Giaimo25 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Out of the list of "probable" teams i think the vikings would be the best fit for L.A. with the exception of having to completely re-arrange the divisions again but think about it. Vikings are probably the best team on that list, if LA wants to seriously build momentum right off the bat that would be the team to bring in. They are probably the most unlikely to move, but if i were Rosky thats who i would go after, with the 49ers second, chargers 3rd. Unfortanatly i do "billieve" that buffalo is going to be on the top of the list to move. Ralphie is already in the HOF, He doesnt live in wny, WHAT is keeping him there? His WORD?? All i know is money talks. Ralph likes money. need i say more? It is a shame, I will miss Buffalo Bills football.
GrudginglyPessimistic Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 In short, the conversation I had seems to fit very well into the context of the info regarding LA that more knowledgeable posters, particularly the California based posters, have written in this topic. And while I hope I'm wrong, I am distinctly getting the feeling that something strange is going on at One Bills Drive in relation to the franchise and the direction its heading. The problem is though that though your THEORY does fit the limited context of the subset of facts about this situation that you describe, your THEORY does not even touch upon a number of other facts and also other possible theories with more real world substantiation to back them up: AMONG these facts are: 1. Your theory seems to be too much stake in a version of the NFL where the owners were George Halas like kings who followed the golden rule (he who has the gold rules) and did what they wanted throwing around nickles like manhole covers. The mid-80s player lockout ended with the owners soundly kicking the tail of the Ed Garvey led NFLPA that worked by the outmoded AFL-CI style rule book. The problem for the NFL owners were they had soaked the public trough by saving the $ other major sports leagues spent building player training and farm systems. Instead the got the colleges (often using your an my tax dollars) to subsidize player training and development in Division I and other football efforts. The problem for the team owners was that while most of the players trained by colleges, individual trade was restrained by agreements to limit the draft to mostly be player who could not enter the NFL until roughly 21 (in other sports kids sign big buck contracts when they are 16 or in individual sports like golf or extreme sports kids who are 13 can rake in big bucks), However, in the NFL most players did not sign their ownership rights away until they were adults (or alleged adults since idiots like Pac-Man Jones will probably never be adults. While most pro football players are coddled kids on steriods, there were a few with the intellectual power of a Troy Vincent, a TKO and most important of a Gene Upshaw. After the Ed Garvey's got their nuts handed to them these smarter athletes struck up a deal with really smart NYC lawyers who realized that the way for the players to win far more than the 52% of the gross Garvey demanded was to instead threaten the owners that the NFLPA would dissolve. Faced with the prospect of actually having to compete in a free market where individual team owners would actually have to compete financially to sign deals with individual players, the team owners ran kicking and screaming away from the free market. The new CBA negotiated by the NFL and NFLPA realized that the players were now partners with the owners in the first step of a CBA based on the players being guaranteed by the salary cap of receiving a massive % of designated receipts. The current salary cap brought to fruition a world which Upshaw declared the salary cap would now cover the total gross and needed to start with a 6 as far as the player %. The current cap awards the players 60.5% of the total gross and arguably now they are not only partners but the majority partners of the current enterprise. In this light Mr. Ralph's will is critical but far from the only determinant of who owns the team. In fact we just saw this weak where objections from the NFLPA simply forced out Rush Limbaugh as an owner of an applying team, the 75% of current owners who MUST agree to any deal can effectively block any new owner under certain circumstances even if they are the highest bidder you falsely claim is guaranteed the team by the will (though I do not even see a link that substantiates the THEORY that Mr. Ralph's will says exactly that- it may but where does it say that for sure). All this may be blather to some or too many, but the fact is this is generally what happened and the nice THEORY you laid out may fit the limited context you seem to subscribe to but does not include this version of reality at all when even if you disagree with some of specific no theory that ignores the general reality can be taken very seriously. In addition to the facts of ownership, a reasonable theory also needs to include: 2. the facts of the partial NFL exemption from antitrust being endangered by a move of the Bills to another town. Even the stupid local leadership of Cleveland (one of two cities in the US poorer than Buffalo in current accepted measures) beat the NFL with this threat and Modell was not even offering the fresh meat of an ownership change which makes the move you describe vulnerable. 3. Even beyond the force of Congress, you are talking about the new owners walking away from 57.000 in annual season ticket sales and years of marketing and building up cash from sales of Zubazz pants and Perry's ice cream. Yes the Buffalo market is smaller than the Portland market, but this does not mean that the Buffalo market does not generate millions of dollars that a new franchise is simply walking away from and will need to recreate. Excitement about a new team will do some of that, but you have to at least acknowledge there are substantial economic reasons for staying as well. There are also several more theoretical issues that any THEORY should at least account for: A. The marketing plan for the NFL seems quite clearly to be to expand to new markets overseas. In this theory, connections to the tradition of an original AFL team is not an insubstantial asset. While this may make no difference to the individual NFL owner it actually may make a difference to the new NFL which as a whole is selling tradition and excitement to new franchises overseas. Pitiful pictures of abandoned Buffaloanian and extended lawsuits while the NFL fights past antiturst and other things to make the move are not a good sales point. B. I agree with those who say money will rule the day. However, i think folks are wrong to simply think that 75% of owner approval can be found for the 1/32 of the transfer fee each owner will get. Again, the money is not in a small cut of the transfer fee, the real money is in selling new franchises to Mexico City, Berlin, Tokyo, and other towns. The fight to move out of Buffalo is merely a distraction from going after the real money and makes selling franchises to get the real money more difficult. The THEORY of the team moving to LA for a small cut of the transfer fees based on the good word of some DWI lawyer may be correct, but it easily could be all wrong a it does not at all fit other real world facts and legitimate theory. The stay here and sell to the real money theory may be wrong but the THEORY which seems to bring fear to your heart simply does not seem to address the full reality.
