ieatcrayonz Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 The kid wearing No. 6 and playing QB for the Jets, perhaps? Add: FWIW, the LA market switched from a Raiders game to Jets-Pats a couple of weeks ago. Now that may be solely because Oakland is unwatchable, but I do tend to think there's some residual interest in Sanchez out there. That explains LA but why are they showing the Bills in Florida? Maybe the Bills are moving to Orlando. That is the only possible reason.
SDS Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 I think any credibility your post may have (and I stress may have) had went right out the window with that statement. That makes less than zero sense. Actually, your reply makes zero sense. He offered an analysis of the situation, which is completely different from offering the contents of a conversation. One doesn't invalidate the other in any way, shape, or form.
Lori Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 That explains LA but why are they showing the Bills in Florida? Maybe the Bills are moving to Orlando. That is the only possible reason. Game between two AFC East teams, and Miami's on its bye week. Although given the obvious "Mickey Mouse" tie-in with the Bills front office, you may be onto something there ...
Mr. WEO Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Could you please ask those in the know if RW has changed his will? If not, then the status quo remains: the team will be sold to the highest bidder AFTER HIS DEATH. Given that RW would have to pay approx. $115m in capital gains taxes if he sold the team before his demise, I find it highly doubtful that he would be willing to sell while still alive. Something doesn't add up. GO BILLS!!! If he sells for 8-900 million, he won't mind pocketing 6-700 mil. This story truly became absurd at....."prominent..DUI lawyer". Maybe if this story could be corroborated by a few "well-known, upstanding ambulance chasers", I would give it some more thought.
ieatcrayonz Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Game between two AFC East teams, and Miami's on its bye week. Although given the obvious "Mickey Mouse" tie-in with the Bills front office, you may be onto something there ... You have an excuse for everything. The title of this thread has the word credible in it. You are in denial.
weehawk Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 According to Forbes last year, the Bills are worth $909 million. Who is this Jim Kelly group that's being referred to? I dont think Kelly knows people with more than $90 million, let alone $909 million. Golisano cant afford the team either without some major backing. That major backer is not going to want the team in Buffalo. Two teams are up for moving..Buffalo and Jax. Two cities are first on he list to get a team...So Cal and San Antonio. There is no corporate base in Buffalo to support a $909 million investment. It's not about the fans selling out the stadium and it's not about the TV ratings. It's about corporations that can afford big ticket boxes and advertising. Rich Products, Labatt, and Sahlen's wont cut it. Considering that GM is now the largest employer in the area, we're screwed. The team is as is good as gone. It certainly left the playing field years ago.
Offside Number 76 Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 The kid wearing No. 6 and playing QB for the Jets, perhaps? Add: FWIW, the LA market switched from a Raiders game to Jets-Pats a couple of weeks ago. Now that may be solely because Oakland is unwatchable, but I do tend to think there's some residual interest in Sanchez out there. The Oklahoma City area gets a lot of Vikings games, too (Peterson), but I don't think that team is moving. It's definitely the USC alum connection.
billsfreak Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 After the way it has went for the last decade plus-I am getting to the point where I don't really give a crap if they move, it might be one less headache and disappointment. Never thought I would ever even think that much less say it, but it has went way beyond pathetic. We are already the team with the longest timespan since our last playoff appearance, and that isn't going to end anytime soon.
billsfreak Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 According to Forbes last year, the Bills are worth $909 million. Who is this Jim Kelly group that's being referred to? I dont think Kelly knows people with more than $90 million, let alone $909 million. Golisano cant afford the team either without some major backing. That major backer is not going to want the team in Buffalo. Two teams are up for moving..Buffalo and Jax. Two cities are first on he list to get a team...So Cal and San Antonio. There is no corporate base in Buffalo to support a $909 million investment. It's not about the fans selling out the stadium and it's not about the TV ratings. It's about corporations that can afford big ticket boxes and advertising. Rich Products, Labatt, and Sahlen's wont cut it. Considering that GM is now the largest employer in the area, we're screwed. The team is as is good as gone. It certainly left the playing field years ago. Maybe Buffalo can get an indoor Checkers team, that wouldn't cost too much and they might even produce a winner. Just don't put Ralph as the owner, or he won't even buy enough checkers to play the game and it will be on a worn out checkers board.
