CodeMonkey Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) 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. Oh good lord, not Chuckles again. So Chuckles is going to, singlehandedly vote to end the NFL exemptions. Oh wait, he can't. No problem, all he has to do is convince enough politicians, who need to get re-elected at some point,, to kill the top sport in the United States. Yeah no problem there. And Chuckles needs to get himself re-elected as well. I don't think his actions would be very popular in the rest of the state, particularly in the NYC region which he needs to carry. The reason it isn't emphasized more is that it is ludicrous to think he could pull it off, even if he wanted to. Edited July 24, 2014 by CodeMonkey
Kelly the Dog Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) 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. There is every reason to believe they won't get the NFL's vote, they would have had to say to the NFL with a straight face we have no intention of moving this team in order to get the approval in the first place. So then they do nothing about procuring a new stadium for the Bills for six years, but in the short six month window they have, they immediately start moving on getting a stadium done in Toronto? Edited July 24, 2014 by Kelly the Dog
Tyrod's Tailor Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Oh good lord, not Chuckles again. So Chuckles is going to, singlehandedly vote to end the NFL exemptions. Oh wait, he can't. No problem, all he has to do is convince enough politicians, who need to get re-elected at some point,, to kill the top sport in the United States. Yeah no problem there. And Chuckles needs to get himself re-elected as well. I don't think his actions would be very popular in the rest of the state, particularly in the NYC region which he needs to carry. The reason it isn't emphasized more is that it is ludicrous to think he could pull it off, even if he wanted to. We can agree to disagree on how powerful he is. I think he's an excellent person to have in Bills fans' corner. As for the anti-trust, Schumer doesn't need to implement a change in the law for it to be a potent bargaining chip.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) 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. With all due respect, I worked at an executive level on the sale of an NBA franchise twice and on a 20 year lease deal. In addition, I currently sell businesses for a living. Lastly, I have a master's degree in sports business. If you want to disagree with me fine but please do not question my understanding. I've been behind the curtain. Edited July 24, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
Kelly the Dog Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Not that there is a chance in hell that the NFL is going to let a team be lame duck in a city for six years getting 10-15,000 at the games for years on end.
HopefulFuture Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 There is every reason to believe they won't get the NFL's vote, they would have had to say to the NFL with a straight face we have no intention of moving this team in order to get the approval in the first place. So then they do nothing about procuring a new stadium for the Bills for six years, but in the short six month window they have, they immediately start moving on getting a stadium done in Toronto? Who says they already don't have that support inside the NFL's board of governers? Or that it wouldn't be looked upon favorably? This is money were talking about, they'll do what the net revenue line in the pro forma says most likely. And I can't see that line saying, ooops, a 50 million dollar red number, for example.
CodeMonkey Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) We can agree to disagree on how powerful he is. I think he's an excellent person to have in Bills fans' corner. As for the anti-trust, Schumer doesn't need to implement a change in the law for it to be a potent bargaining chip. It can do no harm to have him in the Bills fans corner. Just not a lot of good other than getting press coverage, which he is good at. In order for it to be a bargaining chip, it has to be a possibility or at least the other parties in the negotiation need to believe it is a possibility. Do you seriously believe that even Schumer himself would risk killing the NFL for the city of Buffalo much less the other politicians he would need? I certainly do not. But as you said, we can agree to disagree. Edited July 24, 2014 by CodeMonkey
HopefulFuture Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 With all due respect, I worked at an executive level on the sale of an NBA franchise twice and on a 20 year lease deal. In addition, I currently sell businesses for a living. Lastly, I have a master's degree in sports business. If you want to disagree with me fine but please do not question my understanding. I've been behind the curtain. If that is the case, then I assume you would have known all of what I just brought forth.
