Guest BackInDaDay Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Several days ago, a poster noted that the owners get to divvy up the couple of hundred million from the fees that a new franchise pays, wheras they get nothing when a club moves. He made a goot point, IMO. 652997[/snapback] I saw that too, and I agree. That could be an argument that the league would push for franchises to stay put, but even under modified revenue sharing, small market owners may have a tough time finding buyers. The Bills aren't a good investment at the going rate for NFL franchises. Ralph's heirs would have to drop their asking price significantly to accommodate anyone interested in keeping it in Buffalo, and why would they do that? Left with a franchise that can't stay where it is, the league would be forced to let the new owner move, forfeiting those fees. But this is a good thing. This is a scenario that the NFL might avoid by convincing large market owners to do more in propping up existing franchises. Maybe some of the additional revenue given to legacy franchises could be recouped by raising expansion fees. One way or another, some more long-term thinking is needed.
stuckincincy Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 I saw that too, and I agree. That could be an argument that the league would push for franchises to stay put, but even under modified revenue sharing, small market owners may have a tough time finding buyers. The Bills aren't a good investment at the going rate for NFL franchises. Ralph's heirs would have to drop their asking price significantly to accommodate anyone interested in keeping it in Buffalo, and why would they do that? Left with a franchise that can't stay where it is, the league would be forced to let the new owner move, forfeiting those fees. But this is a good thing. This is a scenario that the NFL might avoid by convincing large market owners to do more in propping up existing franchises. Maybe some of the additional revenue given to legacy franchises could be recouped by raising expansion fees. One way or another, some more long-term thinking is needed. 653057[/snapback] If there were to be a franchise moving to LA, I'd think that JAX might be a candidate. We know that their gate is pretty poor - but I've no idea about the tv market size, etc. I know they can leave with not much - in relative terms - pain, something like a 40 or 50M payoff. The low turnout for the Jags have always been a bit of a surprise - they have in general been a competitive club. Maybe it's just that pro ball isn't that attractive to the citizenry. Dunno. Just a thought
scribo Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Several days ago, a poster noted that the owners get to divvy up the couple of hundred million from the fees that a new franchise pays, wheras they get nothing when a club moves. He made a goot point, IMO. 652997[/snapback] First off, that is short-sighted thinking. Owners also split up revenue from each team. The revenue from a team doing well in a large city will likely be larger than a team doing well in a small market. Add in the fact that smaller market teams may have a more difficult time doing well under the new CBA, per Ralph Wilson, and you may have to compare team doing well in a large city and team not doing well in a small market.
rockpile Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 You're just shy of 16,000 posts. I'm guessing that if the Bills leave, you'll be a bit less indifferent should we lose our team. 652664[/snapback] The VI did not say he was indifferent. He said he finds no purpose in sweating over things out of his control. It would suck from a Bills fan POV, but as he said - life goes on. Someone else mentioned revenue streams - how about for starters "Pepsi Stadium" or "Buddy the Wonder Dog Field House", or "Pinto Kenny Parking Lot"? Whatever happpened to the Bills Express train from Albany to the Stadium door? I was hoping Danny Wegman could step in, but now my hopes are with Golisano. You do realize that the last time all the talk of "move the team, revenue stream, wet dream" stuff came from Mr. Wilson, it was shortly followed with perks and a rise in taxes, right? Is he posturing again?
Tar Heel Bill Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Bills are definitely gone after Ralph passes away, if not sooner. Hey, football is going down the same road as baseball with this new contract. When was the last time the Pirates or Royals had a team? I heard rumors that Bills are headed for Los Angeles, due to television revenue and 15 million market in population. Buffalo is now the 83rd largest city in America after places like Toledo and Riverside. Should have built that waterfront about 30 years ago. You can also thank Jerry Jones and Dan "punk" Snyder, since they are the new Steinbrenner's of football. And for all you fellow Yankees fans, it's payback time in regards to the Bills eventually leaving under the new contract.
