Ladies & Gentlemen Let Me Introduce your LA Falcons.

[better days]

A short while ago in a thread about the Bills moving to LA, I said the NFL did not really want a team in LA because the owners wanted to use LA as leverage against the Cities the are in. I was called crazy for saying that. Well, both the owners of the Carolina Panthers & now the Atlanta Falcons are using the threat of moving to LA to try to improve their Stadium situation. I have been proven correct without question & everyone that called me crazy owes me an apology.

[trapezeus]

but it's an option they'd more than be happy to fill.

Personally, i think Atlanta should keep their mouth shut. they are in a huge stadium built 15 years ago. leaving now is absurd. it was cutting edge when it was openned. and i'm sure they are happy with the size of boxes when established for olympics.

i get the towns with stadiums that are 25 years and older. those stadiums were built for a different NFL pricing era. When teams wanted really full stadiums and family friendly prices. Now its all about boxes and not sharing those revenues. so yeah, you want more boxes. stadiums from 25 years or earlier don't have that.

[better days]

but it's an option they'd more than be happy to fill.

Personally, i think Atlanta should keep their mouth shut. they are in a huge stadium built 15 years ago. leaving now is absurd. it was cutting edge when it was openned. and i'm sure they are happy with the size of boxes when established for olympics.

i get the towns with stadiums that are 25 years and older. those stadiums were built for a different NFL pricing era. When teams wanted really full stadiums and family friendly prices. Now its all about boxes and not sharing those revenues. so yeah, you want more boxes. stadiums from 25 years or earlier don't have that.

It is as I said. The owners want to use LA as leverage against the Cities they play in. The Stadium in Charlotte is not that old either. I doubt there will be another NFL team in LA in my lifetime.

[THE END OF ALL DAYS]

I'm am sorry that you are crazy

[PTI]

The Jerry Jones retractable dome will be built in Atlanta, we are down to 5 different contractors, it is going to happen.

[braddavery]

16249

[better days]

I'm am sorry that you are crazy

I think it is the CRAZY person calling me crazy. That often happens. Crazy people do not realize they are crazy. I have been proven CORRECT in what I said.

[DynaPaul]

Why wouldn't they? Bilbo Krafty used Connecticut as leverage against Massachusetts to get a nice new stadium. He even had a signed agreement.

[YardRat]

I thought Jerry Richardson publicly denied any interest at all in moving to LA?

[X-Era]

I'm so glad that finally these stories have no link to the Bills anymore.

[better days]

I thought Jerry Richardson publicly denied any interest at all in moving to LA?

There is a link on profootballtalk.com in the article about the Falcons using LA as leverage. Richardson 76 years old, heart transplant, fired his sons three years ago, refuses to announce a succession plan. No comment about LA.

[Mike]

It is as I said. The owners want to use LA as leverage against the Cities they play in. The Stadium in Charlotte is not that old either. I doubt there will be another NFL team in LA in my lifetime.

Owners, players, etc... we all use any leverage we can get and LA is great leverage. It offers an element of Fear, which is a great motivator. Owner use LA, the same way players say they wont every play for xyz franchise etc... Its all leverage bs and most fans take them for face value, they buy the rumors and sell the fact.

[better days]

Owners, players, etc... we all use any leverage we can get and LA is great leverage. It offers an element of Fear, which is a great motivator. Owner use LA, the same way players say they wont every play for xyz franchise etc... Its all leverage bs and most fans take them for face value, they buy the rumors and sell the fact.

Agreed. Leverage is used in all business in the world. It is even used on a personal level. But if a team is put in LA, the NFL loses that leverage.

[Albany,n.y.]

I think it is the CRAZY person calling me crazy. That often happens. Crazy people do not realize they are crazy. I have been proven CORRECT in what I said.

Time to look in the mirror.

[EricStratton]

If the Falcons move to LA teams will just use Atlanta as leverage.

The results will be the same.

Now if a city like San Diego or Charlotte were to lose a team they aren't as viable as Atlanta that would change things.

[DraftBoy]

Arthur Blank never said anything like this.

A guy in LA based off a random question said it and now Florio ran wild.

[OpIv37]

A short while ago in a thread about the Bills moving to LA, I said the NFL did not really want a team in LA because the owners wanted to use LA as leverage against the Cities the are in. I was called crazy for saying that. Well, both the owners of the Carolina Panthers & now the Atlanta Falcons are using the threat of moving to LA to try to improve their Stadium situation. I have been proven correct without question & everyone that called me crazy owes me an apology.

