Do you believe that the Toronto group will keep the team in Buffalo?

[HopefulFuture]

I have not personally seen the terms of the trust but have been assured that the Bills will be here long term. It will all play out soon enough but that is where the discrepancy is. Just because we have not seen it does not mean that it does not exist.

 

My guess is (and this part is a guess) that if a WNY buyer hits a certain threshold bid wise (maybe $900M in this case) they win the bid unless the bidder with the higher number commits to WNY for the same term and on the same terms. The change of course from this group and others has come as they have learned the rules of the trust and the active market for the team.

 

That is possible, none of us no for sure what is going on entirely behind the scenes. My one differing opinion with you is that 900 million number. I just don't see that happening. I see it going higher, much higher. An NFL franchise is in demand, not in supply, the basic economic principles apply here I would say. I say 1.25 to 1.5 billion, that's where my number sits right now. Somewhere in that area. If it goes higher, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'll sit in that number area I just posted.

 

As for the over all situation, I to believe it goes to a locally vested owner, I've often posted on Pegula. He's building an entertainment company for sure with all of the varying entertainment venues he's got his fingers in to.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

That is possible, none of us no for sure what is going on entirely behind the scenes. My one differing opinion with you is that 900 million number. I just don't see that happening. I see it going higher, much higher. An NFL franchise is in demand, not in supply, the basic economic principles apply here I would say. I say 1.25 to 1.5 billion, that's where my number sits right now. Somewhere in that area. If it goes higher, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'll sit in that number area I just posted.

 

As for the over all situation, I to believe it goes to a locally vested owner, I've often posted on Pegula. He's building an entertainment company for sure with all of the varying entertainment venues he's got his fingers in to.

My guess is that it sells higher than $900M for sure but that is the number needed to trigger the other part (again speculation on my part). $1.2B has been the number in my head.

 

In terms of the behind the scenes part we do not know entirely. If I have been told this to be the case you can take it to the bank. The details are not clear (to me but I am sure it is to the buyers) but the end result will be in WNY.

 

Pegula is certainly the one that I want and that makes the most sense.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Kirby Jackson

[CodeMonkey]

That is possible, none of us no for sure what is going on entirely behind the scenes. My one differing opinion with you is that 900 million number. I just don't see that happening. I see it going higher, much higher. An NFL franchise is in demand, not in supply, the basic economic principles apply here I would say. I say 1.25 to 1.5 billion, that's where my number sits right now. Somewhere in that area. If it goes higher, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'll sit in that number area I just posted.

 

As for the over all situation, I to believe it goes to a locally vested owner, I've often posted on Pegula. He's building an entertainment company for sure with all of the varying entertainment venues he's got his fingers in to.

Not sure about 1.5 or even 1.2. It is a sellers market for sure in that there are a lot of individuals and groups interested. Probably far more than we are even aware of. But on the other hand, the team IS going to be sold and they know it. It's not like someone is going in trying to get a team out of an owners hands by overpaying. Consultants such as Goldman Sachs are going to advise their clients on the actual value of the franchise as well as their opinion of the current market value. If, as some suggest, the team will not be sold to anyone who doesn't swear an oath in blood that they will keep the team in WNY, that would really push the value of the franchise down as the new owner would be stuck in the Buffalo area instead of a more lucrative market or even having the option of moving to a different market to use as leverage in future negotiations with the county.

 

I have no more of a window into this than anyone else here, but I don't care who you are, 600 million (difference between 900 mil and 1.5 B) is significant. Even the great and powerful Pegula.

[HopefulFuture]

I made no statement about loyalty to WNY from the Toronto group. For the 3rd time I will directly tell you that the group would indeed like to move the team, but they will not be awarded the team unless they offer a documented guarantee to keep the team here. This is the reason for the 180; what, again, is so hard to understand about that?

 

Also, for a guy that was so sure about a downtown stadium a month ago, you seem to be in full-on panic mode now...why don't you enlighten us as to why?

 

 

 

Of course it's based on population. According to the NFL's demographics, Buffalo is a 1.1 million populace, nearly the same size as New Orleans and Jacksonville and 3x the size of Green Bay.

 

Toronto can be as big a market as it is, and still not draw enough ratings to make it worth moving there. New York City, which almost undoubtedly has more football fans than Toronto, draws the lowest ratings in the league. Are we supposed to assume that there are more football fans per capita in Toronto than in NYC so as to make it a market so valuable that the NFL will seek to move New York State's only team?

 

Why don't you reconsider the argument? Population does not make ratings...Los Angeles has lost 2 football teams in my lifetime.

 

 

 

You strongly implied it here:

 

 

 

 

If that's not what you meant, fine, but then why are you worried?

 

 

 

So you think the NFL, the County, and the State are simply going to turn a blind eye to a stadium being constructed in the Toronto area that has "no connection" to the NFL team currently playing in Buffalo?

 

You cannot possibly believe that.

 

If so much as a shovel touches the ground you can believe there will be action on the part of local legislature, and they have the ammo to win the legal battle as I'm sure you've seen if you've read the lease.

 

 

 

No need to be ambiguous, feel free to expound.

