TheFunPolice Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 The major problem with expansion is that you'd probably have to add a minimum of 4 teams or else the divisional structure would be thrown out of balance. 2 new AFC teams, 2 new NFC teams. Then just have 3 divisions of 6 teams in each conference. If you added just 1 or 2 how would divisions work? I also think that expansion is very risky for the NFL. It waters down the product somewhat. What happens if those teams are not successful? Even if 1 bombs, you are suddenly talking relocation or contraction of teams. The talent pool is just about right now, and even so there are street free agents playing by the end of the season for many teams due to injuries. Adding 4 more teams waters that talent pool down even more.
The Dean Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 The major problem with expansion is that you'd probably have to add a minimum of 4 teams or else the divisional structure would be thrown out of balance. 2 new AFC teams, 2 new NFC teams. Then just have 3 divisions of 6 teams in each conference. If you added just 1 or 2 how would divisions work? I also think that expansion is very risky for the NFL. It waters down the product somewhat. What happens if those teams are not successful? Even if 1 bombs, you are suddenly talking relocation or contraction of teams. The talent pool is just about right now, and even so there are street free agents playing by the end of the season for many teams due to injuries. Adding 4 more teams waters that talent pool down even more. You are correct, there are risks associated with expansion. But you wouldn't need 4 teams. Divisions can have a different number of teams. It's been done before. For many years one division in each conference had four teams, the rest five. So if the NFL REALLY wants a team in LA and TO, they have that option. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's a way to get it done, on a timetable, without relocation.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 In some ways, Bon Jovi's participation in the auction reminds me of "Barry," the crazy old guy who bids on abandoned storage lockers in the televised "Storage Wars" auctions. Is Pegula Dave Hester?
purple haze Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 I understand the resentment of JBJ over this, but honestly, when this is over just let it go. I can't blame him for wanting to own an NFL team, it makes perfect financial sense to want to move them from Buffalo. I'm sure if he had a chance to own the team and he had to keep them in Buffalo he would. It's business, not personal. Also, he sat next to my friend at the Super Bowl in Pasadena, friend said he was the nicest guy and was rooting for the Bills. I think sometimes Buffalo looks silly doing things like defending it's crappy weather and now boycotting music. Pegula will own the team, the team will be in Buffalo the rest of our lives. Let's move on. Everything is personal to somebody. Most people just keep it to themselves when another person crosses their line. In terms of the Bills, fans aren't shy about letting it be known our line has been crossed. No, Bon Jovi isn't the devil. Mr. Bon Jovi very well might be a nice guy. Yet, he has aligned himself with men who wanted to hi-jack the team out of WNY; an institution that was born and bred in Buffalo, NY, and supported by the WNY region for over 50 years. That is very personal as you are seeing. Some of the venom is over the top, true enough. But what you suggest is just business for TO group is personal to many others. So, to Bon Jovi, Tannenbaum and Rogers I would say it's not business on my end, it's just personal. They aren't akin to terrorists or dictators as one t-shirt I saw ridiculously put Bon-Jovi in the company of. However, they have proven to be disingenuous, sneaky and disrespectful to Bills fans everywhere, including our brethren from Ontario who enjoy the Bills in WNY, the good and valuable citizens of WNY, and the legacy of AFL-NFL stalwart, Mr. Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. The Bills were founded when my father was 9 years old. He's a 62 year old man now. And over that time our team had one owner, who in spite of our feelings about the product at times, remained fiercely loyal to the area when he could have moved the team out of town many times. That means something. Business doesn't have to come at the expense of tradition, relationships or character. When Pegula is named owner he will want to make money too. But unlike the TO group it won't strictly be about cash and carry. Go Bills.
