Poloncarz encouraged by talks about keeping Bills in Buffalo

[BLeonard]

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121219/CITYANDREGION/121219120/two-bills-drive-1004



ALBANY – Erie County Executive Mark C. Poloncarz was sounding confident Wednesday after what he described as “significant talks” Tuesday night by representatives of the county, state and Buffalo Bills about keeping the team from leaving town.

Poloncarz said earlier discussions about a short-term, one-year deal to give the sides more time to resolve issues are now off the table, and all sides are focused on a multiyear effort that would include public financing – including capital and some operating costs – for the team in return for a commitment to stay.

“It’s a complicated deal. I like the position we’re in, but we’re not there yet,” Poloncarz said Wednesday in an interview with The Buffalo News at the State Capitol.




He said the talks are complicated, and if there is a final deal, it will entail multiple documents that will be well in excess of six inches high.

“It all comes down to we want to ensure this team’s here for a significant time period, so if we’re going to invest public dollars to renovate Ralph Wilson Stadium and assist the Bills with operating assistance as we have in the past, then we also want to ensure they’re there for some period,” he said.

Poloncarz described Tuesday night’s negotiating session as “significant” and “very good.”

Some observers have theorized the Bills may want a short-term deal because of health problems confronting Ralph Wilson, the team’s aging owner, and ownership issues that may arise upon his death.

But Poloncarz said he believes all sides – the county, state and team – are committed to a longer-term deal instead of a temporary, one-year type of arrangement. “There was a discussion at one point,” he said of a shorter-term arrangement, “but I think everyone realizes why do a short-term lease if we can get a long-term lease done now.”

Four times during the interview, Poloncarz repeated the phrase: “I like the position we’re in.”


So, there is no one year deal for next year... Based on the comments, the state has gained more of an advantage in negotiations, due to the Bills' poor performance and record this season. That's the only thing I can think of when he's saying “I like the position we’re in.”

-Bill

[trapezeus]

"I like the position we are in"

Interpretation: Toronto laughed at the bills after allowing 50 points. The Bills want to steal the $78MM from the state of new york and leave the good people of canada out of this heist this time. No one else wants the bills because they know the ghost of ralph wilson will hold this team where-ever it goes. SOoooo, we are kind of the only option for Ralph and his buddy smithers....er. Brandon.

[OpIv37]

Question: Why does the state believe that the next owner of the team will be so willing to honor Ralph Wilson's commitment to stay?

It sounds like that if this gets done, the team will definitely stay for the remainder of Ralph's life (which really wasn't in doubt anyway, because if Ralph was going to move, he would have done it years ago). But once Ralph is gone and the new ownership comes in, they will be under no obligation to abide by a commitment they did not make.

[ServoBillieves]

Russ Brandon read this and licked his lips and enjoyed himself.

[better days]

Question: Why does the state believe that the next owner of the team will be so willing to honor Ralph Wilson's commitment to stay?

It sounds like that if this gets done, the team will definitely stay for the remainder of Ralph's life (which really wasn't in doubt anyway, because if Ralph was going to move, he would have done it years ago). But once Ralph is gone and the new ownership comes in, they will be under no obligation to abide by a commitment they did not make.

I disagree. I think the language in the new contract will ensure the Bills stay in Buffalo for at least the length of the contract.

[BLeonard]

"I like the position we are in"

Interpretation: Toronto laughed at the bills after allowing 50 points. The Bills want to steal the $78MM from the state of new york and leave the good people of canada out of this heist this time. No one else wants the bills because they know the ghost of ralph wilson will hold this team where-ever it goes. SOoooo, we are kind of the only option for Ralph and his buddy smithers....er. Brandon.

Yeah, kinda how I read it too... Especially after Eric Wood's comments on the Bills Toronto Series. Brandon calling it "regionalization" was simply because he couldn't come out and say "money grab."

In theory, the Bills Toronto Series wasn't a bad idea. The main problem was, many fans felt that they got a much better, cheaper experience by simply going to RWS for the games. Add onto that the fact that the team has been piss poor for over a decade with no real signs of improvement... That's gonna severely cut into the number of people that are willing to pay for your product, regardless of where you hold it at.

Why should Erie County give them $200 million plus dollars to renovate the stadium in Orchard Park, if the Bills are just gonna turn around and leave that stadium vacant, to peddle a game per year off to Toronto?