 

I am not in full on panic mode, I am merely stating my thoughts on the Toronto group and putting out words of caution with sound reasoning as to such. I referred directly to the bidding process itself. The trust is going to get a number that is within it's ability to get. You cannot seriously believe that the trust is going to hum-ho itself and take the owner that will keep the team in Buffalo. That is not the reason for it's existence. If that were the case, the Toronto group wouldn't even be considered given all of the circumstances surrounding it's already publicly known intentions prior to their statement of keeping the team in Buffalo (which by the way doesn't state indefinitely, it merely states they will keep the team in Buffalo, no time line given).

 

As for your numbers on viewership, per capita is everything. You don't need markets like NY to have heavy saturation on viewership on the over all populace because the area is so massive the numbers over all the sponsors running their ads reach is of such a large number it's prices to run in those markets are larger, i.e. the NFL makes more money. This is rocket science here, the larger the market, even with lower viewership ratings, the larger the target audience that can be saturated with ads. This is simple supply and demand economics here.

 

Jacksonville is in trouble, I used to live there, not a good example, New Orleans was torn to shreds by Katrina, they weren't always this low in population, Green Bay? Really, Green Bay? You actually use that as an example, the only team that will never move because it's owned by the community. It's irrelevant if they lose or make money, the NFL is forced to pay for that team if it was ever to go in the red. That team is going nowhere and the NFL knows it, that is why they made a rule forbidding it again.

 

So, all 3 examples are poor attempts at counter points to say the least.

 

The LA example is a good one however, but take in to consideration the NFL did in fact, attempt it, twice. And, as you can see, I've pointed that out more than several times. It only lends credence to my statement that the NFL will do it if it feels it's in the NFL's best interest. And what might that interest be? Well looky here, it happens to be broadening the brand, well, gees, why would they want to broaden their brand? I don't know, maybe to draw in more revenue? They will try the LA market again. Once again, this is all common sense economic practices. In a world where growth is the only true way to increase revenue for non-financial entities, either through growth of the brand via diversity (which, the NFL only sells one product, football) or growth of the customer base (market share in the entertainment industry).

 

A shovel can touch the ground anytime it wants in Toronto, because a 3rd party with no links to the Toronto group is not beholding the legal formalities of the County and Bills situation. If you honestly believe that Erie County and the Buffalo Bills can tell a 3rd private party not connected to this process directly up in Ontario it cannot build a new stadium, you seriously need to look at law more closely. They have been talking about an individual stadium for the Arg's for the better part of 15 years now. Smaller, Larger, non dome, dome, the conversation has been happening none the less. The province won't pitch in, they learned their lesson from the cost over runs of the sky dome, currently known as Rogers Stadium, but that doesn't mean a private entity could not build one.

 

Pulling that series I believe was a part of diffusing the Toronto groups intent theory running rampant. As I've stated over and over again, these individuals with money, they didn't get it or maintain it by being foolish. There is always strategic concepts in play, especially when your playing at this level where so much money is on the line. This group doesn't want to loose any more money than it has to should it win the bid and the fears of the fan base here, in WNY, come in to full focus. Of course, this my thoughts on this, and I'm sure it's not far off the mark. After all, if the intent originally was to draw a larger fan base to WNY for the Bills, why stop the series, the team was still in the financial black even with the lack of attendance. And, has been pointed out through out the years since the series inception, particularly by some prominent politicians at the Toronto and provincial level, if the team was Toronto's own, that attendance would surely increase as the community would feel vested in the product, like it was their own, something else I pointed out earlier and absolutely correct.

Take a look at us, as Bills fans, we are vested in our product. People are people, their passions are tied to coveting what they know, the NFL is full aware if the team goes to Toronto, there is an opportunity to vest in a large market base community.

 

I will say it's similar to the LA situation. Is it a risk? I've always stated such, but the NFL is not beyond taking risks, they've proven this already.

[jethro_tull]

that Ron Jaws is acting as Bon Jovi's shill is remarkable. Ron is bought and paid for with 30 pieces of silver.

he should be cleaned up with the lackawana bethlem steel superfund money.

[K D]

did anyone else notice what the poll results resemble? or do i have a problem?

[CodeMonkey]

did anyone else notice what the poll results resemble? or do i have a problem?

Resemble?

 

But you don't need a poll to know that the vast majority of people here trust and want no one other than one Terrence Pegula to be the next owner of the Buffalo Bills.

[Hplarrm]

 

 

I am not in full on panic mode, I am merely stating my thoughts on the Toronto group and putting out words of caution with sound reasoning as to such. I referred directly to the bidding process itself. The trust is going to get a number that is within it's ability to get. You cannot seriously believe that the trust is going to hum-ho itself and take the owner that will keep the team in Buffalo. That is not the reason for it's existence. If that were the case, the Toronto group wouldn't even be considered given all of the circumstances surrounding it's already publicly known intentions prior to their statement of keeping the team in Buffalo (which by the way doesn't state indefinitely, it merely states they will keep the team in Buffalo, no time line given).