No one owes you anything. 2 owners in bad stadium situations do not constitute "the NFL." With the possible exception of Snyder, all the contributors to revenue sharing are in stable stadium situations. They would benefit FAR more from having one more contributor and one less beneficiary to revenue sharing than from the remote possiblity of an LA bluff 10 or 15 years down the line.

And once again, even if the bluff is real, it's only going to work 1 or 2 more times before cities call the bluff and say "fine- if LA is so great, just go."

[BLeonard]

Agreed. Leverage is used in all business in the world. It is even used on a personal level. But if a team is put in LA, the NFL loses that leverage.

They've had two teams in LA before... Hell, they have two teams in NYC sharing a stadium and have for years.

My guess is, LA would likely be looking for something similar. Even if they would get two teams, the NFL would just create more "leverage"... London could very well be their next chip.

-Bill

[better days]

If the Falcons move to LA teams will just use Atlanta as leverage.

The results will be the same.

Now if a city like San Diego or Charlotte were to lose a team they aren't as viable as Atlanta that would change things.

The point is the Falcons won't leave Atlanta. They are just using LA as leverage.

[RedEyE]

I didn't read all of the posts above so I apologize if this is repetitive.

The Falcons owner is not threatening to move the Falcons to LA, nor is he looking to sell the team. Aurthur Blank has simply stated that if the city of Atlanta and the board appointed to approve a new stadium does not agree to build, Blank said he already has another location picked out outside the downtown area, and that he would then build it himself versus the 70/30 cut he has originally proposed.

The mayor of Atlanta spoke with the media after a meeting the other day claiming the Falcons could move to LA if they wish and that the board should consider this in what they decide.

But the Falcons aren't going anywhere. The city Of Atlanta is broke, bankrupt at one point, and the people and the fans are not entirely thrilled with footing the 300 million dollar contribution towards a billion dollar stadium when the Georgia Dome is only 15 years old and in great working condition. And the 300 million is just the beginning. This # doesn't include the local roads and infrastructure that would have to be relocated and updated. Adding that into the equation ups the Atlanta contribution to around 500-600 million.

The two area that Blank is looking at are on the northside of the city along the outer loop. A good percentage of fans live on the northside and would actually benefit if the Falcons moved out of downtown Atlanta. Shorter distance to drive and less downtown BS to deal with. Not to mention, Blank will have to pay the entire amount getting next to nothing in return from tax payers.

[better days]

I didn't read all of the posts above so I apologize if this is repetitive.

The Falcons owner is not threatening to move the Falcons to LA, nor is he looking to sell the team. Aurthur Blank has simply stated that if the city of Atlanta and the board appointed to approve a new stadium does not agree to build, Blank said he already has another location picked out outside the downtown area, and that he would then build it himself versus the 70/30 cut he has originally proposed.

The mayor of Atlanta spoke with the media after a meeting the other day claiming the Falcons could move to LA if they wish and that the board should consider this in what they decide.

But the Falcons aren't going anywhere. The city Of Atlanta is broke, bankrupt at one point, and the people and the fans are not entirely thrilled with footing the 300 million dollar contribution towards a billion dollar stadium when the Georgia Dome is only 15 years old and in great working condition. And the 300 million is just the beginning. This # doesn't include the local roads and infrastructure that would have to be relocated and updated. Adding that into the equation ups the Atlanta contribution to around 500-600 million.

The two area that Blank is looking at are on the northside of the city along the outer loop. A good percentage of fans live on the northside and would actually benefit if the Falcons moved out of downtown Atlanta. Shorter distance to drive and less downtown BS to deal with. Not to mention, Blank will have to pay the entire amount getting next to nothing in return from tax payers.

According to profootball talk.com, Blank told area officials he had been approached by LA interests that want to move the Falcons there. Leverage is the only reason Blank shared that information with the local officials.

[trapezeus]

the move to LA is also further complicated that the guys who are building hte LA stadium want to be owners. so you could sell your team to LA and the NFL would allow it, but you'd no longer be an nfl owner. and for these 31 primadonnas, that's something they don't want.

[EricStratton]

The point is the Falcons won't leave Atlanta. They are just using LA as leverage.