ieatcrayonz Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Buddy, I feel like this will be a wasted effort trying to explain this but here goes... Just because something is hearsay does not mean it is inherently unreliable. Rather, it just means it is being passed on third hand. For example, when you watch the news reports tonight about the drunk driver who hit people coming out of the parking lot at the stadium, that is hearsay. The reason being, I guarantee no reporter actually saw the events happen. They are just basing the story on other people's accounts and maybe some confirmation from policemen and medical personnel. In fact, by the time you hear the story, there may well be multiple layers of hearsay. But when you watch the news, are you going to discount the entire story because it is hearsay?? As for my original post, I posted it because I found the story credible. I honestly wouldn't have posted it otherwise. While it's highly likely that there is more to the story than the little bit I heard, I think there is definitely at least some truth to the report that I heard. I base this upon my belief that the person who told me the story was honest and not one to repeat idle gossip. Further, 10 years of bad football as well as the owner's own doubts about the teams long term viability in Buffalo seem to lend credence to the idea that Wilson no longer thinks the Bills can compete in a small market. While I certainly think it is Wilsons OWN mismanagement that explains our current status, Wilson probably doesn't see it that way because of his own hubris. It is much easier from his standpoint to look at the last 10 years as an inevitable fate due to a large shift in sports and economics than due to his own failures in management. Of course, time will tell. But anyone who thinks that there isn't a serious chance that the Bills are gone, SOON, is kidding themselves. Don't let them bother you dude. Your post clearly used the word credible. It also invoked Golisano which has rarely been done before. There have been very few threads equally as credible.
GrudginglyPessimistic Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 You made a mistake in stating that the team will be sold to whomever the heirs want the estate to go to? That is incorrect. The team will be sold to the highest bidders. It is as simple as that. If the highest bidder is in Toronto; the team will be relocated to Toronto. If the highest bidder is Ed Roskie of LA ; the team will be moved to LA. The executor of the will is obligated to abide by the will. The will clearly states that the team will be sold to the highest bidder. Sentiment is not an issue. Getting maximum dollars for one's asset is the only issue. In life and death Ralph is Ralph. There should be no surprise. Not so fast. Ralph owns the Bills, but it has agreed to operate within the rules of the NFL which gives the league the right to veto any sale made by any owner which goes against the business interests of the NFL. Thus, if Adolf Hitler (or the living equivalent) was the highest bidder (or Ed Roskie to use your example) if the NFL rejects by vote this owner then the deal would not occur. It is certainly the case that Adolf or Ed could then sue the NFL claiming that its veto was an arbitrary and capricious act. However, it is pretty clear that Adolf would lose this case and having an owner who was hated by everyone does not make sound business sense for the NFL or the City of Buffalo. This is an easy case and it get tougher as the prospective owner is not so anathema. However, the recent Rush Limbaugh hoo-ha in St. Louis is instructive and my sense is that the NFL would have a pretty good case for rejecting a bid that Limbaugh was a significant part of as his presence as a significant (or peripheral) owner would make it harder and to some extent untenable to run an entertainment business called the NFL. The business model makes the most sense if it does not offend regarding non-football questions. This element is relevant to the Bills in that the NFL business plan seems pretty clearly to expand the product to get at the TV network dollars associated with getting eyeballs in Mexico, Europe, Asia, Canada and anywhere to watch the product. Any doctrinaire thought that a Bills team would simply go to the highest bidder wherever they want to move the team to does not properly take into account that the business model of the NFL which has a clear say in who can become an owner in this collaborative that the Bills are by rule and agreement bound to is one that actually gets more value from the Bills remaining in Buffalo rather than moving to another city. 1. The business model seeks to place new franchises in foreign lands and link them to the tradition of the NFL. While the league could acceot (or even encourage) a team moving from an original NFL or AFL town, having these teams remain in these towns and connected to the original merged NFL is not without value. For an individual owner the customers and $ may be be measured by the franchise, but for the NFL, the