 

As for your numbers on viewership, per capita is everything. You don't need markets like NY to have heavy saturation on viewership on the over all populace because the area is so massive the numbers over all the sponsors running their ads reach is of such a large number it's prices to run in those markets are larger, i.e. the NFL makes more money. This is rocket science here, the larger the market, even with lower viewership ratings, the larger the target audience that can be saturated with ads. This is simple supply and demand economics here.

 

Jacksonville is in trouble, I used to live there, not a good example, New Orleans was torn to shreds by Katrina, they weren't always this low in population, Green Bay? Really, Green Bay? You actually use that as an example, the only team that will never move because it's owned by the community. It's irrelevant if they lose or make money, the NFL is forced to pay for that team if it was ever to go in the red. That team is going nowhere and the NFL knows it, that is why they made a rule forbidding it again.

 

So, all 3 examples are poor attempts at counter points to say the least.

 

The LA example is a good one however, but take in to consideration the NFL did in fact, attempt it, twice. And, as you can see, I've pointed that out more than several times. It only lends credence to my statement that the NFL will do it if it feels it's in the NFL's best interest. And what might that interest be? Well looky here, it happens to be broadening the brand, well, gees, why would they want to broaden their brand? I don't know, maybe to draw in more revenue? They will try the LA market again. Once again, this is all common sense economic practices. In a world where growth is the only true way to increase revenue for non-financial entities, either through growth of the brand via diversity (which, the NFL only sells one product, football) or growth of the customer base (market share in the entertainment industry).

 

A shovel can touch the ground anytime it wants in Toronto, because a 3rd party with no links to the Toronto group is not beholding the legal formalities of the County and Bills situation. If you honestly believe that Erie County and the Buffalo Bills can tell a 3rd private party not connected to this process directly up in Ontario it cannot build a new stadium, you seriously need to look at law more closely. They have been talking about an individual stadium for the Arg's for the better part of 15 years now. Smaller, Larger, non dome, dome, the conversation has been happening none the less. The province won't pitch in, they learned their lesson from the cost over runs of the sky dome, currently known as Rogers Stadium, but that doesn't mean a private entity could not build one.

 

Pulling that series I believe was a part of diffusing the Toronto groups intent theory running rampant. As I've stated over and over again, these individuals with money, they didn't get it or maintain it by being foolish. There is always strategic concepts in play, especially when your playing at this level where so much money is on the line. This group doesn't want to loose any more money than it has to should it win the bid and the fears of the fan base here, in WNY, come in to full focus. Of course, this my thoughts on this, and I'm sure it's not far off the mark. After all, if the intent originally was to draw a larger fan base to WNY for the Bills, why stop the series, the team was still in the financial black even with the lack of attendance. And, has been pointed out through out the years since the series inception, particularly by some prominent politicians at the Toronto and provincial level, if the team was Toronto's own, that attendance would surely increase as the community would feel vested in the product, like it was their own, something else I pointed out earlier and absolutely correct.

Take a look at us, as Bills fans, we are vested in our product. People are people, their passions are tied to coveting what they know, the NFL is full aware if the team goes to Toronto, there is an opportunity to vest in a large market base community.

 

I will say it's similar to the LA situation. Is it a risk? I've always stated such, but the NFL is not beyond taking risks, they've proven this already.

 

I have a question for you since you seem to be thoughtful and well researched on this.

 

My contention on the Toronto versus Buffalo question is that for the NFL the clear choice is both.

 

The Buffalo Bills are a known and already captured asst. If the franchise moves then the NFL is simply walking away from roughly 45,000 season ticket purchasers, several million dollars in local and collaborative business partners, 10s of millions of dollars in tax payer subsidies Erie County is paying, and likely myriad other assets the NFL and the Bills owner is simply abandoning.

 

This is being done by the Toronto group and JBJ based on the hope and likelihood that all of these assets can be captured and then some in Toronto. The Bills actually did struggle to sell tickets during its recent test period, but my sense is with a true Canadian permanent franchise and better pricing that a Toronto franchise would be more remunerative than the Bills.

 

However, it seems clear to me:

 

1. The NFL is far from maxed out in the # of franchises it can have and has spoken of a plan to somehow spread the league to new markets.

 

2. Toronto is an obvious place to add a franchise, but given its population size and the number of Canadian corporate HQs that Toronto can easily maintain its own franchise and in fact still have the Bills continue to attract southern Ontario while the Toronto franchise find followers to keep it going.

 

3. the fact of existence of the Sabres and the Maple Leafs demonstrates that while hockey and football are different sports and businesses to not recognize that they cannot be simply compared, still it is possible for two major league sports franchises to survive and prosper in the area. In fact, the Sabres and the Leafs do not do some things to encourage and profit from rivalry between the two entities.

 

My sense is that it would be stupid for the NFL to throw away the significant profit it gets from Buffalo when it is simply a false choice that one needs to throw away Buffalo income to obtain Toronto income.

