May Day 10 Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 LA is one of our adversaries in keeping the Bills here. With LA off the relocation radar, the Bills are considerably more safe. I dont see the league hurrying back to Oakland if they are gone (and Al Davis is too). http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3809431 The Oakland Raiders, through owner Al Davis and Raiders chief executive Amy Trask, are negotiating to sell off another percentage of the team, this time to a billionaire who has been trying to buy a franchise with designs on moving it to Los Angeles, according to league sources. Metropoloulos' lead broker is trying to negotiate a purchase option on the Raiders within 3-5 years upon closing the deal, sources said. Metropoulos had been identified previously by the Philadelphia Daily News last offseason as an aggressive buyer with a desire to relocate a franchise to Los Angeles. He has publicly denied his reported attempts, but sources confirm their veracity. The Raiders and Jaguars were teams previously identified among those franchises and the latest round of talks with Oakland have been renewed after Jacksonville owner Wayne Weaver rebuffed Metropoulos' bid because he opposed any plan to relocate the franchise, sources said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Metropoulos still needs a stadium. Till then, nobody's going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 LA is one of our adversaries in keeping the Bills here. With LA off the relocation radar, the Bills are considerably more safe. I dont see the league hurrying back to Oakland if they are gone (and Al Davis is too). http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3809431 Get er done Al! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 You can scratch every city off the list for the foreseeable future as well. No city has an NFL caliber stadium, won't pay for the building of a new one, and the relocation fee it too high now (about $300M). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 I agree, but I will feel better if part ownership is obtained by a billionaire who wants to move a portable team to Los Angeles. If and when the time comes, there will be no need to look at Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 LA is one of our adversaries in keeping the Bills here. With LA off the relocation radar, the Bills are considerably more safe. I dont see the league hurrying back to Oakland if they are gone (and Al Davis is too). http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3809431 Hate to rain on the parade but I could see the NFL being stupid enough to want two teams there again. I've saidd before - because I lived there when the Raiders and the Rams were both in town - LA is not an NFL city. Too many other entertainment options. The NFL would be stupid to once again allow the Raiders to be moved there (and the Bills too). They will do it though because there is a stronger corporate base in LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 You can scratch every city off the list for the foreseeable future as well. No city has an NFL caliber stadium, won't pay for the building of a new one, and the relocation fee it too high now (about $300M). IIRC, the relocation fee was raised last year to b/w $600M-900M. I don't know the criteria for the difference in the fee. Could be a percentage of the value of the franchise/purchase price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 IIRC, the relocation fee was raised last year to b/w $600M-900M. I don't know the criteria for the difference in the fee. Could be a percentage of the value of the franchise/purchase price? So the relocation fee is almost the same cost as purchasing the franchise? That can't be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I can't imagine the relo fee being that high. If you have a link, please share. But even if it's "just" $300M, that's way too high anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Hate to rain on the parade but I could see the NFL being stupid enough to want two teams there again. I've saidd before - because I lived there when the Raiders and the Rams were both in town - LA is not an NFL city. Too many other entertainment options. The NFL would be stupid to once again allow the Raiders to be moved there (and the Bills too). They will do it though because there is a stronger corporate base in LA. Totally agree with what you have to say. Quick question - I've heard that there is not much love for the Raiders in LA after they split town, and more hostility toward the Raiders than the Rams. Any truth to that? Even if the NFL thinks LA is a two-team market, it doesn't seem like the league would want two AFC teams (and three within 90 minutes if one counts San Diego) in the greater LA area assuming the Raiders are the team to move. One final thought: the wild card here is the Rams. The lease is up in a few years, the stadium is falling behind the times, and the market isn't anything extraordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 The NFL can want 20 teams in LA. What they need is an owner who will a) buy a team, b) pay the relo fee (although the NFL would probably and conveniently waive it), and c) pay for a new stadium (because LA won't, and neither will the NFL). IOW, ain't gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Totally agree with what you have to say. Quick question - I've heard that there is not much love for the Raiders in LA after they split town, and more hostility toward the Raiders than the Rams. Any truth to that? Even if the NFL thinks LA is a two-team market, it doesn't seem like the league would want two AFC teams (and three within 90 minutes if one counts San Diego) in the greater LA area assuming the Raiders are the team to move. One final thought: the wild card here is the Rams. The lease is up in a few years, the stadium is falling behind the times, and the market isn't anything extraordinary. Most likely can not be two NFC or AFC teams but I would not put it past the ownership to do a realignment when and if a team(s) are moved. They seem to care little about rivalries anyway. Teams most likely to be moved are: Buffalo Minneapolis Jacksonville (owner may finally submit) New Orleans Not sure about the current