customers and dollars are eyeballs across the nation (and globe for NFL purposes) and having links to the traditional story is of greater value to the whole than where those links are located as long as the fans in that municipality are wild about that product for TV viewing. The Bills coming in with near record season ticket sales despite their 0 for a decade playoff performance holds the team in good stead as a marketable item. 2. The current policy of the NFL is to actually disdain city switches by team. If the NFL is pursuing a business model of setting up new franchises in new towns and asking new customers to join their merry band in allegiance to their new team, having the marketing of the NFL be centered for a couple of years in seeing videos of downtrodden Bills fans as their franchise leaves town is not a good selling point for new franchises. The NFL would have a challenge in vetoing a Ralph's estate sell to the highest bidder, but any bidder will want to weigh carefully if they want to put together the significant amount of capital and partnership needed to wage a winning court battle against an NFL which does not want the new owner as a partner, against a town fighting for its team, and also against the US government where folks like Chuck Shumer and other elected officials will be demanded by WNYers to threaten the NFL's exemptions from anti-trust laws. It depends on who your high bidder is but my sense is that pro-Buffalo Bills folks would have at least a fair chance (or a good chance if the high bidder included somewhat like Limbaugh) of blocking any new ownership team that wanted to move the Bills. In part this is why one of the first statements from any proposed new ownership group for the Rams needs to be a commitment not to try to move the team.
weehawk Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 The NFL wants out of Buffalo in the worst way, so I dont buy the notion that they disdain movement. Jerry Jones and others are fighting to get the team out. If it means more money for them, they'll have no issue with a move. Dont for a second think that "NFL Rules or docrtrine" will get in the way of a sale that ends in a move. The Bills do OK money-wise, but they would do far better just about anywhere else. This is about money and nothing else. If they thought they could squeeze another $100 million out of a franchise by letting it move, they would take Hitler in a second. Sure Buffalo interests will have a shot. But when it gets down to brass tacks, you better believe that money is gonna talk loud and clear and that all of the other "stuff" is going to take a back seat. Dont misunderstand me. I want the team to stay even though I dont live there anymore. But you need to be realistic about what the chances are of the team staying. I put the odds at about 4:1 against. Not so fast. Ralph owns the Bills, but it has agreed to operate within the rules of the NFL which gives the league the right to veto any sale made by any owner which goes against the business interests of the NFL. Thus, if Adolf Hitler (or the living equivalent) was the highest bidder (or Ed Roskie to use your example) if the NFL rejects by vote this owner then the deal would not occur. It is certainly the case that Adolf or Ed could then sue the NFL claiming that its veto was an arbitrary and capricious act. However, it is pretty clear that Adolf would lose this case and having an owner who was hated by everyone does not make sound business sense for the NFL or the City of Buffalo. This is an easy case and it get tougher as the prospective owner is not so anathema. However, the recent Rush Limbaugh hoo-ha in St. Louis is instructive and my sense is that the NFL would have a pretty good case for rejecting a bid that Limbaugh was a significant part of as his presence as a significant (or peripheral) owner would make it harder and to some extent untenable to run an entertainment business called the NFL. The business model makes the most sense if it does not offend regarding non-football questions. This element is relevant to the Bills in that the NFL business plan seems pretty clearly to expand the product to get at the TV network dollars associated with getting eyeballs in Mexico, Europe, Asia, Canada and anywhere to watch the product. Any doctrinaire thought that a Bills team would simply go to the highest bidder wherever they want to move the team to does not properly take into account that the business model of the NFL which has a clear say in who can become an owner in this collaborative that the Bills are by rule and agreement bound to is one that actually gets more value from the Bills remaining in Buffalo rather than moving to another city. 1. The business model seeks to place new franchises in foreign lands and link them to the tradition of the NFL. While the league could acceot (or even encourage) a team moving from an original NFL or AFL town, having these teams remain in these towns and connected to the original merged NFL is not without value. For an individual owner the customers and $ may be