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

[thebandit27]

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.

 

I would agree that there not likely the first choice; I just don't think it's prudent to chuck any potential offer out the window without hearing them out.

 

For all we know they may be perfectly amenable to keeping the team here even if it wasn't their first choice...I have no feel for their sentiment outside of the fact that they still want the team despite the restrictions.

[HopefulFuture]

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.

 

Well, yes, it would be the most optimal way to go, I concur. And, maybe, that is what will happen if one of the local bidders gets the team. I cannot see that as a losing scenario.

The only counter point I have for this over all post of yours, and it's not really a counter point, more of a what if scenario, is the NFL's willingness to abandon Buffalo on a temp basis, as happened with Cleveland. That is the case study for a situation such as ours if the team is indeed relocated.

 

Things are looking up for WNY, I stated that in other threads, and whether or not people take my word for it (without myself being a Pegula or Galisano, I understand why) it truly has turned a corner here in our community. We have a long road to go yet though, the cleanups need to continue in an effort to lower cancer rates, we have property fights still to come between developers and preservationists in the region, a corrupt, over lapping governmental system to correct, fights at the state level over ridiculous mandates to go, an introduction of new industries for employment growth, a redeveloping downtown area (both in Buffalo, which is already underway, as well as Niagara Falls, which has yet to even have an agreed upon strategy plan in place), a stabilization of the current generational populace as well as the indoctrination of the immigrant populace currently being injected into the region (primarily eastern European and Russian, hey look, more hockey fans LOL) as well as a host of other issues to contend with.

 

But, these things will come, in time. The area's bleeding of our youth is beginning to stabilize and it appears as though we were primarily insulated from the 08 fiasco. Sometimes it pays to already be poor

 

The area has survived much worse than the Bills possibly leaving, she's battered, bruised and somewhat the worse for wear, but she's still here and drawing breathe as a viable community. Yes, I see much hope and promise here, and that bodes well for the future.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, many sports fans didn't like Mr. Galisano, I did, he did something that Ralph Wilson was proud of, he invested himself in not only our region as a business leader, he invested himself in the region as himself. He purchased the Buffalo Sabres, then, handed them off to some one we've all come to know and trust to an extent, Mr. Pegula. After all, Mr. Galisano gave of himself for that endeavor, oh sure he said as long as it didn't lose money, and hey, I'd say the same, but he also found a man to carry on the team and that man invested in the region for a sport.

 

Those are the type of people I'd like to see leading our community at large. People invested in more than just a product, people invested in the region, in the city, in us.

 

I believe that is what will happen, and I don't trust any group from Toronto one bit.

[CodeMonkey]

<snip>

but I have to ask: do you truly understand the process at play here?

<snip>

 

You see, that's just the point. No one here (unless a trustee or potential bidder is a member) fully understands the process at play here

[thebandit27]

You see, that's just the point. No one here (unless a trustee or potential bidder is a member) fully understands the process at play here

 

I was referring to the process that would be at play for a Toronto stadium to be completed in time for the Bills to move in when the escape clause rolls around. It just isn't feasible for many reasons.

[HopefulFuture]

I was referring to the process that would be at play for a Toronto stadium to be completed in time for the Bills to move in when the escape clause rolls around. It just isn't feasible for many reasons.

 

Actually, it is. A stadium can be built before the end of the current lease is up. After all, why even pay the small amount in the out clause year when you can simply run out the clock on the lease itself. The escape clause is an interesting concept to temp. move into Rogers Stadium, then commence a build out of a new stadium that would be roughly 5 years max in the making, if the ground work for site procurement is already in place.

[thebandit27]

 

 

Actually, it is. A stadium can be built before the end of the current lease is up. After all, why even pay the small amount in the out clause year when you can simply run out the clock on the lease itself. The escape clause is an interesting concept to temp. move into Rogers Stadium, then commence a build out of a new stadium that would be roughly 5 years max in the making, if the ground work for site procurement is already in place.

 

The NFL has already stated that Rodgers is not an option for an NFL team as a week-in/week-out venue.