I like the position that they are in, too.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

Question: Why does the state believe that the next owner of the team will be so willing to honor Ralph Wilson's commitment to stay?

It sounds like that if this gets done, the team will definitely stay for the remainder of Ralph's life (which really wasn't in doubt anyway, because if Ralph was going to move, he would have done it years ago). But once Ralph is gone and the new ownership comes in, they will be under no obligation to abide by a commitment they did not make.

Pretty sure that, if Erie County and NYS are gonna fork over $200 million plus for stadium renovation, they're gonna get a return on their investment.

I'm also fairly sure that the lease would be in effect, regardless of who the owner is. The Jaguars got a new owner last year, it didn't change their lease situation.

-Bill

[OpIv37]

I disagree. I think the language in the new contract will ensure the Bills stay in Buffalo for at least the length of the contract.

Well Jacksonville's contract has that language too, but they keep coming up as a potential move candidate, on this site and elsewhere.

And, why would Ralph do that? Locking the team to Buffalo may hurt the resale value after he passes, which means less money for his family.

[OpIv37]

Pretty sure that, if Erie County and NYS are gonna fork over $200 million plus for stadium renovation, they're gonna get a return on their investment.

I'm also fairly sure that the lease would be in effect, regardless of who the owner is. The Jaguars got a new owner last year, it didn't change their lease situation.

-Bill

And that's why I keep telling people that the Bills are more likely to move than Jax, even though the Bills have a much better fan base. But no one wants to hear it.

[better days]

And that's why I keep telling people that the Bills are more likely to move than Jax, even though the Bills have a much better fan base. But no one wants to hear it.

Jax should have never been awarded an expansion Franchise in the first place, but why did LA not get that Franchise? I just read on Profootball talk that Oakland can't afford to build a Stadium for the Raiders with public money. S.D. also can't get a new stadium built. If any team moves to LA it will be one of those two.

[OpIv37]

Jax should have never been awarded an expansion Franchise in the first place, but why did LA not get that Franchise? I just read on Profootball talk that Oakland can't afford to build a Stadium for the Raiders with public money. S.D. also can't get a new stadium built. If any team moves to LA it will be one of those two.

There are rumors that SF and Oakland will build a shared stadium.

The Chargers make the most sense, but if doing things that make the most sense always happened, Jax wouldn't have a team in the first place.

As far as why LA didn't get the Jaguars, well, they were awarded the team in 1993. At the time, both the Raiders and Rams were still in LA. So, there's your answer.

[better days]

There are rumors that SF and Oakland will build a shared stadium.

The Chargers make the most sense, but if doing things that make the most sense always happened, Jax wouldn't have a team in the first place.

As far as why LA didn't get the Jaguars, well, they were awarded the team in 1993. At the time, both the Raiders and Rams were still in LA. So, there's your answer.

A Stadium is in the works for the 49ers. If the Raiders share that Stadium with them they will be as the Jets were in Giants Stadium, 2nd class citizens.

I am not sure of the dates, but I believe both the Rams & Raiders made it known they were leaving LA at about the time Jax was awarded their franchise.

[BLeonard]

A Stadium is in the works for the 49ers. If the Raiders share that Stadium with them they will be as the Jets were in Giants Stadium, 2nd class citizens.

I am not sure of the dates, but I believe both the Rams & Raiders made it known they were leaving LA at about the time Jax was awarded their franchise.

No, OP's right on that one... Jacksonville was awarded the franchise in late 1993... The Raiders and Rams didn't leave until after the 1994 season. In both cases, neither really gave much "notice."

This article here, written on 11/21/94 talked about the possibility of the Rams and Raiders leaving: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1005967/index.htm

The Rams had been rumored to be leaving since 1990... But, nothing came of it until after the 1994 season. Again, after Jacksonville had been awarded their franchise.

-Bill

[OpIv37]

A Stadium is in the works for the 49ers. If the Raiders share that Stadium with them they will be as the Jets were in Giants Stadium, 2nd class citizens.



They aren't 2nd class citizens already? Please. I think most teams would rather be 2nd class in a brand new stadium than the only team in an outdated POS.

[BLeonard]

And that's why I keep telling people that the Bills are more likely to move than Jax, even though the Bills have a much better fan base. But no one wants to hear it.

I could see both sides of it, really. Yeah, Jacksonville has a pretty good lease situation, making it difficult for the Jaguars to move. But, I certainly don't see it as impossible. After all, the Jags are scheduling regular season home games in London for the next few years, so it's not like the lease anchors them their for 8 games a season. I don't know the ins and outs of Jacksonville's lease, but my guess is, if the owner really wanted to get out of it, there's a way to do so. It might cost him a pretty penny, but it could be done.

