in those time slots.

 

Larger television markets are a two-edged sword.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[thebandit27]

Where's the profit chart?

 

Try clicking the link and sorting by revenue...best I can do...if you want to know more, try putting in a bit of effort.

 

All you've done, literally all, is sit back and make unsupported claims while shooting down every fact that others provide in opposition to your stance.

[purple haze]

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk 36m

Bills have suitors who would buy the team and move it http://wp.me/p14QSB-9uDv

 

"It may not go for $2 billion in Buffalo, but it could go for $2 billion or more if the buyer is intent on dog-paddling through six seasons in Buffalo before moving to the Los Angeles media market."

 

We already knew this. And there are others that will keep them in WNY. I will be glad when the sale is done so these re-hashed articles stop being written.

[Ronin]

It was discussed a while back here and on WGR. I remember them talking about the TV ratings/viewings. Outside of the US is not considered as part of the home territory even though it is so close. Since the NFL doesn't consider Canada in the "home territory", they can't get around the relocation fee. I'm assuming they are referring to the "black out" area as home territory which is why no one has shot down the idea of a stadium in Rochester other than it not being in Buffalo.

 

I'll see if I can get more details but the main point was basically anything outside of the US, the NFL doesn't count toward their final numbers.

 

You kinda lost me there, are you saying that the team can break the lease to move to Toronto, or still cannot?

 

I know that you were simply floating that, but Rochester has no chance of getting a stadium. The best, or worst depending upon perspective, I can see is that Batavia/Darian Lakes option.

 

As to Toronto, the question there, one way or another, is would the corporate community support a team. I think that given the size of the corporate base there, that even if the interest was at 10% of what it is in Buffalo overall, that given the much greater corporate resources it definitely would. I also think that Canadians, while being immersed in hockey, would embrace the NFL over a short period of time if they had their own team.

 

I mean we can't fault Brandon for exploring that option, and taking the Canadian's money in that deal, and it was a "nice try," but imagine if we didn't have a team and Toronto did the same to us, I mean who would become a fan of that team when a it's not even yours and you have another team to root for in an equally if not more prominent sport here.

 

If Buffalo didn't have hockey, how many Buffalonians would become fans of the Leafs to the extent that they support the team the way that they support the Sabers now? I don't think it would be significant at all.

 

Did I say anywhere in my post whether the Toronto series was a success or failure? Nope. I wasn't even talking about it's merits.

 

I'll repeat it one last time, then I give up:

 

You denied that there was 7-10 million people within 100 miles of Buffalo. You are wrong.

 

What merits? There are no "merits" if it doesn't translate somehow. Let's just end this. Why not include NYC in your analysis too, it would make as much sense, perhaps more.

[YoloinOhio]

Sorry I know this may not belong in this thread but it made me laugh. LA is such a great sports market. lol.

@sportswatch LA only ranked 3rd among markets for Gm 7 behind Chicago and old hockey reliable Buffalo (H/T @TSManiscalco)

[Ronin]

I've answered your questions by telling you to go read the lease...obviously, you haven't[

 

No, I haven't. But I'll tell you what Einstein, go find the excerpt in the lease that says a buyout is impossible and I'll concede the point. Because from everything I've read, there's presently a $400M buyout on the table.

 

Then find me something that says that this lease absolutely under any circumstances cannot be altered. It happens all the time in business dealings there genius. All the time.

 

Since you've clearly never heard of renegotiating a lease, let's just let this rest.

 

Try clicking the link and sorting by revenue...best I can do...if you want to know more, try putting in a bit of effort.

 

All you've done, literally all, is sit back and make unsupported claims while shooting down every fact that others provide in opposition to your stance.

 

So you're saying that revenue is profit then?

 

Talk about putting in a bit of effort. Hence my point.

 

Case in point, who makes more money?

 

Business owner A with revenues of $1B and net profits of $10M;

 

OR

 

Business owner B with revenues of $700M and net profits of $50M.

 

Sorry, but not one of your charts included profits. Again, hence my question. What, don't you think that profits are relevant in this scenario? Particularly since the Bills typically hover around in that $10-15M range, and that lately half, or thereabouts, of that has come from a deal with Toronto that no longer exists?

 

Here's a clue, "operating income" is not profit.

 

Sorry to bother you. Just trying to engage in some intelligent discussion. It's becoming increasingly clear that I'll have to look elsewhere.

 

PS Some of the reasons as to why so many here believe what they believe you just made quite clear.

[YoloinOhio]

No, I haven't. But I'll tell you what Einstein, go find the excerpt in the lease that says a buyout is impossible and I'll concede the point. Because from everything I've read, there's presently a $400M buyout on the table.