 

That won't change 9 years from now. The practicality of playing there as far out as 14 years from now is zero.

 

So back to the drawing board for coming up with a scenario in which the team can covertly (and illegally) find a spot to play in Toronto before the lease is up.

[HopefulFuture]

The NFL has already stated that Rodgers is not an option for an NFL team as a week-in/week-out venue.

 

That won't change 9 years from now. The practicality of playing there as far out as 14 years from now is zero.

 

So back to the drawing board for coming up with a scenario in which the team can covertly (and illegally) find a spot to play in Toronto before the lease is up.

 

That's funny that you bring up the Rogers stadium comment from the NFL. It certainly was for Bills games in Toronto, wasn't it though. You believe what you wish, but if the Rogers Stadium were to be used as a bridge until a new stadium was completed, the NFL would absolutely rubber stamp it's approval for such use, after all, they did so for Bills games.........see how that works.

[thebandit27]

 

 

That's funny that you bring up the Rogers stadium comment from the NFL. It certainly was for Bills games in Toronto, wasn't it though. You believe what you wish, but if the Rogers Stadium were to be used as a bridge until a new stadium was completed, the NFL would absolutely rubber stamp it's approval for such use, after all, they did so for Bills games.........see how that works.

 

Sure, because 1 game per year is the same as ten or more...

 

I think we've gone way beyond reason at this point.

[HopefulFuture]

Sure, because 1 game per year is the same as ten or more...

 

I think we've gone way beyond reason at this point.

 

As I said, you believe what you wish. There are many different avenues to get a stadium put up in the greater Toronto region, without public funds, then you are aware of. A prime example is right here in WNY, Jeremy Jacobs. Without him, FNC isn't built. 55 million of his own money in to it. And he's already had a very nice return on that investment.

 

EDIT: Oh, and we went beyond reason the moment you tried to tell me that a stadium in Toronto could never be built, it was, how did you put it, against the law. LOL

I did get a chuckle out of that one.

Edited July 23, 2014 by HopefulFuture

[thebandit27]

 

 

As I said, you believe what you wish. There are many different avenues to get a stadium put up in the greater Toronto region, without public funds, then you are aware of. A prime example is right here in WNY, Jeremy Jacobs. Without him, FNC isn't built. 55 million of his own money in to it. And he's already had a very nice return on that investment.

 

EDIT: Oh, and we went beyond reason the moment you tried to tell me that a stadium in Toronto could never be built, it was, how did you put it, against the law. LOL

I did get a chuckle out of that one.

 

You keep drawing a false analogy to Jacobs. I've pointed out a least 3 times that the lease language prevents the team from even discussing a stadium outside of WNY during the lease.

 

Are you going to tell me that Jacobs never once spoke to Sabres ownership during the funding, design, permitting, and/or construction of the FNC? Because I'm certain that's not true.

 

If you would actually acknowledge that point it'd be nice, but I understand why you do not, because ignoring it allows you to continue the Jacobs correlation.

 

If you read the lease you understand why the Toronto stadium would have to happen with literally no involvement from the team. None. Not a conversation, whisper, nothing.

 

That...is...not...practical. If the team tries to circumvent it they are acting in violation of a legal agreement with the County and the NFL. It would be against the law and they could be taken to court--and they would lose.

 

Counter this with facts and I'll proceed with this conversation; drawing false parallels and making abstract arguments with no subtext isn't furthering the discussion at all.

[Bob Malooga]

He would be a minority owner like J-Lo, Gloria Estefan, Fergie, and Serena Williams in Miami...or Jay-Z with the Nets...nothing more, nothing less.

 

And no, they cannot discuss building a new stadium in Toronto, or elsewhere outside NYS, until the lease is up...as pointed out, that is a breach of contract.

 

They can't even discuss moving the team, let alone building a new stadium in Toronto...the fact you even think they can, blows my mind.

[HopefulFuture]

You keep drawing a false analogy to Jacobs. I've pointed out a least 3 times that the lease language prevents the team from even discussing a stadium outside of WNY during the lease.