As for the Bills, all's I'm saying is that, if the county and state are going to fork over $200 million plus for renovations, I'm pretty sure that they are going to expect a return on their investment, whether Ralph Wilson is the owner or not. I'm sure they know,as well as all of us do, that any long-term lease done will almost assuredly be longer than the rest of Wilson's lifespan. As a result, I'd expect that the county and state are looking to get an agreement that keeps the Bills in Orchard Park long enough to get a return on their investment, regardless of who the owner is.

I do agree that a "better fanbase" will have little or nothing to do in determining whether or not a team leaves. As I've said before, ask Cleveland Brown or Seattle Supersonic fans how much "fan support" plays into determining whether a team leaves or not. Fan support means very little in determining whether or not a team is moved.

-Bill

[trapezeus]

aside from estate taxes, i can't imagine why the family would want to sell the bills. the NFL guarantees you a stream of money befor eyou even sell a single luxury box and or jersey...revenues continue to move up. if you are $800MM right now, there is almost no way to not think the growth of that asset will exceed almost any other asset you could hold and it comes with a ~$50MM dividend befor eyou sell a single ticket.

Imagine getting a wilson family member who says, "oh, i can make this team great and all the fair weather fans across america who love winners will buy our stuff at x amount and we'll get even richer.

I can't imagine that schumer and company won't come up with some backdoor plan for them to get off the estate plan hook and have them pay over time vs a lump sum.

If he can do that, there is zero reason the team should be sold. it's more value in its cashflow than from it's sale. that's my opinion.

[BLeonard]

A Stadium is in the works for the 49ers. If the Raiders share that Stadium with them they will be as the Jets were in Giants Stadium, 2nd class citizens.

Just another thing to keep in mind: The only reason Al Davis moved the Raiders to LA in the first place was because they promised to upgrade the LA Coliseum. When that didn't happen and Oakland finally renovated the Alameda Coliseum, Davis went back. Before the Raiders moved to LA, the Rams had their home games in the Coliseum, before moving to Anaheim.

-Bill

[jimmifli]

Here's the top 100 TV markets in America:

Rank Metropolitan Market Regions / Areas

1 New York
2 Los Angeles
3 Chicago
4 Philadelphia
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth
6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
7 Boston
8 Atlanta
9 Washington, DC
10 Houston
11 Detroit
12 Phoenix
13 Tampa-St. Petersburg
14 Seattle-Tacoma
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul
16 Miami-Ft.Lauderdale
17 Cleveland-Akron
18 Denver
19 Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne
20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto
21 St. Louis
22 Portland, OR
23 Pittsburgh
24 Charlotte, NC
25 Indianapolis
26 Baltimore
27 Raleigh-Durham
28 San Diego
29 Nashville
30 Hartford-New Haven
31 Kansas City
32 Columbus, OH
33 Salt Lake City
34 Cincinnati
35 Milwaukee
36 Greenville-Spartanburg-Asheville-Anderson
37 San Antonio
38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce
39 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek
40 Birmingham
41 Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York
42 Las Vegas
43 Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News
44 Albuquerque-Santa Fe
45 Oklahoma City
46 Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem
47 Jacksonville, FL
48 Memphis
49 Austin
50 Louisville
51 Buffalo
52 Providence-New Bedford
53 New Orleans
54 Wilkes Barre-Scranton
55 Fresno-Visalia
56 Little Rock-Pine Bluff
57 Albany-Schenectady-Troy
58 Richmond-Petersburg
59 Knoxville
60 Mobile-Pensacola
61 Tulsa
62 Ft. Myers-Naples
63 Lexington
64 Dayton
65 Charleston-Huntington
66 Flint-Saginaw-Bay City
67 Roanoke-Lynchburg
68 Tucson
69 Wichita-Hutchinson
70 Green Bay-Appleton
71 Des Moines-Ames
72 Honolulu
73 Toledo
74 Springfield, MO
75 Spokane
76 Omaha
77 Portland-Auburn
78 Paducah-Cape Girardeau-Harrisburg
79 Columbia, SC
80 Rochester, NY
81 Syracuse
82 Huntsville-Decatur
83 Champaign-Springfield-Decatur
84 Shreveport
85 Madison
86 Chattanooga
87 Harlingen-Weslaco-Brownsville-McAllen
88 Cedar Rapids-Waterloo-Iowa City-Dubuque
89 South Bend-Elkhart
90 Jackson, MS
91 Colorado Springs-Pueblo
92 Tri-Cities, TN-NC-VA
93 Burlington-Plattsburgh
94 Waco-Temple-Bryan
95 Baton Rouge
96 Savannah
97 Davenport-Rock Island-Moline
98 El Paso
99 Charleston, SC
100 Ft. Smith-Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers


It's pretty obvious what the NFL strategy has been and why the TV deal is so rich. After the gap in LA, it's a long way down the list before you find a market without a close team. 18 games got shot down, so there aren't many options for raising revenue left. They'll need a team in LA for a few years prior to their next TV deal, so expect a team to be moved soon.

But once that's done, there aren't any unserved large markets worth uprooting a franchise to chase. If we can get a long term deal signed, another team will be in LA by the time the deal is finished and at that point the profit motive for moving is greatly diminished. Getting a longterm deal now is extremely important.

[stuckincincy]

"Revenue in the NFL reached an estimated $9.5 billion in 2011-12. That is up $500 million (5.6%) from the year before, and $1.8 billion (23.4%) more than Major League Baseball ($7.7 billion)"...

http://www.businessinsider.com/sports-chart-of-the-day-nfl-revenue-still-dwarfs-other-major-sports-2012-10

[better days]

They aren't 2nd class citizens already? Please. I think most teams would rather be 2nd class in a brand new stadium than the only team in an outdated POS.

Agreed, BUT wouldn't it be BETTER to be the PREMIER team in a NEW Stadium in LA? I hear that is a GREAT market & the Raiders already have a fan base there.

[better days]

Here's the top 100 TV markets in America:

Rank Metropolitan Market Regions / Areas


It's pretty obvious what the NFL strategy has been and why the TV deal is so rich. After the gap in LA, it's a long way down the list before you find a market without a close team. 18 games got shot down, so there aren't many options for raising revenue left. They'll need a team in LA for a few years prior to their next TV deal, so expect a team to be moved soon.

But once that's done, there aren't any unserved large markets worth uprooting a franchise to chase. If we can get a long term deal signed, another team will be in LA by the time the deal is finished and at that point the profit motive for moving is greatly diminished. Getting a longterm deal now is extremely important.

I notice Buffalo & Rochester are listed seperately, but Cleveland & Akron are combined as are San Francisco/Oakland/SanJose as well as a number of other markets. WTF?

[trapezeus]

and boston gets to be called new england and has the regional approach with a stadium in the middle of no where, and a completely lack luster fan base. remember when they weren't cheating...i mean losing. Remember the crowds that came then?

there is something to be said to a future owner, "you can go try and make it super rich else where, but you will have to be good all the time for them to consistently care. you make x dollars with a 13 year record of failure in buffalo. and for their small market, they tend to lead the tv ratings on football games. so when you see the national market share per game, bills fans are doing their part. and they are buying the season ticket...they are your hedge if the NFL were ever to hit hard times.

but no one ever thinks the NFL can't be the leader in sports in america. And that's what baseball thought and that's what the NBA thought in the 90's when they were heralded as the best run league. things can change. fandom in buffalo nevr does.

[jimmifli]

I notice Buffalo & Rochester are listed seperately, but Cleveland & Akron are combined as are San Francisco/Oakland/SanJose as well as a number of other markets. WTF?

I think it's just how it's drawn up, maybe coming from Nielsen. After LA, I think you're down to 33 Salt Lake City before you have an underserved market. I just can't see them moving a team with Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Southern Ontario to move up a few spots. It's a marginal gain and not worth the risk, costs and legal fights. While a new owner might be able to get a stadium in another market, it would be a fight for them to get a move approved, if it doesn't increase the size of the TV market.

Basically, once their is a team in LA, the NFL has a team within a few hours drive of all the top 50 markets and most of the top 100.

[OpIv37]

and boston gets to be called new england and has the regional approach with a stadium in the middle of no where, and a completely lack luster fan base. remember when they weren't cheating...i mean losing. Remember the crowds that came then?

there is something to be said to a future owner, "you can go try and make it super rich else where, but you will have to be good all the time for them to consistently care. you make x dollars with a 13 year record of failure in buffalo. and for their small market, they tend to lead the tv ratings on football games. so when you see the national market share per game, bills fans are doing their part. and they are buying the season ticket...they are your hedge if the NFL were ever to hit hard times.

but no one ever thinks the NFL can't be the leader in sports in america. And that's what baseball thought and that's what the NBA thought in the 90's when they were heralded as the best run league. things can change. fandom in buffalo nevr does.