Mike in Horseheads Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Everything is personal to somebody. Most people just keep it to themselves when another person crosses their line. In terms of the Bills, fans aren't shy about letting it be known our line has been crossed. No, Bon Jovi isn't the devil. Mr. Bon Jovi very well might be a nice guy. Yet, he has aligned himself with men who wanted to hi-jack the team out of WNY; an institution that was born and bred in Buffalo, NY, and supported by the WNY region for over 50 years. That is very personal as you are seeing. Some of the venom is over the top, true enough. But what you suggest is just business for TO group is personal to many others. So, to Bon Jovi, Tannenbaum and Rogers I would say it's not business on my end, it's just personal. They aren't akin to terrorists or dictators as one t-shirt I saw ridiculously put Bon-Jovi in the company of. However, they have proven to be disingenuous, sneaky and disrespectful to Bills fans everywhere, including our brethren from Ontario who enjoy the Bills in WNY, the good and valuable citizens of WNY, and the legacy of AFL-NFL stalwart, Mr. Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. The Bills were founded when my father was 9 years old. He's a 62 year old man now. And over that time our team had one owner, who in spite of our feelings about the product at times, remained fiercely loyal to the area when he could have moved the team out of town many times. That means something. Business doesn't have to come at the expense of tradition, relationships or character. When Pegula is named owner he will want to make money too. But unlike the TO group it won't strictly be about cash and carry. Go Bills. When Tpegs bought the Sabres he said their whole purpose going forward was to win a Stanley Cup. I think he'd have the same attitude about the Bills winning a SB.
sodbuster Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 In some ways, Bon Jovi's participation in the auction reminds me of "Barry," the crazy old guy who bids on abandoned storage lockers in the televised "Storage Wars" auctions. Is Pegula Dave Hester? That guy is awesome. Pegula is more like him. A guy who has more money than everybody else and knows that the stuff he's bidding on is probably crap, but bids on it anyway, and isn't necessarily looking for a moneymaker.
dwight in philly Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Everything is personal to somebody. Most people just keep it to themselves when another person crosses their line. In terms of the Bills, fans aren't shy about letting it be known our line has been crossed. No, Bon Jovi isn't the devil. Mr. Bon Jovi very well might be a nice guy. Yet, he has aligned himself with men who wanted to hi-jack the team out of WNY; an institution that was born and bred in Buffalo, NY, and supported by the WNY region for over 50 years. That is very personal as you are seeing. Some of the venom is over the top, true enough. But what you suggest is just business for TO group is personal to many others. So, to Bon Jovi, Tannenbaum and Rogers I would say it's not business on my end, it's just personal. They aren't akin to terrorists or dictators as one t-shirt I saw ridiculously put Bon-Jovi in the company of. However, they have proven to be disingenuous, sneaky and disrespectful to Bills fans everywhere, including our brethren from Ontario who enjoy the Bills in WNY, the good and valuable citizens of WNY, and the legacy of AFL-NFL stalwart, Mr. Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. The Bills were founded when my father was 9 years old. He's a 62 year old man now. And over that time our team had one owner, who in spite of our feelings about the product at times, remained fiercely loyal to the area when he could have moved the team out of town many times. That means something. Business doesn't have to come at the expense of tradition, relationships or character. When Pegula is named owner he will want to make money too. But unlike the TO group it won't strictly be about cash and carry. Go Bills. i am the same age as your father and could not agree with you more.. well said..
K-9 Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 In some ways, Bon Jovi's participation in the auction reminds me of "Barry," the crazy old guy who bids on abandoned storage lockers in the televised "Storage Wars" auctions. Is Pegula Dave Hester? YUPP! GO BILLS!!!
FLFan Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Everything is personal to somebody. Most people just keep it to themselves when another person crosses their line. In terms of the Bills, fans aren't shy about letting it be known our line has been crossed. No, Bon Jovi isn't the devil. Mr. Bon Jovi very well might be a nice guy. Yet, he has aligned himself with men who wanted to hi-jack the team out of WNY; an institution that was born and bred in Buffalo, NY, and supported by the WNY region for over 50 years. That is very personal as you are seeing. Some of the venom is over the top, true enough. But what you suggest is just business for TO group is personal to many others. So, to Bon Jovi, Tannenbaum and Rogers I would say it's not business on my end, it's just personal. They aren't akin to terrorists or dictators as one t-shirt I saw ridiculously put Bon-Jovi in the company of. However, they have proven to be disingenuous, sneaky and disrespectful to Bills fans everywhere, including our brethren from Ontario who enjoy the Bills in WNY, the good and valuable citizens of WNY, and the legacy of AFL-NFL stalwart, Mr. Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. The Bills were founded when my father was 9 years old. He's a 62 year old man now. And over that time our team had one owner, who in spite of our feelings about the product at times, remained fiercely loyal to the area when he could have moved the team out of town many times. That means something. Business doesn't have to come at the expense of tradition, relationships or character. When Pegula is named owner he will want to make money too. But unlike the TO group it won't strictly be about cash and carry. Go Bills. Great post!