[thebandit27]

I am not in full on panic mode, I am merely stating my thoughts on the Toronto group and putting out words of caution with sound reasoning as to such. I referred directly to the bidding process itself. The trust is going to get a number that is within it's ability to get. You cannot seriously believe that the trust is going to hum-ho itself and take the owner that will keep the team in Buffalo. That is not the reason for it's existence. If that were the case, the Toronto group wouldn't even be considered given all of the circumstances surrounding it's already publicly known intentions prior to their statement of keeping the team in Buffalo (which by the way doesn't state indefinitely, it merely states they will keep the team in Buffalo, no time line given).

 

I never said the Trust would ho-hum itself or anything like that. What I said, repeatedly, is that they aren't going to sell to anyone without a guarantee to keep the team in WNY. Yes, that is the reason for it's existence, or at least one of them. Why wouldn't the Toronto group be considered if they agree to keep the team here? Isn't competition a good thing for a team sale? You seem to conveniently ignore that in order to keep alive the idea that a simple public statement of "we promise" will be enough to secure a winning bid...why?

 

As for your numbers on viewership, per capita is everything. You don't need markets like NY to have heavy saturation on viewership on the over all populace because the area is so massive the numbers over all the sponsors running their ads reach is of such a large number it's prices to run in those markets are larger, i.e. the NFL makes more money. This is rocket science here, the larger the market, even with lower viewership ratings, the larger the target audience that can be saturated with ads. This is simple supply and demand economics here.

 

Jacksonville is in trouble, I used to live there, not a good example, New Orleans was torn to shreds by Katrina, they weren't always this low in population, Green Bay? Really, Green Bay? You actually use that as an example, the only team that will never move because it's owned by the community. It's irrelevant if they lose or make money, the NFL is forced to pay for that team if it was ever to go in the red. That team is going nowhere and the NFL knows it, that is why they made a rule forbidding it again.

 

So, all 3 examples are poor attempts at counter points to say the least.

 

The NFL makes their money on TV contracts; what they need are more people watching their game on television. If you can explain to me how you think this occurs in appreciable fashion with Buffalo relocating to Toronto I'll listen. Real number please.

 

As to Jacksonville, I don't see how they're "in trouble" when they have a 25-year lease loaded with provisions designed to make moving costly:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/jaguars-essentially-stuck-jacksonville-until-022700805--nfl.html

 

Since you used to live there, maybe you can elaborate?

 

It doesn't matter what New Orleans used to be; what they are now is what I'm using for comparison, since the same argument can be made about Buffalo. The point is this: small market teams do well in the NFL. In terms of pure revenue, the Bills come in ahead of teams like SF, Arizona, Atlanta, Cincinnati, SD, KC, and St. Louis--all of which are much larger markets.

 

http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/#page:1_sort:5_direction:desc_search:

 

I'm not sure why you disregard Green Bay--we're talking about profitability here. I didn't suggest they were a candidate to relocate; I said that Buffalo was a market 3x the size of Green Bay for reference.

 

The LA example is a good one however, but take in to consideration the NFL did in fact, attempt it, twice. And, as you can see, I've pointed that out more than several times. It only lends credence to my statement that the NFL will do it if it feels it's in the NFL's best interest. And what might that interest be? Well looky here, it happens to be broadening the brand, well, gees, why would they want to broaden their brand? I don't know, maybe to draw in more revenue? They will try the LA market again. Once again, this is all common sense economic practices. In a world where growth is the only true way to increase revenue for non-financial entities, either through growth of the brand via diversity (which, the NFL only sells one product, football) or growth of the customer base (market share in the entertainment industry).

 

Again, population does not equal TV ratings. If you want to boil it down to population, then please explain why the aforementioned teams in my previous point earn less revenue per year than Buffalo.

 

A shovel can touch the ground anytime it wants in Toronto, because a 3rd party with no links to the Toronto group is not beholding the legal formalities of the County and Bills situation. If you honestly believe that Erie County and the Buffalo Bills can tell a 3rd private party not connected to this process directly up in Ontario it cannot build a new stadium, you seriously need to look at law more closely. They have been talking about an individual stadium for the Arg's for the better part of 15 years now. Smaller, Larger, non dome, dome, the conversation has been happening none the less. The province won't pitch in, they learned their lesson from the cost over runs of the sky dome, currently known as Rogers Stadium, but that doesn't mean a private entity could not build one.

 

So a 3rd party is going to build a stadium completely on its own accord, with zero conversations ever occurring between them and the ownership group?

 

If you've been even remotely close to any large-scale construction project, you know for a fact that the end-user is heavily involved in decisions during preliminary planning, conceptual design, detailed design, permitting, construction, etc. Are we really to believe that this whole construction would take place without team input? Or is your supposition that Toronto would shroud the whole thing in the cloak of the Argos getting a new stadium? What happens when the end-user turns out to be an NFL team and not the CFL team?

 

There are many holes in this theory that make it completely illogical.