 

Are you going to tell me that Jacobs never once spoke to Sabres ownership during the funding, design, permitting, and/or construction of the FNC? Because I'm certain that's not true.

 

If you would actually acknowledge that point it'd be nice, but I understand why you do not, because ignoring it allows you to continue the Jacobs correlation.

 

If you read the lease you understand why the Toronto stadium would have to happen with literally no involvement from the team. None. Not a conversation, whisper, nothing.

 

That...is...not...practical. If the team tries to circumvent it they are acting in violation of a legal agreement with the County and the NFL. It would be against the law and they could be taken to court--and they would lose.

 

Counter this with facts and I'll proceed with this conversation; drawing false parallels and making abstract arguments with no subtext isn't furthering the discussion at all.

He would be a minority owner like J-Lo, Gloria Estefan, Fergie, and Serena Williams in Miami...or Jay-Z with the Nets...nothing more, nothing less.

 

And no, they cannot discuss building a new stadium in Toronto, or elsewhere outside NYS, until the lease is up...as pointed out, that is a breach of contract.

 

They can't even discuss moving the team, let alone building a new stadium in Toronto...the fact you even think they can, blows my mind.

 

There does not need to be any discussion on the Bills at all concerning a new stadium. And I'm well versed int he contract by the way. The entire conversation has gone this route not by my own doing, by others. And if those others believe there is no way a stadium can be built with out the consent of the Bills Toronto group, or their input, they are mistaken as well. As I've stated, I've seen investors do such projects with out any contact to the project owners. You may know them as "Angel Investors", a loose term to be sure for some groups.

 

The point of the conversation was to affirm that yes, when this current lease is up, they can move the team if they choose. bandit pointed to the NFL's comment on Rogers Stadium not being green lighted for use by the league, I must point out some very simple facts here, Rogers Stadium does in fact meet the minimum requirements for an NFL franchise, 50,000 seats or more, the issue most likely comes from luxury boxes which the NFL does not benefit from but the owners do and if they want to submit a team to that stadium until a new one is completed, the individuals in the Toronto Group are quite capable financially of doing so, you are dealing with people with a great deal of money and there is much at stake. Of course the team can be temp. housed in Rogers Stadium while a stadium is built.

 

Ask yourselves this, do you honestly believe those reported land procurement for a stadium reports were for entertainment.

This is a 2 billion dollar play at minimum for Toronto, and the parties involved have the ability and/or connections to make it happen. Simply writing it off is complete futility and utter nonsense.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

 

There does not need to be any discussion on the Bills at all concerning a new stadium. And I'm well versed int he contract by the way. The entire conversation has gone this route not by my own doing, by others. And if those others believe there is no way a stadium can be built with out the consent of the Bills Toronto group, or their input, they are mistaken as well. As I've stated, I've seen investors do such projects with out any contact to the project owners. You may know them as "Angel Investors", a loose term to be sure for some groups.

 

The point of the conversation was to affirm that yes, when this current lease is up, they can move the team if they choose. bandit pointed to the NFL's comment on Rogers Stadium not being green lighted for use by the league, I must point out some very simple facts here, Rogers Stadium does in fact meet the minimum requirements for an NFL franchise, 50,000 seats or more, the issue most likely comes from luxury boxes which the NFL does not benefit from but the owners do and if they want to submit a team to that stadium until a new one is completed, the individuals in the Toronto Group are quite capable financially of doing so, you are dealing with people with a great deal of money and there is much at stake. Of course the team can be temp. housed in Rogers Stadium while a stadium is built.

 

Ask yourselves this, do you honestly believe those reported land procurement for a stadium reports were for entertainment.

This is a 2 billion dollar play at minimum for Toronto, and the parties involved have the ability and/or connections to make it happen. Simply writing it off is complete futility and utter nonsense.

So they are going to build a stadium in Toronto. Without knowing a team can move there. Never talking to the owners of the Bills. And the Nfl has to agree to the move. And the nfl asks the JBJ group where are you going to play. And they say "Well, there is this new stadium built in Toronto. Maybe we will ask the guys who built it if we can play there."