No, the point is if Atlanta lost a team they would now be the city all other cities use as leverage just as teams used Houston as leverage and Carolina as leverage and St. Louis as leverage.

The name of the city changes but the game never does.

[better days]

No, the point is if Atlanta lost a team they would now be the city all other cities use as leverage just as teams used Houston as leverage and Carolina as leverage and St. Louis as leverage.

The name of the city changes but the game never does.

The point is NONE of those teams will move. They are using LA as LEVERAGE. Jax would be the only team with a real reason to move & if they do Jax will not provide the same kind of leverage LA does.

[RedEyE]

According to profootball talk.com, Blank told area officials he had been approached by LA interests that want to move the Falcons there. Leverage is the only reason Blank shared that information with the local officials.

This is also true, but Blank has also officially stated that he has no plans of moving or selling the team. This cross talk is produced by the knuckle heads that can't get a team to bite on the glorious plan of bringing football back to LA. Not Aurthur Blank and the Atlanta Falcons.

[better days]

This is also true, but Blank has also officially stated that he has no plans of moving or selling the team. This cross talk is produced by the knuckle heads that can't get a team to bite on the glorious plan of bringing football back to LA. Not Aurthur Blank and the Atlanta Falcons.

Of course Blank has no intention of moving the Falcons. Why would he? He has a great market in Atl. But Blank is a good businessman, if he has leverage he will use it.

[RedEyE]

I really don't think Blank is using it as leverage. Governor Nathan Deal:“Arthur Blank (http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/atlanta/search/results?q=Arthur Blank) has never played that card, and I give him credit for that,” said Deal, who added that “I have not had any direct conversations about this.”

I think it's Governor Nathan Deal and Mayor Kasim Reed that are the ones using it to leverage the tax paying public.

Found this after the LA report was released:

A recent WXIA poll released on Jan. 18 showed that if building a new stadium is the only way to keep the Falcons playing in downtown Atlanta, the project had the support of 54 percent of those polled with 37 percent opposing it.

[PTI]

Would love the new stadium in Atlanta to be on the north side, although I have no complaints about the DOme, I can get there in 20 minutes.

[better days]

I really don't think Blank is using it as leverage. Governor Nathan Deal:“Arthur Blank (http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/atlanta/search/results?q=Arthur Blank) has never played that card, and I give him credit for that,” said Deal, who added that “I have not had any direct conversations about this.”

I think it's Governor Nathan Deal and Mayor Kasim Reed that are the ones using it to leverage the tax paying public.

Found this after the LA report was released:

A recent WXIA poll released on Jan. 18 showed that if building a new stadium is the only way to keep the Falcons playing in downtown Atlanta, the project had the support of 54 percent of those polled with 37 percent opposing it.

If Blank were not using LA as leverage what was the reason to tell local officials LA interests approached him about moving the team there? Leverage can be the only reason to do that.

[RedEyE]

If Blank were not using LA as leverage what was the reason to tell local officials LA interests approached him about moving the team there? Leverage can be the only reason to do that.

Uh maybe because its true? Those dicks in LA have been trying to scrape the barrel for several years now.

[Joe Fo Sho]

A short while ago in a thread about the Bills moving to LA, I said the NFL did not really want a team in LA because the owners wanted to use LA as leverage against the Cities the are in. I was called crazy for saying that. Well, both the owners of the Carolina Panthers & now the Atlanta Falcons are using the threat of moving to LA to try to improve their Stadium situation. I have been proven correct without question & everyone that called me crazy owes me an apology.

You're asking for an apology on a message board? Regardless of whether you are right or wrong (which is debatable in this case), you sir, are not using the internet properly.

[better days]

Uh maybe because its true? Those dicks in LA have been trying to scrape the barrel for several years now.

Agree with everything you say, but leverage is still the only reason for Blank to share that information with local officials.

[better days]

You're asking for an apology on a message board? Regardless of whether you are right or wrong (which is debatable in this case), you sir, are not using the internet properly.

I disagree with people on the board all the time. I never insult anybody that disagrees with me unless it is in retaliation. I was insulted & have been proven correct. I think I am owed an apology & I also think personal insults should not be allowed on the board.

[Joe Fo Sho]

I disagree with people on the board all the time. I never insult anybody that disagrees with me unless it is in retaliation. I was insulted & have been proven correct. I think I am owed an apology & I also think personal insults should not be allowed on the board.