be measured by the franchise, but for the NFL, the customers and dollars are eyeballs across the nation (and globe for NFL purposes) and having links to the traditional story is of greater value to the whole than where those links are located as long as the fans in that municipality are wild about that product for TV viewing. The Bills coming in with near record season ticket sales despite their 0 for a decade playoff performance holds the team in good stead as a marketable item. 2. The current policy of the NFL is to actually disdain city switches by team. If the NFL is pursuing a business model of setting up new franchises in new towns and asking new customers to join their merry band in allegiance to their new team, having the marketing of the NFL be centered for a couple of years in seeing videos of downtrodden Bills fans as their franchise leaves town is not a good selling point for new franchises. The NFL would have a challenge in vetoing a Ralph's estate sell to the highest bidder, but any bidder will want to weigh carefully if they want to put together the significant amount of capital and partnership needed to wage a winning court battle against an NFL which does not want the new owner as a partner, against a town fighting for its team, and also against the US government where folks like Chuck Shumer and other elected officials will be demanded by WNYers to threaten the NFL's exemptions from anti-trust laws. It depends on who your high bidder is but my sense is that pro-Buffalo Bills folks would have at least a fair chance (or a good chance if the high bidder included somewhat like Limbaugh) of blocking any new ownership team that wanted to move the Bills. In part this is why one of the first statements from any proposed new ownership group for the Rams needs to be a commitment not to try to move the team.
Meark Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Troll, please go away. Cleary, you do NOT live there, as City of Industry is about 50 miles from LA - not 'minutes'. Takes me (and most others) about an hour and a half during NON-rush-hour, so if you can make that in "minutes", either you're way too young too know what driving is, or you live aboard the Starship Enterprise. Otherwise, as I'm sure is the case, you're just full of sh_t. BTW - I've been to two Bills games there, proudly sporting Blue & Red; rough part of the LA area - but I never feared for getting mugged or anything else, and actually appreciated all the burnt-down houses, as they made for very cheap parking. I guess that, if you've never lived in LA, you really don't know what it's like there. 50 miles from LA?? I'll make sure to never ask you for directions.. Dude its like 20 miles from the coliseum.. FYI I have lived in LA, now happily in San Diego.. If you weren't nervous at the coliseum you must be one hard core mother #$&*er. That place in in the heart of shitville..
May Day 10 Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 It sux that we lost a couple all-time great Bills figures and our strongest allies: Tim Russert and Jack Kemp. Id say its about 50/50 they move, but it would be Toronto and not LA. I am holding out hope for the trifecta or Jacobs, Rich Jr., and Golisano..... hopefully that's kelly's 'group'
thebandit27 Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Actually, your reply makes zero sense. He offered an analysis of the situation, which is completely different from offering the contents of a conversation. One doesn't invalidate the other in any way, shape, or form. Humbly disagree, founding father. Allow me to explain my position: The fact that Wilson thinks revenue sharing needs to increase to make the team viable doesn't support the conclusion that Nostradamus draws. In fact, Wilson has never--to my knowlege--used the market to explain away his team's ineptitude. I've heard him blame the players (QB play, the offensive line), the coaching (Phillips, Williams), the management (Donahoe), but never the market or a lack of financial viability. And to insinuate that as a motivating factor to move the franchise to LA belies any and all reasonable motive for playing games in Toronto, which is billed (truthfully or not) as an effort to make the franchise more economically viable in WNY. As to the contention that Ralph is taking the easy way out so as not to accept any blame for the current state of the team, it would seem that--in knowing that Wilson himself is responsible for putting the current organizational structure in place--he's closer to calling out his own decision-making than he is to finding "a much more convenient excuse for him than facing his own blunders and shortcomings". Subsequently, Nostradamus' opinion stated in the post to which I responded seems to be--from all information with which I'm familiar--unfounded. When I consider that seemingly dubious opinion, coupled with Nostradamus' opinion that this potential relocation information (based on quadruple hear-say, which is dubious enough unto itself) is credible, I believe I'm justified in making that statement.