 

Then find me something that says that this lease absolutely under any circumstances cannot be altered. It happens all the time in business dealings there genius. All the time.

 

Since you've clearly never heard of renegotiating a lease, let's just let this rest.

 

 

 

So you're saying that revenue is profit then?

 

Talk about putting in a bit of effort. Hence my point.

 

Case in point, who makes more money?

 

Business owner A with revenues of $1B and net profits of $10M;

 

OR

 

Business owner B with revenues of $700M and net profits of $50M.

 

Sorry, but not one of your charts included profits. Again, hence my question. What, don't you think that profits are relevant in this scenario? Particularly since the Bills typically hover around in that $10-15M range, and that lately half, or thereabouts, of that has come from a deal with Toronto that no longer exists?

 

Here's a clue, "operating income" is not profit.

 

Sorry to bother you. Just trying to engage in some intelligent discussion. It's becoming increasingly clear that I'll have to look elsewhere.

[The Wiz]

You kinda lost me there, are you saying that the team can break the lease to move to Toronto, or still cannot?

 

Regardless the lease will have to be broken if they move or a new stadium is built in Buffalo/Batavia/etc (hence the 28 million option in year 7). I was referring to the relocation fee/owners vote that would need to take place. If Toronto was considered part of our territory, the fee and NFL approval wouldn't need to happen (or at least to the extent of voting).

[SRQ_BillsFan]

While anything can be interpreted diffrently and the commissioner can change things the NFL relocation rules state that a team that is well supported can not simply relocate a team to make more money.

 

" Article 4.3 also confirms that no club has an "entitlement" to relocate simply because it perceives an opportunity for enhanced club revenues in another location. Indeed, League traditions disfavor relocations if a club has been well-supported and financially successful and is expected to remain so. Relocation pursuant to Article 4.3 may be available, however, if a club's viability in its home territory is threatened by circumstances that cannot be remedied by diligent efforts of the club working, as appropriate, in conjunction with the League Office, or if compelling League interests warrant a franchise relocation. "

 

http://m.startribune.com/?id=148181325

 

There are a lot of things that would have to happen for the team to simply up and move. Not saying it can't happen but the area can do a lot to try to keep the team right here. No matter who buys it.

 

.

[purple haze]

 

 

LoL. That guy... Some people just like being negative.

[thebandit27]

No, I haven't. But I'll tell you what Einstein, go find the excerpt in the lease that says a buyout is impossible and I'll concede the point. Because from everything I've read, there's presently a $400M buyout on the table.

 

Then find me something that says that this lease absolutely under any circumstances cannot be altered. It happens all the time in business dealings there genius. All the time.

 

Since you've clearly never heard of renegotiating a lease, let's just let this rest.

 

 

 

So you're saying that revenue is profit then?

 

Talk about putting in a bit of effort. Hence my point.

 

Case in point, who makes more money?

 

Business owner A with revenues of $1B and net profits of $10M;

 

OR

 

Business owner B with revenues of $700M and net profits of $50M.

 

Sorry, but not one of your charts included profits. Again, hence my question. What, don't you think that profits are relevant in this scenario? Particularly since the Bills typically hover around in that $10-15M range, and that lately half, or thereabouts, of that has come from a deal with Toronto that no longer exists?

 

Here's a clue, "operating income" is not profit.

 

Sorry to bother you. Just trying to engage in some intelligent discussion. It's becoming increasingly clear that I'll have to look elsewhere.

 

PS Some of the reasons as to why so many here believe what they believe you just made quite clear.

 

I was in the middle of typing out an explanation of the lease, since you cannot be bothered to read it, but now I realize that there's no point.

 

You will simply refuse to provide ANY factual support for your stance, and are now resorting to throwing out insults. Why is it that anyone that opposed your view is responsible for providing you with research, yet you refuse to lift a finger?

 

I'm done here...anytime you'd like to read the lease and have an actual discussion of real, relevant facts, let me know and I'd be happy to engage.

[GA BILLS FAN]

A few things to add to the discussion:

1- I think we all wished Ralph did more than it appears he has done to keep the team here, while the lease and having the Mary's on the voting trust are good, pre-arranging a sale to a local buyer would have cemented this team here for decades and made Ralph's legacy that much stronger. We all hope there is more in the trust than we collectively know, but where this team ends up in 7yearrs will definitely influence my feelings toward Wilson.