 

Right.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

 

There does not need to be any discussion on the Bills at all concerning a new stadium. And I'm well versed int he contract by the way. The entire conversation has gone this route not by my own doing, by others. And if those others believe there is no way a stadium can be built with out the consent of the Bills Toronto group, or their input, they are mistaken as well. As I've stated, I've seen investors do such projects with out any contact to the project owners. You may know them as "Angel Investors", a loose term to be sure for some groups.

 

The point of the conversation was to affirm that yes, when this current lease is up, they can move the team if they choose. bandit pointed to the NFL's comment on Rogers Stadium not being green lighted for use by the league, I must point out some very simple facts here, Rogers Stadium does in fact meet the minimum requirements for an NFL franchise, 50,000 seats or more, the issue most likely comes from luxury boxes which the NFL does not benefit from but the owners do and if they want to submit a team to that stadium until a new one is completed, the individuals in the Toronto Group are quite capable financially of doing so, you are dealing with people with a great deal of money and there is much at stake. Of course the team can be temp. housed in Rogers Stadium while a stadium is built.

 

Ask yourselves this, do you honestly believe those reported land procurement for a stadium reports were for entertainment.

This is a 2 billion dollar play at minimum for Toronto, and the parties involved have the ability and/or connections to make it happen. Simply writing it off is complete futility and utter nonsense.

You still never answered the question as to how the stadium will be built without a word of input from the owners? Angel investors are people that invest with minimal collateral; I have no idea how that applies. If a shovel touches the dirt they will be sued immediately. In addition, the window to opt out of the lease is only 6 months long. They would have to opt out, pick a location and begin construction all in that window. That all goes without even mentioning the rules of the trust (not just the rules of the lease).

 

Next, there are no minimum requirements for luxury suites in the NFL so that part just isn't true. Arizona didn't have them until this stadium.

 

This conversation really cannot be had until all parties have a more thorough understanding of the lease. It is designed to prevent a relocation and that is what it will end up doing.

 

Oh yeah, have we even mentioned that Schumer and company intend on challenging the league's anti trust exemption? I am sure that the owner's in Jax, Arizona, Carolina, New Orleans, etc... will love that (sarcasm font). There is no chance in hell that they would approve the move with that hanging over their head!!'

 

Let's stop being naive and start understanding what is in place to assure the team remaining. There is a reason that these groups are changing course and it is not some evil plot twist. The legal hurdles in tact will make it impossible.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Kirby Jackson

[Tyrod's Tailor]

You still never answered the question as to how the stadium will be built without a word of input from the owners? Angel investors are people that invest with minimal collateral; I have no idea how that applies. If a shovel touches the dirt they will be sued immediately. In addition, the window to opt out of the lease is only 6 months long. They would have to opt out, pick a location and begin construction all in that window. That all goes without even mentioning the rules of the trust (not just the rules of the lease).

 

Next, there are no minimum requirements for luxury suites in the NFL so that part just isn't true. Arizona didn't have them until this stadium.

 

This conversation really cannot be had until all parties have a more thorough understanding of the lease. It is designed to prevent a relocation and that is what it will end up doing.

 

Oh yeah, have we even mentioned that Schumer and company intend on challenging the league's anti trust exemption? I am sure that the owner's in Jax, Arizona, Carolina, New Orleans, etc... will love that (sarcasm font). There is no chance in hell that they would approve the move with that hanging over their head!!'

 

Let's stop being naive and start understanding what is in place to assure the team remaining. There is a reason that these groups are changing course and it is not some evil plot twist. The legal hurdles in tact will make it impossible.

 

As you note Schumer can crush the NFL's golden goose, quickly, if the NFL were to do something that pissed him off (IE, moving the only NY team away to Canada). Not sure that's emphasized nearly enough in this discussion.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

As you note Schumer can crush the NFL's golden goose, quickly, if the NFL were to do something that pissed him off (IE, moving the only NY team away to Canada). Not sure that's emphasized nearly enough in this discussion.

It is hidden behind blind fear and insecurity. It keeps getting in the way of facts.

[Tyrod's Tailor]

It is hidden behind blind fear and insecurity. It keeps getting in the way of facts.