stuckincincy Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Is he posturing again? 653125[/snapback] That's a fair possibility. Another thought. Large business organizations are known to keep a prescence in less than optimum markets. One desires to get and keep the name and the product in the public view in a wide an area that is feasible, for the good of the entire endeavor. It at the very least, cultivates future customers.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Is he posturing again? 653125[/snapback] No. I don't think he went there looking for financial aid. I think he's soliciting the help of those who might be able to pressure the NFL into straightening this 'small market' mess out. Probably figured it had an impact in MLB regarding their steroid problems. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=652862
JDG Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 If there were to be a franchise moving to LA, I'd think that JAX might be a candidate. "I'm not moving to Los Angeles, o.k." - Wayne Weaver, owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars, earlier this week. So, it looks like the Jags are not an option. They've struggled at the gate, but Jacksonville is a very small market. The difference, however, is that Jacksonville is a *growing* market, and the NFL is in there as a long-term investment. The most likely franchises to move to Los Angles, in order, are: New Orleans - It was always a small market, and now it isn't even the largest city in the State of Louisianna anymore. San Diego - No stadium deal Oakland - The San Francisco Bay market really doesn't need two teams, and they've struggled at the gate. Buffalo The Bills aren't a good investment at the going rate for NFL franchises. Ralph's heirs would have to drop their asking price significantly to accommodate anyone interested in keeping it in Buffalo, and why would they do that? This is a scenario that the NFL might avoid by convincing large market owners to do more in propping up existing franchises. Maybe some of the additional revenue given to legacy franchises could be recouped by raising expansion fees. One way or another, some more long-term thinking is needed. 653057[/snapback] Long-term thinking is exactly right. The problem is that Buffalo, and all of WNY, is growing *smaller*. Ultimately, the future of the Bills lies not in the hands of Ralph Wilson, Tom Golisano, or any other businessman - but in the hands of the elected officials of the City of Buffalo, Erie County, and New York State in keeping the Buffalo-Rochester metro area among the nation's 30 largest metro areas. At some point, on current trends, keeping a franchise in Buffalo will be simply unsustainable. Sure, the NFL Owners could do more to prop up small markets - after all, not every market can have as much corporate money as Washington, DC in it - but there's a limit to that. They aren't going to prop up a franchise in the 60th largest market, not when there is a market like Los Angeles sitting wide open, or even a growing market like San Antonio, Portland, Louisville, or any other number of comparably-sized cities that at least have a future of growth ahead of them. What percisely is a Cleveland trick? What did that city do to make it happen? 652975[/snapback] When the Browns moved to Baltimore, the Mayor of Cleveland got the NFL to agree to keep the Browns name, logo, colors, and records in the City of Cleveland, and to provide Cleveland with an expansion franchise within a few years. Mayor White of Cleveland essentially accomplished this with the threat of some good anti-trust lawyers and capitalizing on the collective national outrage against the Browns moving. Houston tried a similar thing when the Oilers left, to no avail. Quite simply, Cleveland got lucky. And given the size of the Buffalo market, I have a hard time seeing us pulling off the trick. Anybody interested in helping me put together a grass roots effort to purchase the team through a share offering.....much like the Packers???? 652874[/snapback] The NFL has passed a rule against any other team than the Packers having such an ownership structure. If you are interested in putting together such a grass roots effort, you'll have to first hire some really good antitrust lawyers. The NFL is only using the threat of moving a team to LA as an extortionist tool to extract new stadiums for teams that want them. 652847[/snapback] Actually, the NFL really, truly, does want a team in LA. And once LA is filled, then there will always be San Antonio, Portland, Louisville, or whatever other city of the week to play that role..... JDG
The Dean Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 I thought Tags said LA would get an EXPANSION team...not a relocated team. But, of course, Tags in on the way out. The Raiders, Chargers, Jags, Vikes and Saints are all more likely to move to LA than are the Bills, IMO. Man, the "Bills are going to move" threads are always boring and ill-informed, IMO. But at least they pop up all the time.
Rubes Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 I thought Tags said LA would get an EXPANSION team...not a relocated team. But, of course, Tags in on the way out. The Raiders, Chargers, Jags, Vikes and Saints are all more likely to move to LA than are the Bills, IMO. Man, the "Bills are going to move" threads are always boring and ill-informed, IMO. But at least they pop up all the time. 653220[/snapback] In an interview on NFL Network a week or two ago, Tags was asked directly about this but he never mentioned if it would be a new or existing franchise.
stuckincincy Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 "I'm not moving to Los Angeles, o.k." - Wayne Weaver, owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars, earlier this week. 653217[/snapback] What do you think he would say? Something like "Yeah, we want to blow this pop stand, as soon as possible"?
rockpile Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Man, the "Bills are going to move" threads are always boring and ill-informed, IMO. But at least they pop up all the time. 653220[/snapback] This is the first one I ever saw.