Nanker Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Okay, I'll bite. So when The Bills move to LA - what conference and division will they play in? The AFCE? No? Then who moves out of the AFCW or the NFCW for that matter, and what team takes their place in the AFCE? Such a geographical move could force another realignment of divisions, because most of the scenarios for swapping places are not a simple tit for tat.
Lori Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 LOL wow...... The ford pinto http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/art...1657866,00.html Philster's correct: http://www.billsbackers.org/index4_files/image022.jpg
Delete This Account Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 isn't this the rehash of the same rumor that pops up on this board once a year or so, someone, who knows someone, who heard something about Golisano somehow being thwarted by Ralph, who's now relocating the team to _________ city? and then the post grows to double-digit pages featuring endless debates over who's right and who's wrong, and questions about Toronto and the future of the Bills, and whether Ralph's lost it, before it dies a slow death, taking up space in the TBD archives, before someone -- probably in March -- posts something to the effect of: "OK, i'm not saying that the Bills are leaving, but i work ______ and someone told me that _____ and it sure looks like the Bills are in negotiations to move to _______. hey, i could be wrong, but i don't doubt what these people have told me." jw
MarkAF43 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 isn't this the rehash of the same rumor that pops up on this board once a year or so, someone, who knows someone, who heard something about Golisano somehow being thwarted by Ralph, who's now relocating the team to _________ city?and then the post grows to double-digit pages featuring endless debates over who's right and who's wrong, and questions about Toronto and the future of the Bills, and whether Ralph's lost it, before it dies a slow death, taking up space in the TBD archives, before someone -- probably in March -- posts something to the effect of: "OK, i'm not saying that the Bills are leaving, but i work ______ and someone told me that _____ and it sure looks like the Bills are in negotiations to move to _______. hey, i could be wrong, but i don't doubt what these people have told me." jw
weehawk Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Excluding Trump, these guys are not going to invest almost 30% of their total wealth in the Bills. Also, how much of this total wealth is in ready cash? I'm sure it's far below the totals you quote. Keep digging, I'm sure you'll add Warren Buffet or Bill Gates to the list. Galisano= 1.2BJacobs= 1.0B Rich= 1.9B Trump= 2.9B (I only bring up Trump because he used to own the Las Vegas team that Jim Kelly played for, might actually be one of the silent investors Kelly is claiming to have in his pocket)
K-9 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Excluding Trump, these guys are not going to invest almost 30% of their total wealth in the Bills. Also, how much of this total wealth is in ready cash? I'm sure it's far below the totals you quote. Keep digging, I'm sure you'll add Warren Buffet or Bill Gates to the list. When Snyder sunk his $1b into the Redskins, how much of that do you think was "ready cash?" How about close to zip. GO BILLS!!!
weehawk Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Here's a couple with quotes from both Goodell and Jones.... http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/cowboys...NFLs_radar.html http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA050...5d_html183.html More than any other city, SA is ready to go and the NFL has already "blessed" them. In my opinion, it's a matter of who goes first, JAX or BUF. LA is a long shot at this point. They need a stadium before they'll get a team. They're not going to put the NFL back into the Coliseum. I think TO has a better shot at a team vs LA. It's all a matter of timing at this point. I'm not even fully convinced that JAX is leaving. It all depends on how long RW stays in his Depends. Got a link for the comments from Goodell you cite?
weehawk Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Facts please. An article citing how much he spent. Simply saying it does not make it true. GO AWAY BILLS! When Snyder sunk his $1b into the Redskins, how much of that do you think was "ready cash?" How about close to zip. GO BILLS!!!