The problem is that the NFL owners don't think like that anymore. They don't give a **** about the average fan- they're looking for luxury box revenue and TV contracts. It's short-sighted, because the TV viewing and luxury box sales will fade when times are tough for the team, but the die-hards never go away. They'd rather sell a luxury box for $50k a game in Cowboys Stadium than create a lifelong fan who will be worth far more than that in terms of dollars spent and advertising consumed over the course of his life.

[jimmifli]

and boston gets to be called new england and has the regional approach with a stadium in the middle of no where, and a completely lack luster fan base. remember when they weren't cheating...i mean losing. Remember the crowds that came then?

there is something to be said to a future owner, "you can go try and make it super rich else where, but you will have to be good all the time for them to consistently care. you make x dollars with a 13 year record of failure in buffalo. and for their small market, they tend to lead the tv ratings on football games. so when you see the national market share per game, bills fans are doing their part. and they are buying the season ticket...they are your hedge if the NFL were ever to hit hard times.

but no one ever thinks the NFL can't be the leader in sports in america. And that's what baseball thought and that's what the NBA thought in the 90's when they were heralded as the best run league. things can change. fandom in buffalo nevr does.

That's really what it comes down to. Buffalo is the lowest risk for a new owner. The NFL needs a team in LA and they'll get lots of "support" from the NFL, so that might be lower risk higher profit venture. But once that spot is filled, the Bills are safe for the foreseeable future.

[jimmifli]

The problem is that the NFL owners don't think like that anymore. They don't give a **** about the average fan- they're looking for luxury box revenue and TV contracts. It's short-sighted, because the TV viewing and luxury box sales will fade when times are tough for the team, but the die-hards never go away. They'd rather sell a luxury box for $50k a game in Cowboys Stadium than create a lifelong fan who will be worth far more than that in terms of dollars spent and advertising consumed over the course of his life.

But the other owners realize the bulk of the revenue still comes from the TV deal, so they'll approve a move to a bigger market, but it would be an uphill battle to be moved to a smaller TV market. The Pats couldn't even get that approved when they tried to move to Connecticut. So the owner would need three things, a larger TV market than Buffalo, a new stadium and a fan base with money. That's a tough combination to find.

[OpIv37]

But the other owners realize the bulk of the revenue still comes from the TV deal, so they'll approve a move to a bigger market, but it would be an uphill battle to be moved to a smaller TV market. The Pats couldn't even get that approved when they tried to move to Connecticut. So the owner would need three things, a larger TV market than Buffalo, a new stadium and a fan base with money. That's a tough combination to find.

LA has a fan base with money. LA is a larger TV market.

They just need the stadium.

And teams will move to a temporary home if a new stadium can be agreed upon before the move.

[jimmifli]

LA has a fan base with money. LA is a larger TV market.

They just need the stadium.

And teams will move to a temporary home if a new stadium can be agreed upon before the move.

That's my point. It's really the only market left that makes sense for a move. The NFL's current TV deal will run through 2022, so they'll need a team in LA at least a year prior to that but more likely 5 years to maximize the ratings and therefore the maximize the increase they can demand from the networks. So let's say they'll want to have a team in LA by 2017, but the sooner the better.

If the Bills sign a 10 year plus agreement now, LA will be filled before the lease is up. This is the deal that keeps the Bills here for the foreseeable future.

[OpIv37]

That's my point. It's really the only market left that makes sense for a move. The NFL's current TV deal will run through 2022, so they'll need a team in LA at least a year prior to that but more likely 5 years to maximize the ratings and therefore the maximize the increase they can demand from the networks. So let's say they'll want to have a team in LA by 2017, but the sooner the better.

If the Bills sign a 10 year plus agreement now, LA will be filled before the lease is up. This is the deal that keeps the Bills here for the foreseeable future.

I agree with that. A team other than Buffalo moving to LA would greatly increase the chances of the Bills staying. There are other markets out there- like San Antonio, Las Vegas, and Toronto, but you'd have a hard time making a case that any of those markets are really that much better than Buffalo. None of the major sports leagues want teams in Vegas because they like to pretend they don't encourage gambling. Toronto has had a weak showing in the Bills in Toronto series, and while they embrace a team for 1 game a season, many people up there don't like the idea of a full time American football team because they think it presents a challenge to the CFL.