 

Pulling that series I believe was a part of diffusing the Toronto groups intent theory running rampant. As I've stated over and over again, these individuals with money, they didn't get it or maintain it by being foolish. There is always strategic concepts in play, especially when your playing at this level where so much money is on the line. This group doesn't want to loose any more money than it has to should it win the bid and the fears of the fan base here, in WNY, come in to full focus. Of course, this my thoughts on this, and I'm sure it's not far off the mark. After all, if the intent originally was to draw a larger fan base to WNY for the Bills, why stop the series, the team was still in the financial black even with the lack of attendance. And, has been pointed out through out the years since the series inception, particularly by some prominent politicians at the Toronto and provincial level, if the team was Toronto's own, that attendance would surely increase as the community would feel vested in the product, like it was their own, something else I pointed out earlier and absolutely correct.

Take a look at us, as Bills fans, we are vested in our product. People are people, their passions are tied to coveting what they know, the NFL is full aware if the team goes to Toronto, there is an opportunity to vest in a large market base community.

 

I will say it's similar to the LA situation. Is it a risk? I've always stated such, but the NFL is not beyond taking risks, they've proven this already.

 

Pulling the Toronto series was wrought from one thing: the team's desire to boost attendance.

 

Also, to the bolded, Toronto has a football team to call their own, and their attendance is horrendous:

 

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2013/07/02/Franchises/Argos.aspx

 

I'll leave it at that unless there's anything new to debate.

[HopefulFuture]

I have a question for you since you seem to be thoughtful and well researched on this.

 

My contention on the Toronto versus Buffalo question is that for the NFL the clear choice is both.

 

The Buffalo Bills are a known and already captured asst. If the franchise moves then the NFL is simply walking away from roughly 45,000 season ticket purchasers, several million dollars in local and collaborative business partners, 10s of millions of dollars in tax payer subsidies Erie County is paying, and likely myriad other assets the NFL and the Bills owner is simply abandoning.

 

This is being done by the Toronto group and JBJ based on the hope and likelihood that all of these assets can be captured and then some in Toronto. The Bills actually did struggle to sell tickets during its recent test period, but my sense is with a true Canadian permanent franchise and better pricing that a Toronto franchise would be more remunerative than the Bills.

 

However, it seems clear to me:

 

1. The NFL is far from maxed out in the # of franchises it can have and has spoken of a plan to somehow spread the league to new markets.

 

2. Toronto is an obvious place to add a franchise, but given its population size and the number of Canadian corporate HQs that Toronto can easily maintain its own franchise and in fact still have the Bills continue to attract southern Ontario while the Toronto franchise find followers to keep it going.

 

3. the fact of existence of the Sabres and the Maple Leafs demonstrates that while hockey and football are different sports and businesses to not recognize that they cannot be simply compared, still it is possible for two major league sports franchises to survive and prosper in the area. In fact, the Sabres and the Leafs do not do some things to encourage and profit from rivalry between the two entities.

 

My sense is that it would be stupid for the NFL to throw away the significant profit it gets from Buffalo when it is simply a false choice that one needs to throw away Buffalo income to obtain Toronto income.

 

I need a question. You stated you had a question for me.

As for your post, I don't disagree entirely save this, they had vested teams making money in both Oakland and Cleveland and still allowed the teams to be moved to LA. The Cleveland Rams are now what you see as the St. Louis Rams, and that team wasn't loosing money in Cleveland, the owner at the time went for more. The same with Al Davis, he wanted those luxury boxes to increase revenue.

This all comes back to economics and risk. The NFL has shown they are willing to take risks. The economics show that the potential reward for those risks are of a greater scale in larger markets in most cases. Brand, it's all about that brand and it's ability to extend itself for further revenue.

[KD in CA]

A Toronto group not moving the Bills to Toronto is about as likely as a Los Angeles group not moving the Bills to Los Angeles.

[K-9]

Toronto is simply not a football town. Never has been.

 

It's a futbol town, though.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[HopefulFuture]

I never said the Trust would ho-hum itself or anything like that. What I said, repeatedly, is that they aren't going to sell to anyone without a guarantee to keep the team in WNY. Yes, that is the reason for it's existence, or at least one of them. Why wouldn't the Toronto group be considered if they agree to keep the team here? Isn't competition a good thing for a team sale? You seem to conveniently ignore that in order to keep alive the idea that a simple public statement of "we promise" will be enough to secure a winning bid...why?

 

 

 

The NFL makes their money on TV contracts; what they need are more people watching their game on television. If you can explain to me how you think this occurs in appreciable fashion with Buffalo relocating to Toronto I'll listen. Real number please.

 

As to Jacksonville, I don't see how they're "in trouble" when they have a 25-year lease loaded with provisions designed to make moving costly:

 

http://sports.yahoo....00805--nfl.html

 

Since you used to live there, maybe you can elaborate?

 

It doesn't matter what New Orleans used to be; what they are now is what I'm using for comparison, since the same argument can be made about Buffalo. The point is this: small market teams do well in the NFL. In terms of pure revenue, the Bills come in ahead of teams like SF, Arizona, Atlanta, Cincinnati, SD, KC, and St. Louis--all of which are much larger markets.

 

http://www.forbes.co...on:desc_search:

 

I'm not sure why you disregard Green Bay--we're talking about profitability here. I didn't suggest they were a candidate to relocate; I said that Buffalo was a market 3x the size of Green Bay for reference.

