The Dean Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I KNEW Bon Jovi couldn't be trusted! And you all wanted him as the next owner!
devldog131 Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) I'm with you on thinking TO isn't the best place for an NFL team. But if they want to expand there, they will have no problem doing so, The International border makes these two distinctly different markets. The size of the combined markets is more than big enough to support two teams (though I would have an issue with an AFC team in TO). The Oakland situation provides precedent. You know what I think is crazy? The 49ers have been relocated with nary a peep. The are now the San Jose 49ers. Is nobody complaining? Granted Candlestick Park was a horrendous football stadium, but to move nearly an hour away seems a bit drastic. I understand San Jose has many more people than San Francisco, but the are the SF 49ers, are they not? This would be like moving the Bills to Hamilton (without the border issue) and still calling them the Buffalo Bills. I wonder why more people aren't complaining. More people aren't complaining because most of the 49ers' fans are from the south bay (around San Jose) anyway. And it's closer to half an hour than an hour. In all reality, SF is a suburb of San Jose. Edited September 14, 2014 by devldog131
yall Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 More people aren't complaining because most of the 49ers' fans are from the south bay (around San Jose) anyway. And it's closer to half an hour than an hour. In all reality, SF is a suburb of San Jose. Can you and The Dean please stop having a reasonable conversation? You're really diverging from the normal level of discourse and frankly, it quite disconcerting.
Hplarrm Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I wouldn't hold my breath on there being two franchises in the same market. Toronto, as we know, is considered part of the Buffalo Bills regional market. While this market is capable of supporting one franchise, it is clearly not capable of supporting two franchises. In the Toronto series games, Rogers and the Toronto metro area weren't able to sell out even one game a year in a stadium that is too small to be considered a home for an NFL team. You think the league wants to see 8 (or 9) games a year in Toronto with half (or more) of the seats empty? The move of the Bills franchise only seemed feasible to the league because they assumed, however incorrectly, that the bulk of loyal Bills fans would follow the team to Toronto and fill the stadium there. As was made painfully obvious to the guys on Park Avenue, that was clearly not the case. I don't think a ;ot of your assumptions are supported by the facts. 1. Raw #s- GTA (as the Greater Toronto Area us called up there) has a population of just over 6 million people. I doubt the NFL will ever be as popular a sport in CA as in the US. However, when one compares a fan base of 6 million to the under 300,000 Buffaloanisams amd evem a million in GBA, it shows why the Toronto market had ut all over the Buffalo market IF the two had to compete (which in the NFL mind they do not. A Toronto team would clearly profit from a number of cash streams which one would have to make a compelling case that there is not money to be raked in from all the HQs of Canadian companies who would buy skyboxes for a Toronto team, all the commercial entities who would be pleased as anything to buy commercials to sell their products to Canadian eyeballs and even whatever corporate welfare they could pry out of Canadian govts_ I do not think they would be as venal as Erie County. the City of Buffalo, and apparently NYS are or would be but who knows they elected Rob Ford to be Mayor. 2. Other major sports- Tes hockey and football are two very different things and are mot the same, but ut would be silly to claim that there are no lessons to be learned whatsoever and the NHL lesson is that major sports franchises can exist simultaneously in these two cities. In fact, if anything one can see that this league has not taken advantage of the nearness of these two markets and tried to profit from increased emphasis on competeition between the Maple Leafs and Sabres. In fact the default thinking is that these two markets are too far away from each other rather than them being in the same territory. Ralph cut a deal to try to assert and enhance Buffalo calling Toronto their market (and thus building a case for a new Toronto team to have to ship several million bucks to Buffalo for nothing. The fact is that Toronto is a different market than Buffalo (as proven by the failure in overpriced tickets you mention) and in fact some argue that Toronto is more like NYC and can support 2 franchises. I don't think so as actually the southern part of GTA (down to about Hamilton) is actually Bills country. You can drive to the Raloh in half an hour from Hamilton and south but in CA and would need an hour to get to downtown Toronto from there. The GTA market is in fart big enough it can support a new NFL team and still leave the current southern Ontario fans to the Bills. 3. Many folks seem caught up in the past where men like George Halas, Wellington Mara and the boys ran the NFL like the robber barons they were. However, wit these captains of industry destroying the AFL-CIO types who ran it in the mid-80s so badly it opened the door for Gene Upshaw and a talented tenth of athletes to instead sell their fellow players on adopting a threat to decertify the NFLPA as a bargaining agent. This resulted in the owners rejecting adoption of a free market model if the NFLPA ceased to exist as a bargaining agent. The owners instead agreed to the CBA which essentially made the players not mere employees of the owners but actually partners. Arguably when the CBA was renegotiated by agreement in a few years and NFLPA head Gene Upshaw dictated before negotiations that the result must not only be based on total gross receipts but that the player share must start with a 6, the players are arguably the majority partners. The real deal here is that a primary focus on the wealth of the team owner is outmoded thinking. The real thinking now looks at the fact that the TV nets which contractually pay billions to the NFL is the true dominant economic driver. There always was and always will be a Buffalo franchise and Teey Pegula just gave us $1.4 billion reasons why. If was mot him it would have been Golisano, Jacobs, an outsider like a Trimp or JBJ who the NFL would have forced to show them the money by staying here. If not them then Jimbo might have organized something with the deep pocket financier he was talking to and several millions he could have leverage from former players to get a loan of the billions needed to buy the team. I have little doubt the economics kept the Bills here.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 In other news, there are twenty four hours in a day and seven days in a week.
