Mark VI Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 ESPN is the worst thing that ever happened to sports.
Tortured Soul Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Link? 697354[/snapback] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/...r=1&oref=slogin Thought it was funny.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 As long as Ralph is alive, the Bills are fine. The minute he pases away, the Bills will be sold and moved, especially as the league goes to the new revenue model where more and more of the teams revenues are tied to player salaries Sad, but True!!! You may have missed the 20-some odd discussions we've had on this, but suffice it to say that there are several groups with strong ties to WNY who are interested in purchasing the Bills once Ralph dies and would want to keep the team in Buffalo.
tuckan Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 There will be hell to pay if they consider moving the Bills out of Buffalo for the NFL. Just the hint of the Bills moving last month got the freaking politicians talking about antitrust exemptions, lawsuits and such. The NFL hates to get involved in situations like this. With the Bills now sitting firmly on the qualifiers committee, I believe they will get a fair shake with the new revenue model not just for Mr Wilson but for any future local ownership group. Western New York may be a economically depressed area but their are some rich dudes there i.e. Golisano, Rich Family, Jeremy Jacobs. Maybe the politicians will get of their duffs take a little less graft, make downtown development a reality and get this once great city back on the road to recovery. That is the best hope for the Bills long term future in Buffalo.
PromoTheRobot Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 No way the NFL moved New Orleans now...it would be a PR NIGHTMARE..... 697299[/snapback] ...that everyone would get over in about 10 minutes. The New Orleans area lost 70% of it's population! It makes Buffalo look like a boom town. The city is still a disaster area. Pro sports franchises are about the least important thing right now. The NFL is saying all the right things but don't kid yourself. The Saints are on a VERY short list of relocating franchises. If the NFL is serious about two teams for L.A., the Chargers could easily be that second team. And you know, any real Charger fan would still follow the team. They's still be SoCal's football team. If Buffalo has anything going for it, it's politicians who definitely have the NFL's ear. Look at the firestorm Ralph was able to set off with a few press conferences! The NFL, and the NBA, will keep New Orleans in the loop for Super Bowls and All-Star games. Those events are more important to the city than keeping the Saints afloat (no pun intended.) As for John Clayton, when was the last time he said anything that turned out to be true? PTR
MDH Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 As long as Ralph is alive, the Bills are fine. The minute he pases away, the Bills will be sold and moved, especially as the league goes to the new revenue model where more and more of the teams revenues are tied to player salaries Sad, but True!!! 697344[/snapback] Sadly you're probably right. The fans in WNY need a team to relocate to LA before Ralph kicks the bucket.
MDH Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 ESPN is the worst thing that ever happened to sports. 697372[/snapback] So the real question is which is worse, ESPN or MTV?
fairweather fan Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 I used to think that Buffalo would be the team to move, but there is a lot of power in the league, incuding the Patriots ownership, who would block that move. New Orleans has always had a population problem, but, the city has oil money and the superdome, so the NFL is going to try to keep the team there. That leaves San Diego and Jacksonville. Jacksonville moving to Los Angeles makes the most sense, as they do not have the population base and the wealth base to keep the team in Jacksonville, wheras moving Jacksonville to Los Angeles will set up a local rivalry which could be beneficial to both.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 25, 2006 Posted May 25, 2006 I don't think the Sabres will move, but what makes you think the NFL doesn't want the Bills to move, especially the Patriots? These guys are ALL about the money.
Nanker Posted May 25, 2006 Posted May 25, 2006 In three years the Pats will be ready to move there. No SuperBowl Victories = no Pats "fans" fannies filling Foxboro seats. No "fans" = dried up revenue stream. Kraft moves on the Mayflower to the promised land of milk, honey and fake fans.
obie_wan Posted May 25, 2006 Posted May 25, 2006 No team will move to LA. The real value of LA is the leverage gained by threatening to move a team to LA as that team extorts a new publicly funded stadium. Until all teams have brand spanking new stadiums, the NFL will not kill the golden goose by actually putting a team in LA. They generate more TV revenue by not having a team in LA because are free to televise the best matchups and have no worry about black outs. With a home team, TV matchups are severely limited, especially if the LA team is a loser.
