Sell the Bills to the FANS?

[BUFF Bills]

I have a question for you guys - what is stopping the Bills from adopting a similar ownership system that the Green Bay Packers employ, meaning, sell the team to the fans. I was thinking to myself earlier, why couldn't Jim Kelly and/or whoever, buy majority in the team's stock, and sell the rest to the fans of the Buffalo Bills around the country?

To my knowledge this has never been a topic of discussion and I'm wondering why. Any input?

[MikeInRoch]

It really would be nice if you had done some research before posting this. It's against the NFL bylaws now.

[BUFF Bills]

that was my question, i had a feeling this was the case but didn't think about looking it up...

[imbondz]

It really would be nice if you had done some research before posting this. It's against the NFL bylaws now.

seriously? so people can't ask questions here. we all should be in the know about everything.

[ELAYAS]

seriously? so people can't ask questions here. we all should be in the know about everything.

yeah seriously!

It really would be nice if you had done some research before asking if it was serious...



Edit: I'm joking, in case anyone missed it

[YardRat]

It would be nice if the league would reverse the rule and allow more communities to own teams. Hell, we already pay for the stadiums, and one might be able to argue everything else in a less direct fashion.

[Dujek]

I really don't understand why the league won't allow community ownership. Other than the fact it would stop the likes of Jimmy Jones forcing other teams to move simply because it might make him more money.

[better days]

I really don't understand why the league won't allow community ownership. Other than the fact it would stop the likes of Jimmy Jones forcing other teams to move simply because it might make him more money.

That sounds about right.

[PromoTheRobot]

Seriously, someone brings this up at least once every two weeks.

Ptr

[MikeInRoch]

seriously? so people can't ask questions here. we all should be in the know about everything.

How would it be if someone asked every week for the rest of the year then?

[Dozerdog]

Because the NFL wants to move teams if they have to.


Imagine Jacksonville - if they went 2-14 ten years in a row and averaged 25,000 in attendance every season- but the team couldn't move them to LA or some other energized city - or even to an owner that wants to sink money into it (Like the NFL version of Pegula).

They don't want the product stagnating because of public ownership.

[Stewie]

I am not a lawyer, but it's very possible that there's either a loophole around the bylaws, or that the bylaws are illegal in the first place.

See Genevieve F.E. Birren, NFL vs. Sherman Act: How the NFL’s Ban on Public Ownership Violates Federal Antitrust Laws, 11 Sports Law. J. 121 (2004).

Also, last year the supremes ruled the NFL is not a single entity, as they had previously argued, but in fact 32 separate teams (plus the league, so 33 entities.)

The very first line o fthe sherman antitrust act reads:

"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal"

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it sure seems l ike preventing the Bills to sell to whomever they want is a "consipracy in restraint of trade or commerce". Maybe some team will try to make that argument one day.

[psubills62]

It would be nice if the league would reverse the rule and allow more communities to own teams. Hell, we already pay for the stadiums, and one might be able to argue everything else in a less direct fashion.
Like this:
http://images4.cpcache.com/product/338573864v7_150x150_Front.jpg

[Dujek]

Collective bargaining is against anti-trust rules too, as is the salary cap.

The league has an anti-trust exemption, and therefore can do pretty much whatever the **** they want.

[ddaryl]

Collective bargaining is against anti-trust rules too, as is the salary cap.

The league has an anti-trust exemption, and therefore can do pretty much whatever the **** they want.

http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/content/labor-collective-bargaining

[Johnny Bugmenot]

Collective bargaining is against anti-trust rules too, as is the salary cap.

The league has an anti-trust exemption, and therefore can do pretty much whatever the **** they want.
That, and because the USFL only got $3 the last time they sued, nobody's willing to take the chance of trying again. They're basically getting away with breaking the law because nobody's willing to stop them.

[justasportsfan]

Seriously, someone brings this up at least once every two weeks.

Ptr

it's the bye week. Someone should start a new thread about it everyday.

[Dujek]

http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/content/labor-collective-bargaining

Which says what I said. Collective bargaining IS against anti-trust rules, but on occasion there are exemptions that are made in order to allow businesses to move forward. Though the majority of those are to enable unions to speak for all employees, the sports-related exemptions are among the few that allow separate independently owned companies to act as a single entity.

The thing is, the league seems to think that because they are exempt from part of the Anti-Trust laws they should be exempt from ALL of the Anti-Trust laws, and basically do what they want because no-one has the balls to stand up to them.

[trapezeus]

want to figure out how much money the nfl pours into governmental campaigns to preserve their monopoly?

They are supposed to provide games for free based on a model established in the 60's. Technically, on their anti-trust exemption, the NFL ticket should be free and available to all, yet they get to charge $300 a year for this. No one has said, "technology changed, the rules are that you make the games available on tv."

And i'm guessing the political will has been paid to not bring it up as an issue.

I love the NFL and simultaneously hate it.

[psubills62]

I love the NFL and simultaneously hate it.
Me too. I love the sport, but hate the NFL as a business. And unfortunately, college football is worse.

[Extremebillsfan247]

I have a question for you guys - what is stopping the Bills from adopting a similar ownership system that the Green Bay Packers employ, meaning, sell the team to the fans. I was thinking to myself earlier, why couldn't Jim Kelly and/or whoever, buy majority in the team's stock, and sell the rest to the fans of the Buffalo Bills around the country?

To my knowledge this has never been a topic of discussion and I'm wondering why. Any input?
Even if it were allowed, the team would be auctioned off to the highest bidder. However, not everyone is going to be allowed to make a bid on the team. The NFL Commissioner, along with the other 31 owners must approve of the prospective buyers before they can put their hat in the ring. It will be that exclusive.

Even then, getting approved only gets our foot in the door. Then we have to out bid the Millionaire investor groups, and billionaire boys club to get it. This year's Bills probably have better odds of getting to and winning the Super Bowl, than Bills fans would of actually outbidding the competition to buy an NFL team. JMO

[imbondz]

How would it be if someone asked every week for the rest of the year then?

eh, i'm ok with that as long as we keep winning.

[better days]

Even if it were allowed, the team would be auctioned off to the highest bidder. However, not everyone is going to be allowed to make a bid on the team. The NFL Commissioner, along with the other 31 owners must approve of the prospective buyers before they can put their hat in the ring. It will be that exclusive.

Even then, getting approved only gets our foot in the door. Then we have to out bid the Millionaire investor groups, and billionaire boys club to get it. This year's Bills probably have better odds of getting to and winning the Super Bowl, than Bills fans would of actually outbidding the competition to buy an NFL team. JMO

I remember when the Bucs were put up for sale, There were a few potential owners rejected by the NFL. Also, Rush Limbaugh was rejected by the NFL as a potential owner.

Goodell said the NFL considers Toronto part of the Buffalo market, so I think that excludes any potential team from moving there & should help keep the team in Buffalo.

[Johnny Bugmenot]

I remember when the Bucs were put up for sale, There were a few potential owners rejected by the NFL. Also, Rush Limbaugh was rejected by the NFL as a potential owner.

Goodell said the NFL considers Toronto part of the Buffalo market, so I think that excludes any potential team from moving there & should help keep the team in Buffalo.
First off, no, the league never took any action against Limbaugh. Dave Checketts, the man who Limbaugh was partnering with for the Rams bid, pulled out after all the less-than-savory things a lot of players were saying about him, and Limbaugh (although he is rich) isn't rich enough to buy an entire NFL team on his own. It wasn't so much of a ban as it was a boycott.

Second, if the NFL considers Toronto part of the Buffalo market, then theoretically wouldn't that make such a move a much more trivial in-market move (much like from War Memorial to Rich back in the 70s)? In other words, give the NFL even LESS reason to oppose it? Besides, we've already been through this with Al Davis-- the NFL can't stop a team from moving.

[delectrolux]

An excellent article about why the other owners will never let it happen (duh, greed), and why it would fix everything wrong with the game (duh, almost no relocation)...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=hruby/110131


Moreover, the Packers can't shake down their city by hiding their finances and pretending to cry poor, a la the Florida Marlins. Nor can they threaten to leave to get what they want. Instead -- novel concept! -- they have to work with their surrounding community.

Case in point: About a decade ago, two bankers on Green Bay's board of directors reportedly told then-chairman/CEO Bob Harlan that the team needed to increase its revenues, lest it end up "in a dire situation." In response, the Packers didn't ask for a new stadium. They didn't soak fans with exorbitant ticket prices.

To the contrary, they came up with a creative solution that involved -- and benefited -- both the team and its fans: adding a facility to Lambeau Field that housed stores, restaurants, a Packers Hall of Fame and a catering facility to facilitate weddings. (Remember: We're talking about Y.A. Tittletown.)

Harlan went to the Wisconsin state legislature to ask permission to hold a special referendum. Residents of Green Bay voted to chip in $169 million in public funds. The Packers contributed $136 million, funded in part by personal seat licenses sold for a reasonable, below-market value price. The facility was built in two years, boosted the team's revenues and became a model for other franchises.

Similarly, Green Bay's average ticket price is lower than the league average. No team charges less ($5.25) for a game-day brew. The club has volunteers staff its concession stands, with proceeds ($750,000 in 2009) going to local charity groups.

Think about that.


Stability. Security. A shared sense of purpose between fans and teams. If the Packers model seems too good to be true, that's because it is: In 1960, the league wrote a rule into its own constitution prohibiting additional nonprofit, publicly owned teams. Why should the great unwashed enjoy any of the money-printing, antitrust-exempted fun? Nevertheless, when Green Bay takes the field for Super Bowl XLV -- possibly the last pro football game of the calendar year -- it will be nice to imagine a better alternative.

Actually, you won't have to imagine.

[PromoTheRobot]

Bills concessions are run by volunteers who raise money for charity, too.

PTR

[YardRat]

Collective bargaining is against anti-trust rules too, as is the salary cap.

The league has an anti-trust exemption, and therefore can do pretty much whatever the **** they want.

Ehhhh...I'm not getting that.

Being exempt does not equal 'against'.

[better days]

First off, no, the league never took any action against Limbaugh. Dave Checketts, the man who Limbaugh was partnering with for the Rams bid, pulled out after all the less-than-savory things a lot of players were saying about him, and Limbaugh (although he is rich) isn't rich enough to buy an entire NFL team on his own. It wasn't so much of a ban as it was a boycott.

Second, if the NFL considers Toronto part of the Buffalo market, then theoretically wouldn't that make such a move a much more trivial in-market move (much like from War Memorial to Rich back in the 70s)? In other words, give the NFL even LESS reason to oppose it? Besides, we've already been through this with Al Davis-- the NFL can't stop a team from moving.

You got it wrong. Checketts DROPPED Limbaugh from his group in a failed effort to get approved by the NFL. He did so because he knew there was no way the NFL would approve Limbaugh. Well they would not approve of Checketts & his group without Limbaugh either. Just goes to show what I & others have been saying, the NFL will have to approve the new owner of the Bills.

The Bills could be moved if the owner wants to move them. Especially to Toronto since that is considered the same market by the NFL. HOWEVER the league does have the right to approve the new owner of the Bills & I doubt any new owner gets approved unless he gives the NFL assurances the Bills will not be moved.

It would be a nightmare for the NFL to lose hundreds of thousands of Bills fans not only in Buffalo but around the Country by moving the Bills to Toronto or anywhere else.