JPL7 Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I found it interesting that the article said the NFL would never approve Trump as owner. What exactly would be the NFL's reasoning for that??
Buffalo Barbarian Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 @JohnKryk: #BonJovi & Toronto never promised to keep #Bills in Buffalo beyond lease & here's exact wording of their 'pledge': http://t.co/ETZFgD7pO6 what a "shocker" "pretzel logic" indeed. The JBJ group was doomed from the word "go". But obviously from what we now know, they were never even a possibility. yep
thebandit27 Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I think Kryk has done a very good job here of illustrating two things: 1) This team was never, ever in danger of leaving 2) The Toronto group was kept around for bidding leverage, as many here surmised.
White Linen Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Even if he promised up and down - he wasn't getting the team.
Doc Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 How do you explain San Francisco and Oakland? The Giants and the Jets? The LA---or yeah, never mind. I don't think Toronto is a football time or can/will support a team,. But I can think of no reason why an NFC team can't be put there. I think it has to do with the fact that the Jets and Raiders were original AFL teams that were merged with the NFL, and the Giants and 49'ers didn't have a problem with them being in the same market. I think that Pegula wouldn't allow them to put a team in Toronto considering it's a within the 75 mile radius.
jimmy10 Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I found it interesting that the article said the NFL would never approve Trump as owner. What exactly would be the NFL's reasoning for that?? Because Trump led some sort of massive lawsuit against the NFL back in the 80s when he owned a team in the USFL.
Pondslider Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Because Trump led some sort of massive lawsuit against the NFL back in the 80s when he owned a team in the USFL. Also he's Donald Trump.
Doc Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I'd like to know who the other 2 bidders were and what they bid? I wish Pegs had bid just $1B to win it because that $400M extra could have gone to the new stadium.
The Dean Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I think it has to do with the fact that the Jets and Raiders were original AFL teams that were merged with the NFL, and the Giants and 49'ers didn't have a problem with them being in the same market. I think that Pegula wouldn't allow them to put a team in Toronto considering it's a within the 75 mile radius. I believe would fight it. But if the NFL decides they want to put it there, I believe they will get their way. Remember, the Raiders moved BACK to Oakland while the 49ers were there. It might take throwing some extra millions to Pegula to make it happen, though. In a weird way, I'd welcome another team as a Bills fan. A bit of competition in the general region, might serve to keep this team more competitive, year after year. You know what 'they" say: Winning cures everything. If the team wins, the fans will come.
Mr. WEO Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I think Kryk has done a very good job here of illustrating two things: 1) This team was never, ever in danger of leaving 2) The Toronto group was kept around for bidding leverage, as many here surmised. There are still some here who don't believe this. It's clear that the trust kept BJB group (even soliciting a higher bid from them after their initial bid) in it to drive up the bid.
devldog131 Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I believe would fight it. But if the NFL decides they want to put it there, I believe they will get their way. Remember, the Raiders moved BACK to Oakland while the 49ers were there. It might take throwing some extra millions to Pegula to make it happen, though. In a weird way, I'd welcome another team as a Bills fan. A bit of competition in the general region, might serve to keep this team more competitive, year after year. You know what 'they" say: Winning cures everything. If the team wins, the fans will come. The Raiders were able to move back to Oakland because Davis had engineered some kind of legal loophole in which the Raiders retained their territorial rights to Oakland and reserved the right to return if the LA market did not perform to certain expectations.
Doc Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I believe would fight it. But if the NFL decides they want to put it there, I believe they will get their way. Remember, the Raiders moved BACK to Oakland while the 49ers were there. It might take throwing some extra millions to Pegula to make it happen, though. The point I was trying to make is that 49'ers accepted the Raiders in their market in the AFL-NFL merger, so moving back shouldn't have been a problem for them either. In a weird way, I'd welcome another team as a Bills fan. A bit of competition in the general region, might serve to keep this team more competitive, year after year. You know what 'they" say: Winning cures everything. If the team wins, the fans will come. I don't think Toronto deserves a team. So I would say no. There are still some here who don't believe this. It's clear that the trust kept BJB group (even soliciting a higher bid from them after their initial bid) in it to drive up the bid. Yeah, but why were they never, ever in danger of leaving?
Recommended Posts