 

 

 

Again, population does not equal TV ratings. If you want to boil it down to population, then please explain why the aforementioned teams in my previous point earn less revenue per year than Buffalo.

 

 

 

So a 3rd party is going to build a stadium completely on its own accord, with zero conversations ever occurring between them and the ownership group?

 

If you've been even remotely close to any large-scale construction project, you know for a fact that the end-user is heavily involved in decisions during preliminary planning, conceptual design, detailed design, permitting, construction, etc. Are we really to believe that this whole construction would take place without team input? Or is your supposition that Toronto would shroud the whole thing in the cloak of the Argos getting a new stadium? What happens when the end-user turns out to be an NFL team and not the CFL team?

 

There are many holes in this theory that make it completely illogical.

 

 

 

Pulling the Toronto series was wrought from one thing: the team's desire to boost attendance.

 

Also, to the bolded, Toronto has a football team to call their own, and their attendance is horrendous:

 

http://www.sportsbus...ises/Argos.aspx

 

I'll leave it at that unless there's anything new to debate.

 

I've been involved in projects where it was never known who the larger investor was, in one case 85% of the over all cost with no government funding, 0. And it was never disclosed what the pay back was to that investor. So yes, it's more than possible, I've seen it first hand.

 

There really is no debate between us. Your attempt to site other teams and their revenue streams given their market size does not take in to account a whole slew of variables. You failed to mention that NY, the first one you pointed out is a vastly larger market share than Buffalo, why is that? Because it's a larger market region that is why. Other teams have owners with vested interests in their local ownership of the clubs you listed. The TV share argument won't hold water, no matter how much you attempt to slice it or dice it. Toronto is a vastly larger population center, and hence, a larger potential reward. Certainly your not suggesting other wise, are you?

 

Ah yes, the Arg's attendance record. It is bad isn't it. But then again, the Arg's aren't in the NFL, are they now? Surely once again your not suggesting that the CFL has nearly the amount of money to throw at putting a team in the spotlight from the NFL, are you?

And, as I've stated from the beginning once again, there is always risk, but the NFL has proven more than once it is more than willing to take those risks for the potential of higher reward.

Look at this way, if the team were to move to Toronto, they can always move it back, it's been done before, check out the history.

 

None of what you put up has merit with what the NFL over all strategic plan for the brand is considering they have already shown their willingness to attempt to increase that brand through moving teams. And it's been done more than several times. Keep telling yourself what you'd like if it makes you sleep better at night, but I know in my personal experiences in business it's much much different. There is always risks with any scenario, but the reward side is the focus.

 

There is very little loss of money here in the end. You may look at 30 million a year for 5 to 10 years or so of losses as a great deal of money, but when your dealing with entities or individuals that play at this level, it's a drop in the bucket when viewing the risks to reward ratios.

[TheFunPolice]

You alluded to Bills' fans who defend them, and so I asked who did so.

 

I'm not a member of any other boards, so it would make sense that I would assume that you were speaking of those on this board with that comment.

 

I only take personally that which blatantly appears so--and surely you'd admit that some (not all) of your comments were rather pointed in nature.

 

The misstep you're making here is that they didn't shift gears for appearance's sake; thy shifted gears because they want to be NFL owners and aren't going to get this team if they intend to move it.

 

At the most basic, simple level, we have the lease document that does not allow the team to even discuss relocation during the lease term; this alone would be a major hurdle. Combine that with everything else we know to be true--relocation fees, ownership approval, relocation approval, and without any "inside" info the path to relocation is littered with hurdles.

 

Combine that with what some folks with info have been told--that neither the NFL nor the Trust will sell to anyone with intentions of moving the team, and will want documented assurances of such, and it leads to one conclusion. I'll leave it for my boy tsnbd to put a button on it...

 

I do admit that. On this topic passions run high, so sometimes what might be taken as attacks is just angst from Bills fans who have no control over the situation. I just fear the Toronto group more than any other buyer for reasons I've laid out.

 

I also appreciate you and Kirby (and others) who are trying to calm those fears by saying that even IF the Toronto group wins the bid they will be forced to stay and commit, even if they don't want to.

 

I'm not saying that isn't true; I just can't imagine what that agreement would look like. It would have to be unprecedented in the NFL I think. It would essentially extend the lease in perpetuity, and give the buyer no leverage in any future negotiations. The state could always say "Don't like our offer? Well, we can't afford more and you can't leave...." How is the NFL going to accept that? It would create a dangerous precedent that other owners who are loyal to their cities might be inclined to follow when they sell. Personally I think that would be great since the NFL extorts money from struggling municipalities for new stadiums through the (stated or not) threat of relocation, but I see no desire among NFL owners to decrease their leverage and power.

 

Since that doesn't make any sense (to me anyway) there would have to be "outs" that would be deemed reasonable in any such agreement. It is my contention that the Toronto group would go about finding a way to make those "outs" come true. Sure, they have to stay until the end of the lease but it's 5-6 years we're talking about. These are billionaires who are used to playing the long game. 5-6 years go by in the blink of an eye.