sentiment towards the raiders in LA - I haven't even been back ther in about ten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Most likely can not be two NFC or AFC teams but I would not put it past the ownership to do a realignment when and if a team(s) are moved. They seem to care little about rivalries anyway. Teams most likely to be moved are: Buffalo Minneapolis Jacksonville (owner may finally submit) New Orleans Not sure about the current sentiment towards the raiders in LA - I haven't even been back ther in about ten years. Realignment is possible, but from what I understand it will mess up the TV contracts and population has to be "traded" properly. I'm not saying it can't work, but finding a partner in the NFC willing to move to the AFC might be tough (absent expansion). As to the list of teams likely to be moved, I don't doubt that Buffalo is in the mix, but I'm convinced that the NFL won't mess with Chuck Schumer on the issue of moving the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 LA doesn't have a team, but nearby by San Diego does. And just a little north you have San Fransico and Oakland. Is that really so bad? If you live in LA you have three teams to choose from for your football needs, all within reasonable driving distance. I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 So the relocation fee is almost the same cost as purchasing the franchise? That can't be right. From TSW Archives: Adam Benigni just stated that for the Bills to move to toronto, an owner would have to pay $800 million to $1 billion for the franchise, and then pay $600-900 million as a relocation fee, and THEN help finance a new stadium in Toronto. Maybe I spoke ahead of myself. That was for the Bills theoretically moving to Toronto. Not sure if it would be different for other franchises moving elsewhere. Owners can also decide the lower or waive fees by majority vote. I doubt they'd give up the LA market for anything less than a king's ransom, tho. The "LA-ians didn't care about the NFL when it was there" argument really doesn't matter. Prospective owners will have to pay for how much it could potentially be worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 From TSW Archives: Maybe I spoke ahead of myself. That was for the Bills theoretically moving to Toronto. Not sure if it would be different for other franchises moving elsewhere. Owners can also decide the lower or waive fees by majority vote. I doubt they'd give up the LA market for anything less than a king's ransom, tho. The "LA-ians didn't care about the NFL when it was there" argument really doesn't matter. Prospective owners will have to pay for how much it could potentially be worth. True, the relo fee increases a lot if you move a team outside the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l< j Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 This thread suggests an interesting question: Could it be that the current recession will be the Bills fans' best hope against relocation? In addition to the high cost of purchasing/relocating a franchise (whether 300 or 900 million, that's a lot), consider: 1. luxury box purchases: is that well drying up, as businesses reassess their positions? 2. naming rights: The Cowboys were hoping for a record-setting deal to name the new stadium, but still no action there, I believe. Somewhat to one side, the NY Mets have a 20-yr., $400 million dollar deal in place for their new digs--with the recently bailed out (twice!) Citi Corp. What entity is going to be in a position to cover a 9-figure purchase of a big neon sign outside a new stadium in LA (or even Dallas, Mr. Jones)? 3. TV revenues: Fox and NBC are signed to contracts through 2011, acc to Wikipedia (here, recognizing the limits of Wikipedia). But how many of the companies buying the ads we see during games, and esp. the sponsorships of halftimes and the like, are going to be able to continue to carry those expenses moving forward? 4. municipal or state funds for the rehab or construction of a stadium: Jones received $350 million in public funding for the new stadium in Arlington (here); the Yankees and the Mets have gone back to NYC for $450 million more in public bonds, on top of a lot more they have already been granted (here). The Jets and Giants are actually paying for their new stadium themselves, however. I can't see public financing for stadiums being approved any time soon. With all of the big revenue streams in question, then what happens to the value of franchises? Is it Money magazine that puts out the annual survey of the value of sports franchises? I wonder if we might see a decline in the value of some franchises. Or even an inability to reliably value a franchise at all. Certainly someone considering purchasing a franchise and moving it in 2009 or 2010 would face a lot of questions about the return on the investment that weren't as pressing in the recent past. The question I can't work out, but seems worth asking: what are the implications of the current economic environment for the Bills' future? kj PS: This article on financing for the Cowboys' stadium raises some interesting questions about Jerry Jones and his share of the costs of the stadium. The project cost has increased $450 million dollars (nearly 70%, from 650 million to 1.1 billion), and the increases are being financed by Jones. Is this a good time to be increasing leverage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 The question I can't work out, but seems worth asking: what are the implications of the current economic environment for the Bills' future? Read the previous posts in this thread. The implications are that the Bills won't be moving anytime soon, given what you mentioned and Ted Rogers' death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Read the previous posts in this thread. The implications are that the Bills won't be moving anytime soon, given what you mentioned and Ted Rogers' death. While my business knowledge is limited at best, the death of Ted Rogers would appear to cripple the chance of a Canadian purchase with the intention of relocating to Toronto. This, coupled with the recession, would lead me to be believe that a relocation of the Bills will not happen, at least not for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts