Report: Bills NOT 1 of 5 teams discussed for LA move

[Coach Sal]

WGR550.com
Report: Buffalo Bills NOT in the mix for proposed LA stadium

Andy Roth Reporting
aroth@entercom.com

In the past, when there are stories circulated about NFL franchises that might move, the Buffalo Bills are usually involved. On Friday, Bills fans will be happy to know the team missed a big list. The Orange County Register sat down with AEG President Tim Leiweke, the point person for Farmers field, the proposed downtown Los Angeles stadium.

Leiweke said that his group is hoping to "acquire majority ownership in an NFL franchise" and has spoken to executives with five teams: Minnesota, San Diego, Oakland, St. Louis and Jacksonville. However, while Lieweke added that "we're not packing any (moving) vans right now," the AEG President did say they would help finance a move by helping teams terminate their leases. "Just as an example, if it's San Diego, they would have to pay $24 million under their agreement to get out of the lease. We would pay that."

The group is hoping to get a memorandum of understanding from the city of Los Angeles on the economic deal by the end of July so the project can get off of the ground. AEG has already said they would not pursue an NFL team until the labor situtaion was resolved but wants to have the project completed with a team in place for the 2016 season.

Stay tuned to WGR - Sports Radio 550 for the latest on this story.

http://wgr550.com/Report--Buffalo-Bills-NOT-in-the-mix-for-proposed-/10084016

[Coach Sal]

Link to FULL story on this from the Orange County Register:

http://www.ocregister.com/sports/aeg-303920-leiweke-million.html

[BertSquirtgum]

that gave me a woody.

[Static]

Take Jacksonville

[PromoTheRobot]

The Bills are NOT in play as long as Ralph is alive. Better hope he lives to 120. But even if we dodge the LA bullet there will always be another city drooling over the Bills. Heck, they may want two teams in LA!

PTR

[The last buffalo fan]

The Bills are NOT in play as long as Ralph is alive. Better hope he lives to 120. But even if we dodge the LA bullet there will always be another city drooling over the Bills. Heck, they may want two teams in LA!

PTR

Thanks, OpI! :ill:

[better days]

The Bills are NOT in play as long as Ralph is alive. Better hope he lives to 120. But even if we dodge the LA bullet there will always be another city drooling over the Bills. Heck, they may want two teams in LA!

PTR

People in hell want ice water. LA may want two teams but unless they get the 2nd team SOON after the 1st, everyone will see LA won't even support one team.

Aside from that, I doubt the owner of the 1st team will be happy to welcome another team into his City when he is having a tough go of it with no competition.

Add to all that the fact it is very unlikely the NFL will get any public money to build a new stadium in a State that is very deep in the red.

[Mr. Miyagi]

that gave me a woody.
No pics please Mr. Favre.

[trapezeus]

finally a little move reprieve.

hopefully this is something that comes from the NFL as well. "look at these 5 teams. the other ones are good and in markets we like and trust."

[Mr. Pink]

San Diego or Oakland moving back to LA makes the most sense logistically for the NFL.

[Mski]

san diego honestly makes the most sense, they play in one of the oldest/most run down stadiums in the league and they are trying to levy the city to build them a new stadium with public funding in a state that is in more red tape than NY

[trapezeus]

san diego honestly makes the most sense, they play in one of the oldest/most run down stadiums in the league and they are trying to levy the city to build them a new stadium with public funding in a state that is in more red tape than NY

if this is the criteria, then when san diego moves, ralph wilson and KC's stadiums will be the next two most run down stadiums in the league. and we all know that NYS doesn't have the money to build a stadium and we all know that the lease is running out soon.

i think jax makes the most sense. they simply have no fans. no one cares. it won't leave a huge imprint on their area. they have no history either.

[Mr. Pink]

if this is the criteria, then when san diego moves, ralph wilson and KC's stadiums will be the next two most run down stadiums in the league. and we all know that NYS doesn't have the money to build a stadium and we all know that the lease is running out soon.

i think jax makes the most sense. they simply have no fans. no one cares. it won't leave a huge imprint on their area. they have no history either.


Problem with Jacksonville moving is realignment issues.

If San Diego or Oakland moves then you have no realignment issues, divisions can stay the same.

Actually St Louis moving back to LA also logistically makes sense too.

[trapezeus]

st louis owner is from area and probably won't let that happen.

i get realignment issues, but that can be fixed easier.

ruining a market that actually works but has a bad stadium puts a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths.

oakland to la i wouldn't mind so much since they've done this a couple times already. they get their team back again. oakland and san fran are the same market more or less in terms of population. and oakland fans would stay raiders fans the way we are forced to stay bills fans despite games being in toronto.

[Coach Sal]

Problem with Jacksonville moving is realignment issues.

If San Diego or Oakland moves then you have no realignment issues, divisions can stay the same.

Actually St Louis moving back to LA also logistically makes sense too.

Realignment will have nothing to do with what team goes to LA.

Dallas plays in the NFC East and Atlanta played in the West for 31 years. The league couldn't care less about that issue.

[Extremebillsfan247]

san diego honestly makes the most sense, they play in one of the oldest/most run down stadiums in the league and they are trying to levy the city to build them a new stadium with public funding in a state that is in more red tape than NY You know, it isn't uncommon for teams to use a city like LA as bargaining power towards renovation, or a new stadium from their respective cities. In fact, you may see that a lot in the next couple of years, teams threatening to move if no improvement to facilities they play in is done.

[Extremebillsfan247]

Raiders have already responded saying they are not interested, that the team is not for sale via Amy Trask CEO of the Oakland Raiders. The team will remain in the Davis family.

[YardRat]

Ralph told Leiweke to stick it up his ass when he called Buffalo.

[YardRat]

If I were giving odds...

San Diego, Minnesota, Jacksonville, Oakland, St Louis in that order.

[Extremebillsfan247]

If I were giving odds...

San Diego, Minnesota, Jacksonville, Oakland, St Louis in that order.I would say San Diego has the most realistic shot of any to move to LA.

[Night Train]

I heard all this yesterday and believe the Bills are not on this list. However..

I could see the NFL eventually contracting (shrinking) by a few teams, as the economics of WNY do not bode well long term, especially if NFL owners continue to frown on Revenue Sharing (Welfare) for the long haul.

Hope I'm wrong but the original mantra of the good of all has gone the way of the dodo, with new owners only concerned with large market teams turning a profit and the smaller market teams being a burden.

[PromoTheRobot]

I heard all this yesterday and believe the Bills are not on this list. However..

I could see the NFL eventually contracting (shrinking) by a few teams, as the economics of WNY do not bode well long term, especially if NFL owners continue to frown on Revenue Sharing (Welfare) for the long haul.

Hope I'm wrong but the original mantra of the good of all has gone the way of the dodo, with new owners only concerned with large market teams turning a profit and the smaller market teams being a burden.

By contracting they would be eliminating several billion+ dollar assets. Is the NFL willing to give several franchises a billion dollars each to go away? I think not. I can't see an owner being contracted out of the league without major legal action.

PTR

[Johnny Bugmenot]

Raiders have already responded saying they are not interested, that the team is not for sale via Amy Trask CEO of the Oakland Raiders. The team will remain in the Davis family.
That expressly contradicts past statements made by the Davis family. There's a 31% stake in the franchise up for sale, from a previous owner that Davis has so far had to eat. The only thing holding it up is the fact that Davis doesn't want to give up voting shares.

That, and Davis isn't much younger than Wilson.

[Johnny Bugmenot]

By contracting they would be eliminating several billion+ dollar assets. Is the NFL willing to give several franchises a billion dollars each to go away? I think not. I can't see an owner being contracted out of the league without major legal action.

PTR
First, if the teams aren't profitable you're eliminating liabilities as well moreso than assets. Second, if they just wait until Wilson dies, they can just yank the franchise while it's still in flux, since Wilson has no successor.

[THATHURMANATOR]

I heard all this yesterday and believe the Bills are not on this list. However..

I could see the NFL eventually contracting (shrinking) by a few teams, as the economics of WNY do not bode well long term, especially if NFL owners continue to frown on Revenue Sharing (Welfare) for the long haul.

Hope I'm wrong but the original mantra of the good of all has gone the way of the dodo, with new owners only concerned with large market teams turning a profit and the smaller market teams being a burden.
I can't possibly see a scenario that involves contracting the Bills.

What is with you people. You are so hell bent on the fact that the Bills are doomed.
The NFL is making BILLIONS of dollars the way it is. Why would they need to contract the Bills or other small market teams??? I think that is some of the allure of the league. Great football markets.

Could they move away. Of course.... but contracting??? NO POSSIBLE WAY.

[THATHURMANATOR]

First, if the teams aren't profitable you're eliminating liabilities as well moreso than assets. Second, if they just wait until Wilson dies, they can just yank the franchise while it's still in flux, since Wilson has no successor.
Absolutely wrong. The Bills aren't losing money for one but even the team in the league losing the most money is worth HUNDREDS of millions to the owner of that team.

[Mr. Pink]

Realignment will have nothing to do with what team goes to LA.

Dallas plays in the NFC East and Atlanta played in the West for 31 years. The league couldn't care less about that issue.


The league is run by the players, if they move a team somewhere they'll realign teams to cut down on travel times. Dallas won't ever leave the East because they've been there so long and there are rivalries already established.

Basically I think your assessment is completely wrong. Almost every division is placed somewhat regionally to promote rivalries and cut down on travel time.

[YardRat]

First, if the teams aren't profitable you're eliminating liabilities as well moreso than assets. Second, if they just wait until Wilson dies, they can just yank the franchise while it's still in flux, since Wilson has no successor.

Don't be so sure.

[better days]

The league is run by the players, if they move a team somewhere they'll realign teams to cut down on travel times. Dallas won't ever leave the East because they've been there so long and there are rivalries already established.

Basically I think your assessment is completely wrong. Almost every division is placed somewhat regionally to promote rivalries and cut down on travel time.

If you think the league is run by the players, basiclly I think your assessment is completely wrong.

[THATHURMANATOR]

If you think the league is run by the players, basiclly I think your assessment is completely wrong.
Explain why

[better days]

Explain why

Is that really necessary? OK if so, how about this, Roger Goodell the head man of the NFL, the man that makes the decisions about the NFL, was hired by and works for the Owners, not the players.

The players are employees, they do not run things.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Is that really necessary? OK if so, how about this, Roger Goodell the head man of the NFL, the man that makes the decisions about the NFL, was hired by and works for the Owners, not the players.

The players are employees, they do not run things.
If the players had not clout there wouldn't be a lockout right now. Think about that for a moment.

[PromoTheRobot]

First, if the teams aren't profitable you're eliminating liabilities as well moreso than assets. Second, if they just wait until Wilson dies, they can just yank the franchise while it's still in flux, since Wilson has no successor.
Nice try. A third of the franchises in the NBA are losing money. By your logic they should be giving them away.

PTR

[OpIv37]

I can't possibly see a scenario that involves contracting the Bills.

What is with you people. You are so hell bent on the fact that the Bills are doomed.
The NFL is making BILLIONS of dollars the way it is. Why would they need to contract the Bills or other small market teams??? I think that is some of the allure of the league. Great football markets.

Could they move away. Of course.... but contracting??? NO POSSIBLE WAY.

Because there is no limit to greed.

The NFL has no problem adding teams when the economy is good and they think they can make more money off it. They would have no problem contracting the size of the league if they they think it would make them extra billions.

It's not likely, but it's not entirely inconceivable that, say, Minnesota moves to LA, then Ralph croaks, no one steps up to buy the Bills because there's no money in Buffalo and no larger city clamoring for a team, and the other owners vote to just buy the Bills out now rather than continue to lose money to revenue sharing. The Bills have no stadium lease beyond the 2012 season, so if Ralph were to die and there were no real owner, it wouldn't cost much to make them go away.

Again, this is a doom-and-gloom worst case scenario, and I don't really believe it's going to happen any more than you do, but it comes down to the almighty dollar, and I don't doubt for a second that the league/owners would do it if there was enough money in it for them.

[Johnny Bugmenot]

Nice try. A third of the franchises in the NBA are losing money. By your logic they should be giving them away.

PTR
As well they should. There are about 10 teams that are really relevant in the NBA. A much smaller, 20-team NBA would be a great improvement over the current situation.

[Mudflap1]

Guys,

I live out here and have been saying this forever... The Chargers are the team. They were founded in L.A. (if you recall) and both sides admit they are in negotiations with each other, although the Chargers are dodgy about what the discussions are about.

It's the Chargers. The other four are just backups to leverage the Chargers.

Jon

[better days]

If the players had not clout there wouldn't be a lockout right now. Think about that for a moment.

Players have as much clout as any group of skilled employees. They are however employees & do not run the NFL.

[Coach Sal]

The league is run by the players, if they move a team somewhere they'll realign teams to cut down on travel times. Dallas won't ever leave the East because they've been there so long and there are rivalries already established.

Basically I think your assessment is completely wrong. Almost every division is placed somewhat regionally to promote rivalries and cut down on travel time.

You can think my assessment is wrong, but it's backed up by the history of the league. Why did the Atlanta Falcons play in the NFC West for 31 years? Why did the Tampa Bay Buccaneers begin their existence in the AFC West? And the St. Louis Cardinals played in the NFC East since the inception of the division. What happened when they moved to Phoenix in 1988? They stayed in the EAST for 15 years! Until the NFL actually realigned. Until then, they didn't give a crap.

Of course that's the way divisions generally are (as you describe above), but that's only after the league shuffles the deck -- and they have almost always not re-shuffled right away after a team moves, or even expansion. So why would it be a "problem?"

You stated there was a "problem" with adding LA to the NFL because of geography. Sorry, but they've always proven they won't be concerned over that when it comes to moving a team. LA will get a team, then the NFL will cross that bridge when they need to. Until then, they'll simply keep them in what division they are currently in, UNLESS they are already planning to realign when it happens and add it into the plans.

It's what they've always done.

[MikeNC]

I would say San Diego has the most realistic shot of any to move to LA.

Would the State be willing to through any money in to move a team up the road?

[better days]

Would the State be willing to through any money in to move a team up the road?

I doubt it. I also doubt the State of California will pay to move a team from across the Country. The State of California is BROKE & I doubt the taxpayers there approve of any new tax to build a Stadium.

[BertSquirtgum]

I can't possibly see a scenario that involves contracting the Bills.

What is with you people. You are so hell bent on the fact that the Bills are doomed.
The NFL is making BILLIONS of dollars the way it is. Why would they need to contract the Bills or other small market teams??? I think that is some of the allure of the league. Great football markets.

Could they move away. Of course.... but contracting??? NO POSSIBLE WAY.

you beat me to it. i don't understand what wrong with these ******s saying the Bills are 100% leaving.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Someone please explain to me how the league would make money from contracting a team?

Contracting teams is something a struggling league does, not the most profitable in the world....

[OpIv37]

Someone please explain to me how the league would make money from contracting a team?

Contracting teams is something a struggling league does, not the most profitable in the world....

Revenue sharing.

The top owners in the league share money with the bottom owners. If one of those bottom owners were to go away, the other teams would have to pay less in revenue sharing.

[Dr. Lecter]

Revenue sharing.

The top owners in the league share money with the bottom owners. If one of those bottom owners were to go away, the other teams would have to pay less in revenue sharing.
There would also be less revenue to share.

All of the teams make money - even if it does include TV money and the such. Not to mention the stigma of a team going away. And the players won't allow it- that would be a loss of 65-70 jobs for players.

No way this happens - at least in a there is no way I win the lottey chance.

[OpIv37]

There would also be less revenue to share.

All of the teams make money - even if it does include TV money and the such. Not to mention the stigma of a team going away. And the players won't allow it- that would be a loss of 65-70 jobs for players.

No way this happens - at least in a there is no way I win the lottey chance.

huh?

Jerry Jones makes X amount of money. As a top owner, he has to share Y amount of money. X-Y=Z, leaving him with Z

Well, if the Bills go away, X stays the same and Y goes down, meaning Z goes up.

The player's union thing is a potential issue, but they could end up with the same amount of jobs by increasing the active roster by 2-3. Of course, this is assuming it were one team- if they were to contract by 2 teams, then it would be 5, at which point it starts becoming even less likely.

[Dr. Lecter]

huh?

Jerry Jones makes X amount of money. As a top owner, he has to share Y amount of money. X-Y=Z, leaving him with Z

Well, if the Bills go away, X stays the same and Y goes down, meaning Z goes up.

The player's union thing is a potential issue, but they could end up with the same amount of jobs by increasing the active roster by 2-3. Of course, this is assuming it were one team- if they were to contract by 2 teams, then it would be 5, at which point it starts becoming even less likely.
I am talking overall money.

Remove a team there are fewer TV broadcasts and henceforth less money. That is where the real big bucks come in. There are also fewer sales of merchandise, which is another huge revenue stream.

[OpIv37]

I am talking overall money.

Remove a team there are fewer TV broadcasts and henceforth less money. That is where the real big bucks come in. There are also fewer sales of merchandise, which is another huge revenue stream.

That's what I'm saying though. Revenue from merch goes to the individual team. If the Bills went away, the league would lose their cut of the Bills merch, but Jerry Jones would sell the same amount of merch without having to share any revenue.

There could be less TV revenue with fewer games, or the NFL could just charge the networks more per game to even it out.

I guess it depends how it's structured, but it still seems to me that the Snyders and Jones' and Krafts of the world would be happy if they could get out of revenue sharing, either by just not doing it or getting rid of some of the teams who are recipients rather than contributors.

[OpIv37]

and BTW, the NBA is talking about contracting by getting rid of the New Orleans Hornets. Granted, the NBA doesn't have the following or the money of the NFL, but it shows that it can happen in major sports leagues.

[Dr. Lecter]

When was the last time a major sports league actualy contracted?

Talking about it and doing it are way different.

[OpIv37]

When was the last time a major sports league actualy contracted?

Talking about it and doing it are way different.

My original point holds true though: the league and the other owners are going to do whatever makes them the most money. If they would make more money by putting 10 teams in WNY, then they would, and if they could make more money by guaranteeing that there is no football within 200 miles of Buffalo, they'd do that too.

Right now, there is nothing proving that the Bills are going away, either by moving or contraction.

But there is also nothing guaranteeing that they will be around after 2012. The stadium lease and the Toronto deal end then. And Ralph has no succession plan for after his death, and he's at the point where a slight breeze could kill him.

So, this moving/folding stuff is going to keep coming up until there is something on paper that says the team is staying put.

[Ed]

and BTW, the NBA is talking about contracting by getting rid of the New Orleans Hornets. Granted, the NBA doesn't have the following or the money of the NFL, but it shows that it can happen in major sports leagues.
The NBA has major financial issues though. Almost half the teams in the league are reportedly losing money. There's a big difference between the NBA not being sustainable and the NFL being greedy.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Revenue sharing.

The top owners in the league share money with the bottom owners. If one of those bottom owners were to go away, the other teams would have to pay less in revenue sharing.
Would they save the near 1 billion dollar cost that would be needed to pay the owner to contract their team????

[OpIv37]

Would they save the near 1 billion dollar cost that would be needed to pay the owner to contract their team????
In time they would.

How much time? I don't know. I'm not sure how much gets moved around due to revenue sharing.

[BertSquirtgum]

that's the stupidest thing i've ever thought about. contracting a team? such a stupid stupid idea. there's no chance in hell that ever happens.

[OpIv37]

that's the stupidest thing i've ever thought about. contracting a team? such a stupid stupid idea. there's no chance in hell that ever happens.
well the league and the other owners aren't going to sit there and do nothing while teams like Jacksonville bleed money. Something has to give.

[trapezeus]

contraction would be met with a lot of negative press and putting a lot of fans out. Its one thing to move the team, but just to say, "these fans suck, we want out" would be front page news risk that a league like the NFL doesn't need or want.

if the NHL refuses to contract teams that are actually not propped up with anything other that ticket sales, the NFL isn't going to contract anytime soon.

[better days]

well the league and the other owners aren't going to sit there and do nothing while teams like Jacksonville bleed money. Something has to give.

Just because Jax does not sell out, it does not mean they are bleeding money.

[THATHURMANATOR]

that's the stupidest thing i've ever thought about. contracting a team? such a stupid stupid idea. there's no chance in hell that ever happens.
It really is idiotic.....

[THATHURMANATOR]

well the league and the other owners aren't going to sit there and do nothing while teams like Jacksonville bleed money. Something has to give.
Yeah they are.... Nothing will give.

[Mr. Pink]

The only sport that needs contraction is baseball. Too many teams and guys who are 4th and 5th starters who shouldn't even be in the league.

[OpIv37]

Yeah they are.... Nothing will give.

Easy for you to say when it's not your money.