Giaimo25 Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 50 miles from LA?? I'll make sure to never ask you for directions.. Dude its like 20 miles from the coliseum.. FYI I have lived in LA, now happily in San Diego.. If you weren't nervous at the coliseum you must be one hard core mother #$&*er. That place in in the heart of shitville.. HAHAHAHAHAHA glad im not the only one that thinks senator is completely full of sh*t
RunTheBall Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the political pressure that can come to bear on the NFL. For whatever reason, Chuck Schumer has been very vocal in his opposition to the only NY team moving out of Buffalo. Chuck can and has brought up the specter of revisiting "anti-trust" and "fair competition" hearings which the NFL wants no part of. It's all political BS, and no one really knows how strong Chuck really feels or will push if it comes down to it, but don't discount the power one senator can have on this issue. They all may be douche bags but they do wield some power. RTB
Koufax Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 50 miles from LA?? I'll make sure to never ask you for directions.. Dude its like 20 miles from the coliseum.. FYI I have lived in LA, now happily in San Diego.. If you weren't nervous at the coliseum you must be one hard core mother #$&*er. That place in in the heart of shitville.. Yes, to be perfectly clear, the City of Industry is in LA as much as just about any other place considered, and it is like talking about an Orchard Park stadium vs. a downtown stadium. A little background for those who have not been following, Industry is a weird place with a tiny electorate which has complete control and is able to shape things in terms of taxes, etc. without dealing with any Los Angeles politics, and they have been aggressively trying to get a team, with a lot of interest and coverage relating to the Chargers. They are serious as a bidder and a stadium builder / tax incentives / etc. and are a legitimate candidate for a team and to bring football back to LA. It will remain to be seen if they will be the TOP candidate when a team is ready to move, but at the moment they are very organized and prominent. I don't buy the rumor as a whole, and I don't think the LA Bills or the Toronto Bills is an inevitable thing, but certainly the unfortunate possibility floating out there for after Ralphie runs out of borrowed time.
weehawk Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 All you need to do is ask the Senator how much money the State of NY is willing to spend to keep the Bills in Buffalo. I can tell you that now...$0 Talk is REAL cheap in the NFL. It's a show me the money league and the State of NY ran out of money long ago. As far as anti-trust goes, not everyone in the Senate will be on-board with that. Especially those from TX or CA that may benefit from the move. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the political pressure that can come to bear on the NFL. For whatever reason, Chuck Schumer has been very vocal in his opposition to the only NY team moving out of Buffalo. Chuck can and has brought up the specter of revisiting "anti-trust" and "fair competition" hearings which the NFL wants no part of. It's all political BS, and no one really knows how strong Chuck really feels or will push if it comes down to it, but don't discount the power one senator can have on this issue. They all may be douche bags but they do wield some power. RTB
weehawk Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Not a lot being said about San Antonio. I'm not sold on LA. Chicken and egg thing. They need a stadium before they can have a team, and they need a team in order to get funding for a stadium. Long shot IMO. I think San Antonio is the front-runner. TO a close second. City officials are said to be attempting to lure the National Football League permanently to San Antonio and have also said that a strong showing at the Alamodome for the three local Saints games was vital to showing that San Antonio can support an NFL franchise. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue stated San Antonio was successful in hosting the team, and that the city would be on the short list for any future NFL expansions. The city has also hosted the Dallas Cowboys and Houston Oilers preseason camps in the past, and they have signed a contract with the Cowboys in which the Cowboys will practice in San Antonio through 2011.[25] Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has acknowledged his support for the city's efforts to become home to an NFL franchise.[26] Although it is the second largest city in the United States without an NFL team (after Los Angeles), San Antonio's smaller metropolitan population has so far contributed to its lack of landing an NFL, MLB, or NHL team.
Recommended Posts