 

2- A successful NFL franchise in LA is worth more than a successful franchise in Buffalo, Economics 101. The two BIG IF'S are (a) can an NFL franchise be successful in LA (i.e.Rams / Raiders were not) and (b) How much more would it be worth if it was successful ? I'd suggest using the comparison of the value Forbes puts on Cowboys or Patriots or Giants vs. the value of the Bills

 

3- Economics will play a role in the bid of a person that wants to move the team, but it might not be the ONLY valuation used. If Ballmer's $2B bid for the Clippers teaches us anything, it's that emotion an ego play a significant role with billionaires and regardless of potential TV money for the Clippers TV, Ballmer over paid by at least $1B

 

4- The lease is as iron-clad as a lease can be (I did take time to read it); but we all know a buyer that wants to relocate team will fight the lease and we'll need politicians to stand firm against the temptation to take a $400M (or more) settlement

 

 

I personally find it hard to sit by and do nothing and wait for others to determine our team's fate. I would encourage others who feel like me to act by writing letters to other owners, fans in other cities, all politicians, Goodell, media (local and national) for them to do what they can do to support a team in Buffalo.

[The Wiz]

While anything can be interpreted diffrently and the commissioner can change things the NFL relocation rules state that a team that is well supported can not simply relocate a team to make more money.

 

" Article 4.3 also confirms that no club has an "entitlement" to relocate simply because it perceives an opportunity for enhanced club revenues in another location. Indeed, League traditions disfavor relocations if a club has been well-supported and financially successful and is expected to remain so. Relocation pursuant to Article 4.3 may be available, however, if a club's viability in its home territory is threatened by circumstances that cannot be remedied by diligent efforts of the club working, as appropriate, in conjunction with the League Office, or if compelling League interests warrant a franchise relocation. "

 

http://m.startribune.com/?id=148181325

 

There are a lot of things that would have to happen for the team to simply up and move. Not saying it can't happen but the area can do a lot to try to keep the team right here. No matter who buys it.

 

.

Also know as, the Jerry Jones effect.

[thebandit27]

LoL. That guy... Some people just like being negative.

 

Negative and informed is one thing.

 

Negative and unwilling to even consider the facts at hand is another.

 

I noticed he bailed on the other discussion once he was informed that the poster whose knowledge he was challenging actually has experience working for pro teams, which I believe is why he's now carrying on the same agenda in this thread.

[Trader]

So here is one way an out of town owner could buy the bills and break the lease. Let us say that a prospective owner is willing to part with a total of 3 Billion. He offers 1.5 Billion to the trust. That should blow all other offers out of the water. He then offers the county 1.5 Billion to buy out the lease. The politicians run for cover as they usually do and vacillate. A taxpayer group sues to bring the issue to a referendum. The voters go to the polls to vote on a 1.5 Billion dollar windfall. If it is a Toronto group the deal even gets sweeter because most of the pro take the money and run folks do not go to the games anyway and they are not going to buy seat licenses and they get to watch the Niagara Cascade play on TV anyway. I am no financial genius so if I thought of it you can bet the smart guys have too.

[Jauronimo]

No, I haven't. But I'll tell you what Einstein, go find the excerpt in the lease that says a buyout is impossible and I'll concede the point. Because from everything I've read, there's presently a $400M buyout on the table.

 

Then find me something that says that this lease absolutely under any circumstances cannot be altered. It happens all the time in business dealings there genius. All the time.

 

Since you've clearly never heard of renegotiating a lease, let's just let this rest.

 

 

 

So you're saying that revenue is profit then?

 

Talk about putting in a bit of effort. Hence my point.

 

Case in point, who makes more money?

 

Business owner A with revenues of $1B and net profits of $10M;

 

OR

 

Business owner B with revenues of $700M and net profits of $50M.

 

Sorry, but not one of your charts included profits. Again, hence my question. What, don't you think that profits are relevant in this scenario? Particularly since the Bills typically hover around in that $10-15M range, and that lately half, or thereabouts, of that has come from a deal with Toronto that no longer exists?

 

Here's a clue, "operating income" is not profit.

 

Sorry to bother you. Just trying to engage in some intelligent discussion. It's becoming increasingly clear that I'll have to look elsewhere.

 

PS Some of the reasons as to why so many here believe what they believe you just made quite clear.

Here's a clue. Operating income is a better indicator than net income in determining the value of a franchise. Cash flow.

 

Try harder.

[TheFunPolice]

Now comes the constant parade of negative stories. This was so predictable to anyone who was able to take the intense emotion out of it.

 

Prepare to hear more and more of these types of reports. The period of good vibes and respect for the tradition of this franchise (in honor of Mr. Wilson) has apparently ended. Now the vultures and wolves are coming in for the team.