 

From the perspective of the Toronto group, isn't the current lease pretty ironclad? Why is MORE needed? The Bills are here until at least 2020, they can and probably will commit to that tomorrow if you'll let them write the check. That's not the issue though. The issue is that any future lease negotiations presuppose that the owner has a say in the process. That's my worry, and 6 years is not a long time.

 

So what does Bon Jovi bring to the table? The Toronto group doesn't need him financially, he needs them. But they might need him to put a happy face on their group for PR reasons. Plus it wouldn't hurt to have a member of the good ole boys club to help grease the wheels in the league office if they decide once this lease runs out that the team would be more viable north of the border.

Edited July 23, 2014 by TheFunPolice

[HopefulFuture]

Toronto is simply not a football town. Never has been.

 

It's a futbol town, though.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Now here, you may be correct. Toronto, with it's large influx of immigrants, particularly from nations known to support what we call soccer, has more of a chance to field a team in that sport with little risk. The only problem I see there is who would they play that isn't 12 hours or so travel away via flight on a regular schedule. I can't see soccer taking off on a larger scale here in the states than it already is, even with the recent world cup run it shows that the sport is growing, but not significantly enough to challenge the big 4 currently.

 

This is a great point though k-9, and it's a part of that risk I speak of. What is the strategic plan of the NFL when it comes to a scenario such as Toronto? I would be of the mind that they fully realize it would take several generations to truly indoctrinate the larger immigrant population to American football. I could be off on that, it's merely a common sense guess, and since we are looking at market share, just what is the real market share they would be looking at? The first non-American NFL team, in Canada? Could they be viewing that as drawing on support from other Canadian cities in a playoff run year based on nationalism? I think they are. And they'd most likely be correct. National pride runs rampant in western nations when it comes to sports, even intra-league sports, especially those nations with strong ties to Europe, such as Canada still has via it's heritage and so on.

[K D]

Resemble?

 

But you don't need a poll to know that the vast majority of people here trust and want no one other than one Terrence Pegula to be the next owner of the Buffalo Bills.

I mean to say...the poll results resemble a man's you know what...

 

and so does JBJ

[thebandit27]

I've been involved in projects where it was never known who the larger investor was, in one case 85% of the over all cost with no government funding, 0. And it was never disclosed what the pay back was to that investor. So yes, it's more than possible, I've seen it first hand.

 

We're not talking about private investing being kept secret, we're talking about the idea that the Bills' ownership would have zero input in the construction of a new stadium.

 

Let's draw out the hypothetical:

 

- Toronto group gets the team (not likely, but possible)

- Toronto group reads the lease and understands they cannot even speak about relocation or they are in violation of the lease with the State, County, and NFL

- Random Toronto investor starts building a new stadium in Toronto

 

At this point, you are telling me that one of two things will happen:

 

1) The Toronto stadium gets designed, permitted, and constructed for the Argos, and all the while the Bills owners, who intend to use it, do not have a single conversation with the Random Toronto Investor that funds it, nor do they speak with any of the other entities that are involved with the process, but they still expect to simply waltz in once it opens and play there.

 

2) The Bills ownership does indeed speak to them, violating the lease agreement with the State, County, and NFL, and somehow nobody cares.

 

I'm not trying to challenge your intelligence with this question, but I have to ask: do you truly understand the process at play here? You're talking about understanding ROI and sources of funding, whereas I'm talking about a team being able to play in a stadium without having a single conversation with any of the parties involved in the funding, design, ownership, permitting, (etc) of it.

 

There really is no debate between us. Your attempt to site other teams and their revenue streams given their market size does not take in to account a whole slew of variables. You failed to mention that NY, the first one you pointed out is a vastly larger market share than Buffalo, why is that? Because it's a larger market region that is why. Other teams have owners with vested interests in their local ownership of the clubs you listed. The TV share argument won't hold water, no matter how much you attempt to slice it or dice it. Toronto is a vastly larger population center, and hence, a larger potential reward. Certainly your not suggesting other wise, are you?

 

You obviously did not read my last post, or you wouldn't have said this...what I just told you is that Buffalo is bringing in larger revenues (not per capita, not TV ratings, actual dollars) than larger markets. I did not say New York, because Buffalo isn't generating larger revenues than NYC. Please do me the kindness of reading the point before you respond to it:

 

http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/#page:1_sort:5_direction:desc_search:

 

And again, had you read my post, there would be no ambiguity regarding my point: population does not equal revenue. If you think it does, please explain why Buffalo makes more revenue than teams like SF, Arizona, Atlanta, Cincinnati, SD, KC, and St. Louis.

 

You're arguing against per capita TV ratings when I'm showing you actual team revenue.

 

Ah yes, the Arg's attendance record. It is bad isn't it. But then again, the Arg's aren't in the NFL, are they now? Surely once again your not suggesting that the CFL has nearly the amount of money to throw at putting a team in the spotlight from the NFL, are you?

 

And, as I've stated from the beginning once again, there is always risk, but the NFL has proven more than once it is more than willing to take those risks for the potential of higher reward.

Look at this way, if the team were to move to Toronto, they can always move it back, it's been done before, check out the history.