K-9 Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Facts please. An article citing how much he spent. Simply saying it does not make it true. GO AWAY BILLS! Look, it's common knowledge that Snyder's ownership group bid (and paid) $800m to the estate of Jack Kent Cooke when they bought the team in 1999. Most of the capitalization came from loans. They also assumed some debt as part of the price. Here's a couple quick links but I'm not going to do your homework for you. I just thought you should know that very little comes from "ready cash" as you put it. These guys just don't play with their big cash like that. http://www.hailredskins.com/skinsowner.htm http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1...loans-120m.html GO BILLS!!!
Red Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 HAving lived in LA for a few years, it is not a football town and those fickle fans won't pay for a loser. Having said that, the Jaguars look like the team most likely to move anytime soon. Unlike Buffalo, Jacksonville does not have a 'Toronto-like' market north, south, or anywhere near its city limits with which to expand to. They are pretty much stuck with what they have got, and this is the team that blocks off several sections of its own stadium to avoid the NFL blackout rule. Regardless of RW, methinks the Jags would be the first team to ever move.
weehawk Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Ok. They're still leaving though. No one is going to invest a billion dollars in this team so they can charge $50 a ticket. If they do stay, the new owners will purposely price themselves out of the market so they can move. Pay close attention to whatever new lease is signed by any new owner. Not what the media tells you, the actual lease. Then have a lawyer review it and tell you it REALLY means. The area cannot support this team without RWs subsidy. He may be a jerk, but he is giving you $50 a game NFL football (even if it's crap). That all ends with a new owner. Look, it's common knowledge that Snyder's ownership group bid (and paid) $800m to the estate of Jack Kent Cooke when they bought the team in 1999. Most of the capitalization came from loans. They also assumed some debt as part of the price. Here's a couple quick links but I'm not going to do your homework for you. I just thought you should know that very little comes from "ready cash" as you put it. These guys just don't play with their big cash like that. http://www.hailredskins.com/skinsowner.htm http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1...loans-120m.html GO BILLS!!!
mrags Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Ok. They're still leaving though. No one is going to invest a billion dollars in this team so they can charge $50 a ticket. If they do stay, the new owners will purposely price themselves out of the market so they can move. Pay close attention to whatever new lease is signed by any new owner. Not what the media tells you, the actual lease. Then have a lawyer review it and tell you it REALLY means. The area cannot support this team without RWs subsidy. He may be a jerk, but he is giving you $50 a game NFL football (even if it's crap). That all ends with a new owner. From previous peoples posts on this board they are saying it would cost over 2.5 times the worth of the team to move the team. So my question to you would be who in their right mind would pay over $2Billion for a team nowdays? $1Billion is a freaking lot of cake and you think someone will pay more than double that just to move the team to a new market like LA that has failed time and time again? Or a city like SA where no one has any idea if a team would be successful in a market that has never had an NFL team. Didnt they do that with the Jaguars? How has that worked out so far? My point is that there are businessmen that can, or at one point in time wanted a piece of an NFL franchise. Again, going back to previous posts the NFL, Owners, and even the city and government would have a say where this team should end up regardless of who is the highest bidder when Ralph passes. For you to think you are 100% sure the team will be moving when everything goes down is just as rediculous to think that we will defenately stay. No one knows. My guess is that its going to be a major fight on both sides but who at this point can pony up $2+Billion for new team/stadium in their city with the way the economy is right now?
mrags Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Excluding Trump, these guys are not going to invest almost 30% of their total wealth in the Bills. Also, how much of this total wealth is in ready cash? I'm sure it's far below the totals you quote. Keep digging, I'm sure you'll add Warren Buffet or Bill Gates to the list. Since Warren Buffet actually does have ties to Buffalo with Geico and the Buffalo News I wouldnt think he would be interested but any good businessman can find ways to make money. Im not sure why anyone would bring up Gates other than the fact that he is the wealthiest man on the planet. To my knowledge he has no ties to Buffalo.