While I don't want to see any city lose their team to LA, another team going there would be the best thing for Buffalo.

[BertSquirtgum]

Question: Why does the state believe that the next owner of the team will be so willing to honor Ralph Wilson's commitment to stay?

It sounds like that if this gets done, the team will definitely stay for the remainder of Ralph's life (which really wasn't in doubt anyway, because if Ralph was going to move, he would have done it years ago). But once Ralph is gone and the new ownership comes in, they will be under no obligation to abide by a commitment they did not make.

Question: Why wouldn't the state believe that the next owner of the team will be so willing to honor Ralph Wilson's commitment to stay?

[better days]

I agree with that. A team other than Buffalo moving to LA would greatly increase the chances of the Bills staying. There are other markets out there- like San Antonio, Las Vegas, and Toronto, but you'd have a hard time making a case that any of those markets are really that much better than Buffalo. None of the major sports leagues want teams in Vegas because they like to pretend they don't encourage gambling. Toronto has had a weak showing in the Bills in Toronto series, and while they embrace a team for 1 game a season, many people up there don't like the idea of a full time American football team because they think it presents a challenge to the CFL.

While I don't want to see any city lose their team to LA, another team going there would be the best thing for Buffalo.

San Antonio: Jerry would NEVER allow a team there. That is Cowboys Country.

Las Vegas: The NFL will never go there because of Gambling & talk about a transient City. Take away the Gamblers & Vegas would have the population of Elma.

Toronto: You already addressed.

[jimmifli]

San Antonio: Jerry would NEVER allow a team there. That is Cowboys Country.

Las Vegas: The NFL will never go there because of Gambling & talk about a transient City. Take away the Gamblers & Vegas would have the population of Elma.

Toronto: You already addressed.

There's some large TV markets in Florida and Alabama that are still underserved, but Florida doesn't support the teams they've already got. After that you're looking at Utah. So, there isn't really anywhere for an owner to move, and why would they? The Bills have been the worst team in the NFL for a decade and a half and been above average in terms of profitability throughout that span. That's such a low risk investment.

[OpIv37]

Question: Why wouldn't the state believe that the next owner of the team will be so willing to honor Ralph Wilson's commitment to stay?

because someone shelling out $800 million for a team is going to want a return on their investment, and if they think they can get a greater return somewhere else, they will take it.

It's about money. It's not about the commitments of some old man who has no connection to the new owners other than a signature to complete the sale.

[OpIv37]

San Antonio: Jerry would NEVER allow a team there. That is Cowboys Country.

Las Vegas: The NFL will never go there because of Gambling & talk about a transient City. Take away the Gamblers & Vegas would have the population of Elma.

Toronto: You already addressed.

Geography fail. San Antonio is closer to Houston than Dallas

[BLeonard]

Geography fail. San Antonio is closer to Houston than Dallas

While that is true, Dallas has held many training camps in recent years in San Antonio, similar to how the Bills have held camps at St. John Fisher and Fredonia before that. Meanwhile, the Texans hold their training camp in Houston.

Especially with a billion dollar stadium to fill, I don't think old Jerruh would be wanting to give up territory that he's "staked a claim" for in year's past. He's got enough problems with the Texans offering a better on-field product currently... I don't think he'd want anymore competition nearby snagging fans (and their wallets) from "America's Team".

-Bill

[IlluminatusUIUC]

The problem is that the NFL owners don't think like that anymore. They don't give a **** about the average fan- they're looking for luxury box revenue and TV contracts. It's short-sighted, because the TV viewing and luxury box sales will fade when times are tough for the team, but the die-hards never go away. They'd rather sell a luxury box for $50k a game in Cowboys Stadium than create a lifelong fan who will be worth far more than that in terms of dollars spent and advertising consumed over the course of his life.

You think a lifelong fan is worth 50K a year?

[OpIv37]

You think a lifelong fan is worth 50K a year?

a year? no.

But every team has down cycles and there will be a lot of years where those bandwagon corporate fans are worth 0.

[better days]

There's some large TV markets in Florida and Alabama that are still underserved, but Florida doesn't support the teams they've already got. After that you're looking at Utah. So, there isn't really anywhere for an owner to move, and why would they? The Bills have been the worst team in the NFL for a decade and a half and been above average in terms of profitability throughout that span. That's such a low risk investment.