 

Anti Trust hearings in the morning! Concussion hearings in the afternoon! Prescription drug hearings at night! He could make their life bleeping miserable.

[HopefulFuture]

So they are going to build a stadium in Toronto. Without knowing a team can move there. Never talking to the owners of the Bills. And the Nfl has to agree to the move. And the nfl asks the JBJ group where are you going to play. And they say "Well, there is this new stadium built in Toronto. Maybe we will ask the guys who built it if we can play there."

 

Right.

 

Land procurement and construction does not begin until the out clause, at that time, there will be 3 years left on this current lease. If they bid on and get the team and are intent on moving them to Toronto (which every statement up until they learned of the relocation clause, combined with the history of attempting to move an NFL franchise say they are) it is well with in reason a stadium can be built from start to finish in 3 years, 5 years on the out side, but 3 years is more than likely.

 

Investors for a stadium do not have to put up a dime until the following criteria are met:

 

1. Purchase of the team

2. Assurances from the NFL they can move

 

Number one is already in play, if the bid is accepted, that achieves that goal.

Number 2 isn't far behind, given the comments from the likes of Jones and Mara, and hey, take a look at that, Tanenbaum currently sits on the board with Jeremy Jacobs in the NHL governers meetings. Robert Kraft is well connected with the individuals on the Toronto Group as well. There is no reason to suggest they wouldn't get the votes to move the team if necessary.

 

As I said, to think this cannot be done is literally nonsense. It can be done. Those type of investors need only have to wait until the out clause is in full affect and off to the races they'd go. In the years preceding that time, they can prepare, without any input from the ownership group, that can come as construction commences. This shouldn't be a hard concept to understand, but apparently it is to some.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

Anti Trust hearings in the morning! Concussion hearings in the afternoon! Prescription drug hearings at night! He could make their life bleeping miserable.

He's already said that it is coming. Can you imagine owning a small market team and losing that exemption?!? That will be the end of the NFL as we know it. There is no chance that it will get approved.

[HopefulFuture]

As you note Schumer can crush the NFL's golden goose, quickly, if the NFL were to do something that pissed him off (IE, moving the only NY team away to Canada). Not sure that's emphasized nearly enough in this discussion.

 

There are many obstacles to over come with the Toronto group, I'm in the firm belief many already have, or they wouldn't be bidding. There are things behind the scenes in motion always, that does not mean they will be successful however.

 

I'm in a thread about supporting the team if they are bought by the Toronto Group, I'm giving sound reasons as to why I would not support them and I'm also sharing some inside track information on how the workings of large projects may proceed.

 

I do not support the sale to this group, but they are very real player in the game, and in the event they are successful, I do not see the Bills remaining in Buffalo. I'm merely pointing out some of the ways groups or individuals (I call them entities for short) operate is all. Kirby and others are questioning that, and rightfully so, I can only speak to what I have experienced first hand. I've written before about bringing a 2.4 billion dollar waste to energy facility to WNY, I was deeply involved in that process, those investors at the 85% equity level, they green lighted the project for investment before some of the final analysis were worked out on key problems. There is much to learn about the inner workings of those with money to be sure.

 

Take your post on Schumer for example, PAC and individual campaign contributions can be done to off set dissent from any particular politician or party. There are so many ways to navigate through this, if you have the financial means to do so.

 

Remember this, this Toronto Group has players that have been going at this for a long time when it comes to an NFL franchise, they are well connected in the sports and entertainment industry in general and are very real power players across the board.

 

It is hidden behind blind fear and insecurity. It keeps getting in the way of facts.

 

There is no fear or insecurity here. Although I would not like to see the Bills leave, you know very little about real facts. About how it works behind the curtain, I've had the opportunity to, and I'm expressing to you, in very reasonable terms, that no matter what you facilitate as obstacles, there is always ways to over come, go around or other wise remove them.

 

I know you gauge your life off of what you see in print primarily, you've proven that with all the links. Those don't mean a whole lot, and I'm telling you this because I have seen first hand what money can move, and it can move quite a bit.