The Dean Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 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. Well, part of me hope you are right. But do you even believe the league isn't looking to expand there because of their rules? So, tell me about this 75 mile rule. I know there is a TV rule like that, but what is the ownership rule. Where is is measured from (stadium/town center)? How is it measured (direct line, driving distance)? If a huge mountain separated the two markets, would that make a difference?--OK, maybe I don't need that answer. But seriously what is the NFL rule regarding expansion into current NFL markets? Because, for virtually every commercial purpose, Toronto is a completely separate market than Buffalo. The Bills are lucky to be able to tap into that adjacent market, in another country, but I hardly think the Bills have any rights to it.
Mr. WEO Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 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. I don't think Toronto deserves a team. So I would say no. Yeah, but why were they never, ever in danger of leaving? Because of the onerous (to a new owner looking to move the team) conditions placed in the lease.
Doc Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Because of the onerous (to a new owner looking to move the team) conditions placed in the lease. By whom? Or more specifically, did Ralph have to agree to the new lease with the onerous conditions?
Kelly the Dog Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 By whom? Poloncarz and Erie County.
hullhawk Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 This is simply not the case. We like to think it is, as the Bills have done a very good job of cultivating the Toronto market. But they are, in reality, two completely distinct markets for virtually all commercial purposes. The International border assures that. Now if Toronto and Buffalo were in the same country, they would likely be in the same market. helloo Giants/jets? umm Jags/ dolphins might be further away but still... not to browns/ bengals I think Toronto buffalo would work
filthymcnasty08 Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 helloo Giants/jets? umm Jags/ dolphins might be further away but still... not to browns/ bengals I think Toronto buffalo would work Would make for one hell of a rivalry
The Dean Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Would make for one hell of a rivalry I'd like to think they wouldn't be in the same division, or even conference.
Doc Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Poloncarz and Erie County. I added more to my post. Did Ralph have to agree to the onerous lease?
Kelly the Dog Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I added more to my post. Did Ralph have to agree to the onerous lease? Sure but he even thought it was too onerous. And he didn't initiate or design it. Poloncarz needs to get a lot more credit for this. I love Ralph, and he was never going to allow the team to leave, even without the lease. And the instructions to the trust was the real part of Ralph's contribution. I know people didn't and don't believe this, but the Bills were never really in danger of leaving. Ralph was always going to ensure it. The league really did and does want the team in Buffalo. The lease helped a lot because it eliminated someone coming in and blowing even Pegula out of the water which was highly unlikely anyway.
jumbalaya Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 JBJ never promised, and Lackawanna's own Ron Jaworski was his shill. Hopefully Ron pulls his head out of JBJ's a.. soon.
GA BILLS FAN Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I still can't reconcile the $1.4B bid by Pegula and why it was necessary for him to outbid Trump by $600M and the TO group's ill-fated bid by $350M ? There were reports of 2 other mystery bidders, was Pegula duped by the trust into bidding higher ? It sure would have been nice for the $400M to be used toward a new stadium. Again, I think Pegs deserves an incredible amount of thanks for stepping up, ending this process as soon as he could, I'm just not sure he needed to go that high.
Doc Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) I still can't reconcile the $1.4B bid by Pegula and why it was necessary for him to outbid Trump by $600M and the TO group's ill-fated bid by $350M ? There were reports of 2 other mystery bidders, was Pegula duped by the trust into bidding higher ? It sure would have been nice for the $400M to be used toward a new stadium. Again, I think Pegs deserves an incredible amount of thanks for stepping up, ending this process as soon as he could, I'm just not sure he needed to go that high. Apparently the Twinkie dude bid on the team and Pegs was worried about him. http://nypost.com/2014/09/13/billionaire-c-dean-metropoulos-was-mystery-bills-bidder/ Edited September 14, 2014 by Doc
fbzh2 Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) I lost respect for Jaws when he came out with that stupid statement that JBJ "would do the right thing" WTF does that useless statement mean? It is a useless statement that politicians make. I found it to be very condescending, especially coming from a local guy who should understand what the Bills mean to WNY. Jaws you are nothing but a !@#$%^& JBJ tool...... Edited September 14, 2014 by fbzh2
Hplarrm Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 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?? In addition to the other reasons mentioned below (Trump has a past history of suing his own partners when he does not get his way and simply Trump is a self-promoting a-hole which is not against the law but makes for a lousy partner( but also has in the past been a close associate with gamblers and though his interest in the casinos was long ago sold by him when he went bankrupt (another good calling card for a partner) these soon to be closed entities still bear his name. Gambling is far too important to the BFL's popularity (fantasy leagues and Super Bowl pools) that like other major sports leagues, the NFL does not tolerate even a remote connection to the gambling industry. The NFL has enough problems dealing with the fiction that gambling has nothing to do with the game. Trump was a useful tool to the NFL in the Bills bidding process as his bid helped push up the price but it is hard to imagine the owners not exercising the virtual veto that Ralph contractually gave the NFL when he agreed any new owner MUST be approved by 75% pf the current owners voting support.
Hplarrm Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Sure but he even thought it was too onerous. And he didn't initiate or design it. Poloncarz needs to get a lot more credit for this. I love Ralph, and he was never going to allow the team to leave, even without the lease. And the instructions to the trust was the real part of Ralph's contribution. I know people didn't and don't believe this, but the Bills were never really in danger of leaving. Ralph was always going to ensure it. The league really did and does want the team in Buffalo. The lease helped a lot because it eliminated someone coming in and blowing even Pegula out of the water which was highly unlikely anyway. You are correct that it was highly unlikely the Bills would ever leave Buffalo: 1. The NFL does not throw money away and if it left, it would be simply throwing away the cash of 45,000+ season ticket holders, 25.000+ folks who routinely bought individual game tickets even with a bad product, and the 100s of millions for local advertisers and the 100s of millions in corporate welfare which NYS governments have or are likely willing to pay. Even though this same level of largesse would likely (though not guaranteed) come from another municipality and likely even be larger in a larger market like Toronto, there is still no need for the NFL to simply walk away from a $1.4 billion asset when the league can simply expand into Toronto and get BOTH the old and new money. 2. The market drives the process and the real market is NOT stadium revenue (a nice coin) but actually TV revenue (an even nicer coin). It is simply not a decider the size of th individual marketplace. The quality if the team is also important but NOT a decider (Look the Bills play has sucked for 15 years and it still brought $1.4 billion. From the standpoint of the true marketplace the NFL had a .500 record last year and always will. 3. We soldout virtually every game several years running so though record is important it ain't the decider. There was always goona be a franchise in Buffalo once the NFL profot making and distribution were established by the CBA.
Recommended Posts