Orlando is the only large market in Florida without an NFL team but they have an NBA team. The Fins & Bucs both have MANY fans in that City that have been fans for YEARS.

[better days]

While that is true, Dallas has held many training camps in recent years in San Antonio, similar to how the Bills have held camps at St. John Fisher and Fredonia before that. Meanwhile, the Texans hold their training camp in Houston.

Especially with a billion dollar stadium to fill, I don't think old Jerruh would be wanting to give up territory that he's "staked a claim" for in year's past. He's got enough problems with the Texans offering a better on-field product currently... I don't think he'd want anymore competition nearby snagging fans (and their wallets) from "America's Team".

-Bill

Exactly & the Texans would only add to the problem anyone wanting to move there would have. Just as Orlando is much closer to Tampa, it has MANY Fins fans becuase they were in existence MUCH longer than the Bucs & with a GOOD team for most of that time. The COWBOYS have been Texas's team a LONG time & they have been a GOOD team over that time. I would bet Cowboys fans outnumber Texan fans 10 to 1 in San Antonio.

[better days]

because someone shelling out $800 million for a team is going to want a return on their investment, and if they think they can get a greater return somewhere else, they will take it.

It's about money. It's not about the commitments of some old man who has no connection to the new owners other than a signature to complete the sale.

When the lease is signed, it will be a legal BINDING contract. Of course all contracts can be broken, the question is the cost & difficulty to do so, hence the reason it is taking so long to get finished & it will be many pages thick.

[OpIv37]

When the lease is signed, it will be a legal BINDING contract. Of course all contracts can be broken, the question is the cost & difficulty to do so, hence the reason it is taking so long to get finished & it will be many pages thick.

You alluded to this yourself, but nothing is ever binding if you have enough lawyers and money to get you out of it.

[better days]

You alluded to this yourself, but nothing is ever binding if you have enough lawyers and money to get you out of it.

Agreed, but there is a price point where it makes no sense to break a contract. It would cost so much to get out of it, it would not be worth it to do so. Lets hope the contract between the Bills & Erie County has a HIGH price point.

[OpIv37]

Agreed, but there is a price point where it makes no sense to break a contract. It would cost so much to get out of it, it would not be worth it to do so. Lets hope the contract between the Bills & Erie County has a HIGH price point.

Agreed.

I just have a hard time believing that Ralph would ever agree to such a contract.

[BLeonard]

Agreed.

I just have a hard time believing that Ralph would ever agree to such a contract.

At this point, he might not have much of a choice... There's not a lot of options open to him currently.

That might be what Poloncarz meant when he said “I like the position we’re in.”

-Bill

[stuckincincy]

You alluded to this yourself, but nothing is ever binding if you have enough lawyers and money to get you out of it.

Heh - old (lousy) joke:

A fellow is at a party, and asks a math professor what 2 plus 2 is. He replies - Hmm, base ten math, no imaginary numbers. The answer is 4. He asks a mechanical engineer, who replies that well-founded engineering principles show that the answer is 4.

Then he asks a lawyer. The lawyer slowly looks left and right, bends his head to the fellow's ear, and whispers..."What would you like it to be?"

[Johnny Bugmenot]

Well Jacksonville's contract has that language too, but they keep coming up as a potential move candidate, on this site and elsewhere.

And, why would Ralph do that? Locking the team to Buffalo may hurt the resale value after he passes, which means less money for his family.
Well the reason is because these relocation fees/clauses are unconstitutional. They're interstate commerce, meaning that's a federal issue, not a state issue. They can prevent the team from moving to NYC, but not to LA, Toronto or anywhere else.

[better days]

Well the reason is because these relocation fees/clauses are unconstitutional. They're interstate commerce, meaning that's a federal issue, not a state issue. They can prevent the team from moving to NYC, but not to LA, Toronto or anywhere else.

Where in the CONSTITUTION does it say you can not have arelocation fee??????????? I knew the Constitution allowed us the right to bear arms, but I did not know it prohibited fees.

[OpIv37]

Well the reason is because these relocation fees/clauses are unconstitutional. They're interstate commerce, meaning that's a federal issue, not a state issue. They can prevent the team from moving to NYC, but not to LA, Toronto or anywhere else.

That doesn't make the fees unconstitutional.

It means the federal government has to pass the laws that control whether the fees are legal or not, not the states.

