PDA

View Full Version : Luke Russert: Save the Bills!



shelby
12-05-2008, 07:02 AM
Found this on another site i frequent...


In May, The Buffalo News pondered the future of the Bills when 89-year-old owner Ralph Wilson passes away. "The likeliest scenario is that a billionaire from Toronto or Los Angeles will move them out of Buffalo," the paper wrote. Even if you've never set foot on a mound of lake-effect snow, that line has to give you the chills. The city's been bleeding for decades. In the first half of the 20th century, Buffalo was a boomtown, overflowing with steel plants, textile mills and tycoon money. When the AFL set up shop in 1960, the city's population was 530,000. Then industrial jobs dried up. The latest figures show Buffalo's population is nearly 272,000. That's where the Bills come in. While they've yet to win it all, they've achieved something greater: Eight Sundays a year, they make Buffalo forget just how bad things are.
Make that six Sundays and a Monday this season, since the Bills will play a home game 98 miles away in Toronto, a wealthy urban center of five million people. They'll play seven more north of the border by 2012, pocketing a total of roughly $78 million, twice the franchise's operating income last year. That's much-needed cash for a team that's 24th in the league in revenue. Bills COO Russ Brandon says the experiment is an effort to "bring the brand to a new fan base" and claims the extra cash will make the Bills financially viable in Buffalo. But to many, that sounds like the beginning of the end.

more... (http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3533730)

Jan Reimers
12-05-2008, 10:00 AM
Nice article from a bright and talented young man. But I'm afraid his partial community ownership plan will never have a chance. Too many greedy owners, including Ralph.

Ickybaluky
12-05-2008, 11:39 AM
You can't have community or corporate ownership in the NFL. I know Green Bay has it, but they were grandfathered in.

In Article V, Section 4 of the leagues constitution, it states:


(b) Charitable organizations and/or corporations not organized for profit and not now a member of the league may not hold membership in the National Football League.

There are other rules of ownership, but that is the one that prohibits any team being owned by the public or by a corporation. I suppose you could start a campaignt to have the rules changes, but it has been in place since 1960. I don't think the NFL would want to change the rule because it would also invite corporate ownership.

CuseJetsFan83
12-05-2008, 05:08 PM
You can't have community or corporate ownership in the NFL. I know Green Bay has it, but they were grandfathered in.

In Article V, Section 4 of the leagues constitution, it states:



There are other rules of ownership, but that is the one that prohibits any team being owned by the public or by a corporation. I suppose you could start a campaignt to have the rules changes, but it has been in place since 1960. I don't think the NFL would want to change the rule because it would also invite corporate ownership.

oh we know they can't, but in his article he was stating that goddell should make an exception for it, and in this case i'd be all for it, if it meant i still have my rivals 2 hours to my west

Ickybaluky
12-06-2008, 08:57 AM
oh we know they can't, but in his article he was stating that goddell should make an exception for it, and in this case i'd be all for it, if it meant i still have my rivals 2 hours to my west

Goodell can't make an exception for it. The owners would have to vote to change the constitution, with 2/3rds agreeing to change it.

They won't do it because they don't want corporate ownership, which is the real reason behind the rule to begin with. They want individuals (granted, rich ones) owning teams. They don't want some company like General Electric buying a team and using it as a marketing tool. That has happened in other leagues.

yordad
12-06-2008, 09:46 AM
Goodell can't make an exception for it. The owners would have to vote to change the constitution, with 2/3rds agreeing to change it.

They won't do it because they don't want corporate ownership, which is the real reason behind the rule to begin with. They want individuals (granted, rich ones) owning teams. They don't want some company like General Electric buying a team and using it as a marketing tool. That has happened in other leagues.The 2/3rds thing was mentioned in the article. What happened in these other leagues?

superbills
12-06-2008, 10:34 AM
Hey NE39...RTFA :couch:

feldspar
12-06-2008, 07:33 PM
Use the force, Luke.