Tyrod's Tailor Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 It can do no harm to have him in the Bills fans corner. Just not a lot of good other than getting press coverage, which he is good at. In order for it to be a bargaining chip, it has to be a possibility or at least the other parties in the negotiation need to believe it is a possibility. Well, no argument whatsoever on his penchant for mugging for the camera.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) If that is the case, then I assume you would have known all of what I just brought forth. I am telling you that is patently false. Who says they already don't have that support inside the NFL's board of governers? Or that it wouldn't be looked upon favorably? This is money were talking about, they'll do what the net revenue line in the pro forma says most likely. And I can't see that line saying, ooops, a 50 million dollar red number, for example. Because the small market owners will never allow the anti trust exemption to be challenged!! Edited July 24, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
CodeMonkey Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Well, no argument whatsoever on his penchant for mugging for the camera. Yeah as a politician, he is pretty talented. Which means you can probably trust what he says as much as a talented politician as well
HopefulFuture Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) I am telling you that is patently false. Because the small market owners will never allow the anti trust exemption to be challenged!! Ok, I can see we are going to go around in circles here. I am telling you all of what I just posted is completely plausible, you don't agree, I understand. As for the anti trust exemption, I don't believe the move of the BIlls would be counter to the 61 ruling, since they already operate in the aforementioned market. Edit: I should have mentioned the potential purchase (more like pending purchase) of the Argo's by Tenanbaum. But I'm guessing you knew of that already, so, what in particular about the exemption are you concerned with. Edited July 24, 2014 by HopefulFuture
Kelly the Dog Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Who says they already don't have that support inside the NFL's board of governers? Or that it wouldn't be looked upon favorably? This is money were talking about, they'll do what the net revenue line in the pro forma says most likely. And I can't see that line saying, ooops, a 50 million dollar red number, for example. Because every single report has been that the NFL wants to keep the team in Buffalo. Even Jerry Jones said any potential move is sheer speculation.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) Ok, I can see we are going to go around in circles here. I am telling you all of what I just posted is completely plausible, you don't agree, I understand. As for the anti trust exemption, I don't believe the move of the BIlls would be counter to the 61 ruling, since they already operate in the aforementioned market. We aren't going round and round. One of us is providing facts, real life experience, examples and one if us is speculating. One of us has inside info, one of us is guessing. If you feel like bowing out by all means go for it. Edited July 24, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
Kelly the Dog Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Who says they already don't have that support inside the NFL's board of governers? Or that it wouldn't be looked upon favorably? This is money were talking about, they'll do what the net revenue line in the pro forma says most likely. And I can't see that line saying, ooops, a 50 million dollar red number, for example. Oh, and they would already be breaking the lease agreement before signing it.
thebandit27 Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 We aren't going round and round. One of us is providing facts and real life experience and examples and one if us is speculating. One of us has inside info, one of us is guessing. If you feel like bowing out by all means go for it. Ooh, do I get to guess which of you is the one with the real info?
Kirby Jackson Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Ooh, do I get to guess which of you is the one with the real info? I try not to shout people down but when he questioned my understanding I thought that it was an appropriate time to throw my credentials on the table and measure.
thebandit27 Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 I try not to shout people down but when he questioned my understanding I thought that it was an appropriate time to throw my credentials on the table and measure. Hey, you don't need to prove anything to most of us...your track record (read: post history) speaks for itself.
HopefulFuture Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 We aren't going round and round. One of us is providing facts, real life experience, examples and one if us is speculating. One of us has inside info, one of us is guessing. If you feel like bowing out by all means go for it. Ah, I see, you don't like my speculative point of view because it doesn't fit your narrative of possible unfolding events. Let's get one thing clear, if you had any inside info, you wouldn't be on this website touting such, because I'm more than sure you'd be in breach of an MNDA/NDA. So let's clear that up right now. I'm not here to see your credentials, nor do I care personally. I've stated what I've personally experienced with projects at this level financially, once again, if you don't like the possibilities I post nor the actual events I've experienced at that level, to bad. The fact remains a move to Toronto by the Bills if the Toronto group bid wins out is very real considering their position prior to learning of the movement clause. Just because they've done a 180 publicly means nothing. And just because you feel these obstacles are to much to over come, doesn't make it so.
Recommended Posts