Pyrite Gal Posted May 25, 2006 Posted May 25, 2006 No team will move to LA. The real value of LA is the leverage gained by threatening to move a team to LA as that team extorts a new publicly funded stadium. Until all teams have brand spanking new stadiums, the NFL will not kill the golden goose by actually putting a team in LA. They generate more TV revenue by not having a team in LA because are free to televise the best matchups and have no worry about black outs. With a home team, TV matchups are severely limited, especially if the LA team is a loser. 697694[/snapback] I think you have the correct cut on this. Folks need to realize that like it or not the primary value of us fans to the NFL is that we provide great crowd noise and excitement the TV production where they truly make the big bucks from the TV networks, Don't get me wrong, ticket sales are definitely a positive thing and the team owners love making bucks selling tickets. However, this appears to pale to me in comparison to the dollars scooped up by selling the TV product. Crowds at the stadium are an important part of selling that show. However, the dollars are what the dollars. The blackout rule allowing games to be televised if there is a sellout actually probably removes the disincentive for having a team in LA in a smaller stadium which the NFL could sell out in this large populaion base with not a huge extra effort. However, the extortion opportunities to get taxpayers to ladel money into team coffers are substantial with the LA threat to hang over municipalities heads is a great tool. As a Bills fan, its nice to Ralph bellying up to the trough to insert keeping the Bills in Buffalo as a political weapon in this year's NYS governor's race. There is now a greatly diminished return to team owners for selling skyboxes and premium seats to us rubes as the NFLPA has gotten a 59.5% of total revenues rather than a defined gross payment which gave team owners full claim on this pool. However 40.5% of a ton of money is not 100% of a ton o money but its still good. When one throws in the welfare payment of a governmental stadium authority putting up the capital for a stadium which the Bills can use as if they own it, its welcome free cash. While investments in stadiums are of quetionable greater value than other investments in the economy of a municipality based on the studies I have seen, the building of such a stadium in and under-utilized area such as downtoen Buffalo would certainly be a relative boom for this town, If the cost of this investment can be spread across all of NYS with a state funder authority then it is a great benefit to this area.
Pyrite Gal Posted May 25, 2006 Posted May 25, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/...r=1&oref=slogin Thought it was funny. 697395[/snapback] I hit this link and actually got to a column about something other than the Bills. it was by Gregg Easterbrook who produces TMQ about football, but it was him declaring himself a belated convert to being concerned about global climate change. It was funny to see his thinking finally join the 20th century, but outside of climate change is even partially as bad as it might be then the Bills are curtains I'm not sure beyond Easterbrook once again proving to be too clever by half, what the relevance to the Bills is.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 25, 2006 Posted May 25, 2006 No team will move to LA. The real value of LA is the leverage gained by threatening to move a team to LA as that team extorts a new publicly funded stadium. Until all teams have brand spanking new stadiums, the NFL will not kill the golden goose by actually putting a team in LA. They generate more TV revenue by not having a team in LA because are free to televise the best matchups and have no worry about black outs. With a home team, TV matchups are severely limited, especially if the LA team is a loser. That's the long-view of it, but in the short-term, the NFL wants to add a team or two to LA BEFORE the next round of TV contracts, in order to say "see, we have teams in LA, give us a TON more money." Later-on though you're right. The team(s) will lack support, games will be blacked-out, the networks will grumble, and they'll eventually move, but the NFL doesn't care about that. If I were a current or prospective owner, I would NOT think about going to LA because it's a losing proposition, especially for an expansion franchise (with fees in excess of $1B). And then there's always the threat of a lawsuit from Al Davis.
ganesh Posted May 25, 2006 Posted May 25, 2006 No way the NFL moved New Orleans now...it would be a PR NIGHTMARE..... Jacksonville could be a candidate to move. 697299[/snapback] I can't believe San Diego is not in that mix, considering how close they are to LA and the fact that the county just announced that they will not be able to build a new stadium.
Recommended Posts