JDG Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 What do you think he would say? Something like "Yeah, we want to blow this pop stand, as soon as possible"? 653292[/snapback] He'd find a way to say it a little less bluntly and definitively. See, for example, Tom Benson's comments during the fall regarding the Saints. JDG
JDG Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 I thought Tags said LA would get an EXPANSION team...not a relocated team. But, of course, Tags in on the way out. 653220[/snapback] I've followed this situation closely, and have never seen Tagliabue say such a thing. In fact, he's always been very careful to say that all options are open. Unfortunately, while an expansion team in LA would be better for all existing NFL fans, and produce expansion fee revenue, it would completely upset the League's competitive balance. JDG
BuffaloBilliever Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 I think, of all the teams in the NFL, that the Bills are of course one of the top picks to move to LA, but there are many other factors not taken in to consideration. First, the team is anchored in WNY. From a monetary value, we are NOT one of the lowest grossing teams. Second, the team that is number one in the running to move to LA is the New Orleans Saints. They aren't going back to New Orleans anytime soon, and in rumors/talks they have been the #1 choice to move. I'm a pessimistic person that is optomistic about the Bills, but I whole heartedly believe that someone will save this team and keep them in WNY.
The Dean Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 I've followed this situation closely, and have never seen Tagliabue say such a thing. In fact, he's always been very careful to say that all options are open. Unfortunately, while an expansion team in LA would be better for all existing NFL fans, and produce expansion fee revenue, it would completely upset the League's competitive balance. JDG 653335[/snapback] You may be right. I remember a fuss being made on TSW over Tags making a statement about expansion and LA. While I'm too busy to serch TSW right now, Google revealed plenty of articles that discuss moving franchises and expanding to LA. Here are two that discuss expansion and LA for reference: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8923238 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9206613 Obviously, Tags isn't going to target a specific franshise as the team most likely to be moved, but his comments about expansion almost always include LA.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted April 6, 2006 Author Posted April 6, 2006 By the way it seems right now, fans are going to be in for a wild ride these next 10 years.
SectionC3 Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 If there were to be a franchise moving to LA, I'd think that JAX might be a candidate. We know that their gate is pretty poor - but I've no idea about the tv market size, etc. I know they can leave with not much - in relative terms - pain, something like a 40 or 50M payoff. The low turnout for the Jags have always been a bit of a surprise - they have in general been a competitive club. Maybe it's just that pro ball isn't that attractive to the citizenry. Dunno. Just a thought 653082[/snapback] This is a good point. Let's think about this logically for a minute or two. The teams most likely to be mentioned in any relocation conversation are the Saints, the Bills and the Jaguars. For reasons that require no review, New Orleans is the logical and most likely candidate to fill the Los Angeles void. Moreover, Buffalo has a couple of things going for it that may not yet have been mentioned: 1. Market size. Granted, Canadian citizens have no bearing on US television market rankings. However, Buffalo is strategically located within an hour and a half drive of the greater Toronto area (Canadians, help me out, population of 4 million plus?) and is well within reach of the more affluent areas of Rochester. Any new stadium should not be located in Batavia; rather, that facility should be positioned to provide greater accessibliity for residents of the Horseshoe and of the Flower City. Neither New Orleans nor Jacksonville can draw from that sort of population base. 2. Eliot Spitzer. Will he be a good governor? Time will tell. His runaway numbers, have, however, discouraged a certain Rochester billionaire from spending $100 million of his personal funds on political activities this spring and summer. One wonders if those funds could serve BTG well elsewhere . . . .
The Dean Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 This is a good point. Let's think about this logically for a minute or two. The teams most likely to be mentioned in any relocation conversation are the Saints, the Bills and the Jaguars. For reasons that require no review, New Orleans is the logical and most likely candidate to fill the Los Angeles void. Moreover, Buffalo has a couple of things going for it that may not yet have been mentioned: 1. Market size. Granted, Canadian citizens have no bearing on US television market rankings. However, Buffalo is strategically located within an hour and a half drive of the greater Toronto area (Canadians, help me out, population of 4 million plus?) and is well within reach of the more affluent areas of Rochester. Any new stadium should not be located in Batavia; rather, that facility should be positioned to provide greater accessibliity for residents of the Horseshoe and of the Flower City. Neither New Orleans nor Jacksonville can draw from that sort of population base. 2. Eliot Spitzer. Will he be a good governor? Time will tell. His runaway numbers, have, however, discouraged a certain Rochester billionaire from spending $100 million of his personal funds on political activities this spring and summer. One wonders if those funds could serve BTG well elsewhere . . . . 653713[/snapback] Add the Raiders and Vikings to your list of "usual suspects". In the Bay area, most (well, many) just assume it will be the Raiders.
Recommended Posts