klos63 Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Everything is personal to somebody. Most people just keep it to themselves when another person crosses their line. In terms of the Bills, fans aren't shy about letting it be known our line has been crossed. No, Bon Jovi isn't the devil. Mr. Bon Jovi very well might be a nice guy. Yet, he has aligned himself with men who wanted to hi-jack the team out of WNY; an institution that was born and bred in Buffalo, NY, and supported by the WNY region for over 50 years. That is very personal as you are seeing. Some of the venom is over the top, true enough. But what you suggest is just business for TO group is personal to many others. So, to Bon Jovi, Tannenbaum and Rogers I would say it's not business on my end, it's just personal. They aren't akin to terrorists or dictators as one t-shirt I saw ridiculously put Bon-Jovi in the company of. However, they have proven to be disingenuous, sneaky and disrespectful to Bills fans everywhere, including our brethren from Ontario who enjoy the Bills in WNY, the good and valuable citizens of WNY, and the legacy of AFL-NFL stalwart, Mr. Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. The Bills were founded when my father was 9 years old. He's a 62 year old man now. And over that time our team had one owner, who in spite of our feelings about the product at times, remained fiercely loyal to the area when he could have moved the team out of town many times. That means something. Business doesn't have to come at the expense of tradition, relationships or character. When Pegula is named owner he will want to make money too. But unlike the TO group it won't strictly be about cash and carry. Go Bills. I'm not trying to start a big argument about this, but just want to add that the only reason it would be personal is if you choose to make it so. I'm fairly comfortable thinking that JBJ motives were strictly business and had no thought of victimizing you , me or your dad. I started going to games in the late 60's so I'm pretty solid with the team like your dad, I just choose not to take it personally because I know it's not meant that way.Of course, I'm not arguing that you don't have the right to feel that way. Just my opinion.
dwight in philly Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) I'm not trying to start a big argument about this, but just want to add that the only reason it would be personal is if you choose to make it so. I'm fairly comfortable thinking that JBJ motives were strictly business and had no thought of victimizing you , me or your dad. I started going to games in the late 60's so I'm pretty solid with the team like your dad, I just choose not to take it personally because I know it's not meant that way. Of course, I'm not arguing that you don't have the right to feel that way. Just my opinion. my problem with JBJ is that he was a liar.. the point of the post, (in my opinion) was that what gives a smug, pop star, or anyone actually, the right to rip a team out for their egocentric desires.. Edited August 16, 2014 by dwight in philly
GA BILLS FAN Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 My problem with JBJ is same as many others, he is a liar and tried to deceive to get the team. I take it personally, because he made it personal. He could have done exactly what the LA crowd did after they signed the NDA and saw the terms of sale and the difficulty moving the team, drop out. Instead, JBJ puts up this façade that he never wanted to move team, has his cronies (Jaws) tell the community the same. In the end, it looks like a 99% probability that he won't get the team, and that's what he and we (WNY) both deserve.
klos63 Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 my problem with JBJ is that he was a liar.. the point of the post, (in my opinion) was that what gives a smug, pop star, or anyone actually, the right to rip a team out for their egocentric desires.. the obvious answer is capitalism. It's a legal business transaction. And is he any more egocentric than any other potential owner? He's rich, has more wealthy backers - don't see this being about ego - he wants to own an NFL team, so do I. My problem with JBJ is same as many others, he is a liar and tried to deceive to get the team. I take it personally, because he made it personal. He could have done exactly what the LA crowd did after they signed the NDA and saw the terms of sale and the difficulty moving the team, drop out. Instead, JBJ puts up this façade that he never wanted to move team, has his cronies (Jaws) tell the community the same. In the end, it looks like a 99% probability that he won't get the team, and that's what he and we (WNY) both deserve. I think his original plan was to move the team, but I don't doubt that if he had to keep the team here in order to own them he would.