 

So your supposition is that a market that hasn't supported the CFL or the NFL is worth "trying" with the Bills? And you make this supposition purely based on what's happened nearly 20 years ago and became a black eye for the NFL? The situations in Cleveland and Houston that lead to relocation were massive PR nightmares for the NFL, but you're under the impression that they're eager to do that again for an unproven market?

 

On that, we wildly disagree.

 

None of what you put up has merit with what the NFL over all strategic plan for the brand is considering they have already shown their willingness to attempt to increase that brand through moving teams. And it's been done more than several times. Keep telling yourself what you'd like if it makes you sleep better at night, but I know in my personal experiences in business it's much much different. There is always risks with any scenario, but the reward side is the focus.

 

There is very little loss of money here in the end. You may look at 30 million a year for 5 to 10 years or so of losses as a great deal of money, but when your dealing with entities or individuals that play at this level, it's a drop in the bucket when viewing the risks to reward ratios.

 

Hey, a month ago you were on here reassuring everyone that a downtown stadium was a done deal, so who are you kidding with "Keep telling yourself what you'd like if it makes you sleep better at night, but I know in my personal experiences in business it's much much different".

 

Please don't condescend with regard to money; if you think you're the only one that deals with major projects or massive business transactions, well, you don't know the makeup of this board very well.

 

I do admit that. On this topic passions run high, so sometimes what might be taken as attacks is just angst from Bills fans who have no control over the situation. I just fear the Toronto group more than any other buyer for reasons I've laid out.

 

I also appreciate you and Kirby (and others) who are trying to calm those fears by saying that even IF the Toronto group wins the bid they will be forced to stay and commit, even if they don't want to.

 

I'm not saying that isn't true; I just can't imagine what that agreement would look like. It would have to be unprecedented in the NFL I think. It would essentially extend the lease in perpetuity, and give the buyer no leverage in any future negotiations. The state could always say "Don't like our offer? Well, we can't afford more and you can't leave...." How is the NFL going to accept that? It would create a dangerous precedent that other owners who are loyal to their cities might be inclined to follow when they sell. Personally I think that would be great since the NFL extorts money from struggling municipalities for new stadiums through the (stated or not) threat of relocation, but I see no desire among NFL owners to decrease their leverage and power.

 

Since that doesn't make any sense (to me anyway) there would have to be "outs" that would be deemed reasonable in any such agreement. It is my contention that the Toronto group would go about finding a way to make those "outs" come true. Sure, they have to stay until the end of the lease but it's 5-6 years we're talking about. These are billionaires who are used to playing the long game. 5-6 years go by in the blink of an eye.

 

From the perspective of the Toronto group, isn't the current lease pretty ironclad? Why is MORE needed? The Bills are here until at least 2020, they can and probably will commit to that tomorrow if you'll let them write the check. That's not the issue though. The issue is that any future lease negotiations presuppose that the owner has a say in the process. That's my worry, and 6 years is not a long time. Plus it wouldn't hurt to have a member of the good ole boys club in Bon Jovi to help grease the wheels in the league office.

 

I understand, believe me I do...all I can tell you is that they'll have to give more if they want this team.

[Hplarrm]

 

 

I need a question. You stated you had a question for me.

As for your post, I don't disagree entirely save this, they had vested teams making money in both Oakland and Cleveland and still allowed the teams to be moved to LA. The Cleveland Rams are now what you see as the St. Louis Rams, and that team wasn't loosing money in Cleveland, the owner at the time went for more. The same with Al Davis, he wanted those luxury boxes to increase revenue.

This all comes back to economics and risk. The NFL has shown they are willing to take risks. The economics show that the potential reward for those risks are of a greater scale in larger markets in most cases. Brand, it's all about that brand and it's ability to extend itself for further revenue.

 

My question is den't it seem most likely for the NFL not to simply move the Bills franchise to Toronto but instead to both gain the benefits of a Toronto franchise while also maintaining the substantial benefits of maintaining the Buffalo franchise.

 

It simply seems nonsensical to me to simply walk away from the assets and income which created the Buffalo Bills when it is not necessary to do this while gaining the profits which come with a Toronto franchise.

 

In fact the elimination of the Buffalo franchise strikes me not only as a risk there is no need to take to get the benefits, but in fact by moving the franchise the NFL guarantees going through the death march of the Bills abandoning Buffalo.

 

It simply is a different NFL than the one which saw Bob Irsay take the Mayflower vans out of Baltimore and Art Modell take Baltimore's money and leave the NFL to get rolled by Cleveland municipal officials.

[TheFunPolice]

I understand, believe me I do...all I can tell you is that they'll have to give more if they want this team.

 

That makes me think that this group is far from the first choice, especially if there are these other super wealthy groups/bidders involved. Why bother with the Toronto group in the end?

 

Business transactions based on distrust and coercing the other party into agreeing to something that everyone knows they would rather not agree to seem like bad ideas when there are alternatives that seem to make more sense and would be far more positive.

Edited July 23, 2014 by TheFunPolice

[kickedface]

believe bon jovi is going to keep the bills in buffalo?

 

*puts on shades

 

you must be living on a prayer.

 

 

YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!