[OpIv37]

Well the reason is because these relocation fees/clauses are unconstitutional. They're interstate commerce, meaning that's a federal issue, not a state issue. They can prevent the team from moving to NYC, but not to LA, Toronto or anywhere else.

Also, I'm not really sure how the fees even count as interstate commerce. They essentially penalize a team for getting out of a lease contract early- just like changing cell phone companies before your time is up or moving out of an apartment before the lease is up. You have to pay penalties. It's a fee for breaking the contract early- where they go after the contract is broken is irrelevant.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Also, I'm not really sure how the fees even count as interstate commerce. They essentially penalize a team for getting out of a lease contract early- just like changing cell phone companies before your time is up or moving out of an apartment before the lease is up. You have to pay penalties. It's a fee for breaking the contract early- where they go after the contract is broken is irrelevant.

Cell phone contracts are interstate commerce. Admittedly, the bar for what constitutes interstate commerce is pretty low, but it's clearly met here. It's a lease with a professional sports franchise (which is a member of an interstate league) specifically for the purpose of hosting games vs. interstate opponents.

Now, the federal government would likely have the power to prevent municipalities from contracting in this manner, but AFAIK they haven't done so. However, if New York tried to pass a law that the Bills would have to pay a fee to leave Buffalo, that would be a clear violation and would be struck down even in the absence of federal legislation.

[better days]

Cell phone contracts are interstate commerce. Admittedly, the bar for what constitutes interstate commerce is pretty low, but it's clearly met here. It's a lease with a professional sports franchise (which is a member of an interstate league) specifically for the purpose of hosting games vs. interstate opponents.

Now, the federal government would likely have the power to prevent municipalities from contracting in this manner, but AFAIK they haven't done so. However, if New York tried to pass a law that the Bills would have to pay a fee to leave Buffalo, that would be a clear violation and would be struck down even in the absence of federal legislation.

You can have a FEE without making a law. We are talking about a contract, not a law. The Bills signed that contract & are legally bound by it as is anyone that buys the Bills & assumes the contract as part of the sale.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

You can have a FEE without making a law. We are talking about a contract, not a law. The Bills signed that contract & are legally bound by it as is anyone that buys the Bills & assumes the contract as part of the sale.

Yes, I know that. Did you read my second paragraph? The county/city and the Bills are allowed to make this contract because the Congress hasn't specifically prevented them from doing so. But Congress could do so under the ICC if they wanted to. What the state cannot do is accomplish the same thing with a law, which would be unconstitutional.

[better days]

Yes, I know that. Did you read my second paragraph? The county/city and the Bills are allowed to make this contract because the Congress hasn't specifically prevented them from doing so. But Congress could do so under the ICC if they wanted to. What the state cannot do is accomplish the same thing with a law, which would be unconstitutional.

NOBODY has ever said that NY State wanted to pass a LAW about the relocation FEE so what is your point? The County & the Bills agreed to a relocation FEE in the new contract as there was in the old contract for a lesser amount of money & as most other teams & municipalities have in their Stadium contracts. And it my be unlawful to pass such a law, but it would not be unconstitutional because there is nothing in the Constitution about that.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

NOBODY has ever said that NY State wanted to pass a LAW about the relocation FEE so what is your point? The County & the Bills agreed to a relocation FEE in the new contract as there was in the old contract for a lesser amount of money & as most other teams & municipalities have in their Stadium contracts.

I'm AWARE of that, that's why I SAID it in my POST. Bugmenot brought up the ICC so I EXPLAINED what it MEANS.


And it my be unlawful to pass such a law, but it would not be unconstitutional because there is nothing in the Constitution about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause

[BertSquirtgum]

Well the reason is because these relocation fees/clauses are unconstitutional. They're interstate commerce, meaning that's a federal issue, not a state issue. They can prevent the team from moving to NYC, but not to LA, Toronto or anywhere else.

You're a clown. You were the number one advocate that this team was moving. Well guess what *******? It isn't, so give it up already.

[Mr. Pink]

Well the reason is because these relocation fees/clauses are unconstitutional. They're interstate commerce, meaning that's a federal issue, not a state issue. They can prevent the team from moving to NYC, but not to LA, Toronto or anywhere else.

Then why did Art Modell have to pay 29 million in relocation fees? Or the Rams had to pay relocation fees to go to St Louis?

Or is this a new constitution law just recently added that no one knows of but you?