dwight in philly Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) the obvious answer is capitalism. It's a legal business transaction. And is he any more egocentric than any other potential owner? He's rich, has more wealthy backers - don't see this being about ego - he wants to own an NFL team, so do I. I think his original plan was to move the team, but I don't doubt that if he had to keep the team here in order to own them he would. i get that.. it is about the deceit.. ill leave it at that.. Edited August 16, 2014 by dwight in philly
purple haze Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 I'm not trying to start a big argument about this, but just want to add that the only reason it would be personal is if you choose to make it so. I'm fairly comfortable thinking that JBJ motives were strictly business and had no thought of victimizing you , me or your dad. I started going to games in the late 60's so I'm pretty solid with the team like your dad, I just choose not to take it personally because I know it's not meant that way. Of course, I'm not arguing that you don't have the right to feel that way. Just my opinion. I get what you're saying. However, when a man lies about his intentions to pull one over on you, that is personal. The TO group looked at stadium sites in the greater TO area. It has been reported, by John Kryk, many times over recent years, that sources say the group intended to move the Bills to Toronto. Now, all of a sudden, Bon Jovi writes a letter informing us, the fans, that he, and by proxy, his backers intend to make things work in WNY; while at the same time giving NO assurance that they will do so. The Wilson family trust itself was skeptical of this new viewpoint of the TO group. The TO group are telling half-truth's at best or outright lying at worst, all in efforts to buy a team we've supported, and potentially steal them away to Toronto. That cloak-and-dagger seems like an attempt at victimization to me.
Baltos best Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) Everything is personal to somebody. Most people just keep it to themselves when another person crosses their line. In terms of the Bills, fans aren't shy about letting it be known our line has been crossed. No, Bon Jovi isn't the devil. Mr. Bon Jovi very well might be a nice guy. Yet, he has aligned himself with men who wanted to hi-jack the team out of WNY; an institution that was born and bred in Buffalo, NY, and supported by the WNY region for over 50 years. That is very personal as you are seeing. Some of the venom is over the top, true enough. But what you suggest is just business for TO group is personal to many others. So, to Bon Jovi, Tannenbaum and Rogers I would say it's not business on my end, it's just personal. They aren't akin to terrorists or dictators as one t-shirt I saw ridiculously put Bon-Jovi in the company of. However, they have proven to be disingenuous, sneaky and disrespectful to Bills fans everywhere, including our brethren from Ontario who enjoy the Bills in WNY, the good and valuable citizens of WNY, and the legacy of AFL-NFL stalwart, Mr. Ralph C. Wilson, Jr. The Bills were founded when my father was 9 years old. He's a 62 year old man now. And over that time our team had one owner, who in spite of our feelings about the product at times, remained fiercely loyal to the area when he could have moved the team out of town many times. That means something. Business doesn't have to come at the expense of tradition, relationships or character. When Pegula is named owner he will want to make money too. But unlike the TO group it won't strictly be about cash and carry. Go Bills. Outstanding post! There is no need to be apologetic about our collective hatred for a man/group of men that is actively trying to remove a part of our lives. That’s about as personal as it gets for many of us. Will we bear a grudge forever? Probably not. Is the JBJ hatred earned at this moment? Absolutely. Edited August 16, 2014 by Baltos best
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) Serious questions: The NFL has rules that require (1) each team to designate a "controlling owner," and (2) that if more than one person owns an interest in a team, there must be one person who owns at least a specified minimum percentage (didn't go back to look it up, might be 30%). Is it required (not customary, but absolutely REQUIRED) that the person with the over 30% ownership interest be designated as the "controlling owner?" Is it possible that the "controlling owner" is just a title for the person who is designated to cast votes on the team's behalf at league ownership meetings and the like? I seem to remember reading that Mary Wilson was designated as the "controlling owner" after Ralph passed (and may still have that designation for all I know), even though it seems likely that the team was technically owned by the trust at that time and not by Mary personally. I guess what I am clumsily asking is this - - is it possible that because of the seemingly loosey-goosey rules for conducting the sale, the Toronto group could be reshuffled so that Ed Rogers puts up most of the money, and Bon Jovi is simply a minority owner designated as the "controlling owner" so that he can be the messenger boy who casts votes at league meetings and performs any other