Ronin Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Let me preface this by saying that, admittedly, this information has roughly 4 layers of hearsay to it. Let me also preface this by saying that I am repeating what I heard verbatim, and, based on my knowledge of at least some of the people involved in this communication, I think this narrative has sufficient reliability to be posted on a message board, if not the New York Times. Anyway, I was in court yesterday, where I work, when the conversation turned to Eric Moulds and his pending legal matter. The conversation then segued into the current state of the Bills. A prominent and seemingly very straightforward DWI defense attorney that I know said he had had a conversation with one of the Brinkworths, who I believe are prominent developers in the community. One of the Brinkworths told him (the attorney) that he had spoke with Golisano about the possibility of purchasing the Bills. Golisano said that he HAS approached Wilson about putting a group together, but Wilson completely froze him out. Wilson supposedly said that he was already negotiating with a group called "Industry of California" about the prospective sale, (and presumable relocation) of the franchise. I understand that this post may be met with skepticism. However, it's my opinion that the circumstances of this information ARE reliable, in that every link of the communication is with people who really would have access to this information. In other words, there is no "my cousin has a friend who is a bartender that poured Jim Kelly a drink...)... that kind of thing. I post this knowing that I may open myself up to flaming, but with two objectives. One, I know that as a diehard, I would want one of you to post this info if it was at your disposal, and then it would be up to each individual poster to decide whether or not the post was credible. More importantly, I'm hoping that the Tim Graham's of this board would further investigate to see the validity of this info. If this is true then this is the biggest kick to the groin and insult to fans yet. It means that Wilson knows that the team is leaving the region eventually, and that he has been lying all along about doing his best to keep the team in Buffalo. Forget the fact that he is using us to line his pockets as he prepares to yank the rug out from underneath our feet.
yall Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Since Warren Buffet actually does have ties to Buffalo with Geico and the Buffalo News I wouldnt think he would be interested but any good businessman can find ways to make money. Im not sure why anyone would bring up Gates other than the fact that he is the wealthiest man on the planet. To my knowledge he has no ties to Buffalo. Aren't most of us using Windows?
Delete This Account Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Ok. They're still leaving though. No one is going to invest a billion dollars in this team so they can charge $50 a ticket. If they do stay, the new owners will purposely price themselves out of the market so they can move. Pay close attention to whatever new lease is signed by any new owner. Not what the media tells you, the actual lease. Then have a lawyer review it and tell you it REALLY means. The area cannot support this team without RWs subsidy. He may be a jerk, but he is giving you $50 a game NFL football (even if it's crap). That all ends with a new owner. what's wrong with the media reporting on an actual lease? might we have missed something on the existing lease in which you'd like to enlighten us with? you also fail to note that the Bills status is a little different these days with the money-generating connection with Toronto, which will likely continue beyond this current deal, and especially should the NFL up its regular season games. that said, i doubt the Bills are ever going to get $9 million a pop again from Rogers. also, you fail to take into account what the NFL will resemble following a potentially messy labor situation, and the possibility of a lockout. there's far too much in play here to make definitive statements. but why argue, since i'm merely a member of the media, and not a lawyer. ... woe is me. jw
weehawk Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Ok. I'll revise to reflect a previous comment I made. Odds are 4:1 against staying. I think their time in WNY is short, but I'll give them a 25% chance of staying as a concession to the possibility that a rabbit will be pulled. Yes, moving the team will cost. However, the overriding concern for any new owner in the area will be... How do I make money on this investment without a solid (and large) corporate base to fill all of my luxury boxes (and pay much more than they are now under RW) and fans willing to pony up almost double what they pay now for a single game ticket? I just dont see it happening. Between the way the State of NY operates and the depressed economy in the region, I cant see anyone taking the risk without a plan to leave. People are screaming now about how bad the team is. Yet, our ticket prices are lowest in the league. That's why the stadium is full. What happens when they double ticket prices and the team still sucks? Attendance will suffer and the new owner will want out at any cost. Just my opinions. I was born the year they entered the AFL and watched games in the Rockpile. Dont want to see them go, but the cards are stacked against them. From previous peoples posts on this board they are saying it would cost over 2.5 times the worth of the team to move the team. So my question to you would be who in their right mind would pay over $2Billion for a team nowdays? $1Billion is a freaking lot of cake and you think someone will pay more than double that just to move the team to a new market like LA that has failed time and time again? Or a city like SA where no one has any idea if a team would be successful in a market that has never had an NFL team. Didnt they do that with the Jaguars? How has that worked out so far? My point is that there are businessmen that can, or at one point in time wanted a piece of an NFL franchise. Again, going back to previous posts the NFL, Owners, and even the city and government would have a say where this team should end up regardless of who is the highest bidder when Ralph passes. For you to think you are 100% sure the team will be moving when everything goes down is just as rediculous to think that we will defenately stay. No one knows. My guess is that its going to be a major fight on both sides but who at this point can pony up $2+Billion for new team/stadium in their city with the way the economy is right now?
Recommended Posts