administrative duties that league rules may require of the person given the "controlling owner" title? If so, we may be underestimating how high the Toronto group could bid in round 2. Not saying this would enable them to win the competition, but it might be a way for them to bid higher than what they could if Bon Jovi was required to own at least 30% of the team (which is what everyone in the media is assuming when they make estimates of how high the Toronto group could potentially bid). Often I google this kind of stuff to try to find answers, but I'm not up to reviewing the NFL Constitution & Bylaws tome today. For that matter, even if the person designated as the "controlling owner" has to be the person with the largest ownership share, what prevents the Toronto group from reshuffling so that Ed Rogers puts up most of the money and is designated as the controlling owner? If Mary Wilson can be designated as the "controlling owner" by the trust that owns the team right now, why couldn't Ed Rogers be designated as the "controlling owner" by the Rogers family trust that would hypothetically put up the bulk of the purchase money to be the next majority owner of the team? If Bon Jovi wants to be an owner more than he needs to be the lead dog, I would expect him to be lobbying Ed Rogers to put up more Rogers family trust $$ if he thinks that will be required for the Toronto group as a whole to outbid Pegula. Thoughts? Edited August 16, 2014 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead
thebandit27 Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Serious questions: The NFL has rules that require (1) each team to designate a "controlling owner," and (2) that if more than one person owns an interest in a team, there must be one person who owns at least a specified minimum percentage (didn't go back to look it up, might be 30%). Is it required (not customary, but absolutely REQUIRED) that the person with the over 30% ownership interest be designated as the "controlling owner?" Is it possible that the "controlling owner" is just a title for the person who is designated to cast votes on the team's behalf at league ownership meetings and the like? I seem to remember reading that Mary Wilson was designated as the "controlling owner" after Ralph passed (and may still have that designation for all I know), even though it seems likely that the team was technically owned by the trust at that time and not by Mary personally. I guess what I am clumsily asking is this - - is it possible that because of the seemingly loosey-goosey rules for conducting the sale, the Toronto group could be reshuffled so that Ed Rogers puts up most of the money, and Bon Jovi is simply a minority owner designated as the "controlling owner" so that he can be the messenger boy who casts votes at league meetings and performs any other administrative duties that league rules may require of the person given the "controlling owner" title? If so, we may be underestimating how high the Toronto group could bid in round 2. Not saying this would enable them to win the competition, but it might be a way for them to bid higher than what they could if Bon Jovi was required to own at least 30% of the team (which is what everyone in the media is assuming when they make estimates of how high the Toronto group could potentially bid). Often I google this kind of stuff to try to find answers, but I'm not up to reviewing the NFL Constitution & Bylaws tome today. For that matter, even if the person designated as the "controlling owner" has to be the person with the largest ownership share, what prevents the Toronto group from reshuffling so that Ed Rogers puts up most of the money and is designated as the controlling owner? If Mary Wilson can be designated as the "controlling owner" by the trust that owns the team right now, why couldn't Ed Rogers be designated as the "controlling owner" by the Rogers family trust that would hypothetically put up the bulk of the purchase money to be the next majority owner of the team? If Bon Jovi wants to be an owner more than he needs to be the lead dog, I would expect him to be lobbying Ed Rogers to put up more Rogers family trust $$ if he thinks that will be required for the Toronto group as a whole to outbid Pegula. Thoughts? Hey Sleep. The short answer is no, no requirement as to how ownership is meted out as far as I know. That said, it doesn't change anything, as Rogers' wealth is largely tied up in solid assets, and what liquidity he does have is in a Trust that won't likely allow him access for the purchase of a pro sports team. Hope that helps.
K D Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 I wonder if Pegula has looked into whether or not he can own the Sabres AND Bills? That must be what is taking so long for him to buy the team
Kirby Jackson Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Hey Sleep. The short answer is no, no requirement as to how ownership is meted out as far as I know. That said, it doesn't change anything, as Rogers' wealth is largely tied up in solid assets, and what liquidity he does have is in a Trust that won't likely allow him access for the purchase of a pro sports team. Hope that helps. Apparently Bon Jovi is only interested in being the lead guy which would require him to own 30% minimum.
Recommended Posts