While I agree with the whole personal insults idea, but I'm pretty sure the premise of this thread breaks the internet.

[better days]

While I agree with the whole personal insults idea, but I'm pretty sure the premise of this thread breaks the internet.

How so?

[Joe Fo Sho]

How so?

Has anyone apologized yet?

[braddavery]

I think I am owed an apology...

lol Get help.

[better days]

Has anyone apologized yet?

No, but that does not mean anything. I did not really expect any of the Rat Bastards that insulted me to apologize. I still was right to ask for an apology.

[Joe Fo Sho]

No, but that does not mean anything. I did not really expect any of the Rat Bastards that insulted me to apologize. I still was right to ask for an apology.

It's because they don't want to break the internet!

[better days]

It's because they don't want to break the internet!

OK now I get it. I wouldn't want to see the internet broken after all the time & effort Al Gore put in to get it up & running.

[Generalissimus Gibby]

Oakland, San Diego, or Jacksonville would be the only good candidates for a move

[SABURZFAN]

No, but that does not mean anything. I did not really expect any of the Rat Bastards that insulted me to apologize. I still was right to ask for an apology.


:roflmao:


get over yourself, yordad. I was right about Lossman when he was in Buffalo while you and 98% of this board were nuthugging all over him with excuses. did I ask for an apology from you or anybody else when I was insulted?? HELL NO!!!!!!!!! a lot of you idiots were too busy LICKING (pun intended) your wounds.

[better days]

:roflmao:


get over yourself, yordad. I was right about Lossman when he was in Buffalo while you and 98% of this board were nuthugging all over him with excuses. did I ask for an apology from you or anybody else when I was insulted?? HELL NO!!!!!!!!! a lot of you idiots were too busy LICKING (pun intended) your wounds.

Well, you did not ask for an apology from me because I am NOT yordad. Rat Bastard.

But I will say, like many Bills fans, I did like Losman over Edwards.

[SABURZFAN]

I am NOT yordad.


:liar:

[notacon]

A short while ago in a thread about the Bills moving to LA, I said the NFL did not really want a team in LA because the owners wanted to use LA as leverage against the Cities the are in. I was called crazy for saying that. Well, both the owners of the Carolina Panthers & now the Atlanta Falcons are using the threat of moving to LA to try to improve their Stadium situation. I have been proven correct without question & everyone that called me crazy owes me an apology.

:rofl:

Sorry, but you have not been "proven correct" about anything.

Of course owners will use anything they can as leverage to get a better stadium deal. But, to assign motive of the NFL as "not really want(ing) a team in LA" is downright ridiculous.

Even saying that the other owners don't want a team in LA is ludicrous.

What evidence do you have that the NFL, or ANY owner, does not want a team in LA?? The answer is, you don't. Owners threatening to move to LA is NOT evidence.

I don't think you are "crazy" for putting forth such a premise...just ignorant. As in, you have no clue as the motivation of the NFL, or the team owners.

The only reason there is no team in LA right now is the lack of 21st century stadium, and the difficult political and budget situation in California. I think there is more evidence that every single team owner would prefer a team be in LA because having a NFL team in the #2 media market (http://www.proadvance.com/topmediamarkets.html) means more revenue for every single team.

Take a look at that media list. You have to go down to the 23rd market to see a metropolitan area that does not already have a NFL team (#19 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto is close to Oakland/San Fran, and #20 Orlando-Daytona Beach is close to Tampa). And the 23rd market, Portland, can easily be included in the Seattle market.

Buffalo, at #49, is primed to be moved. The only other teams in NFL markets smaller than Buffalo are Jacksonville (which is the other team most likely to move to LA) and Green Bay, which will NEVER move. The right stadium deal comes along in LA, and the new owner (after Wilson dies and the team goes to auction) and you can kiss the Bills goodbye. And the stadium lease the Bills just signed would have little effect in preventing that outcome.

[Night Train]

:rofl:


Buffalo, at #49, is primed to be moved. The only other teams in NFL markets smaller than Buffalo are Jacksonville (which is the other team most likely to move to LA) and Green Bay, which will NEVER move. The right stadium deal comes along in LA, and the new owner (after Wilson dies and the team goes to auction) and you can kiss the Bills goodbye. And the stadium lease the Bills just signed would have little effect in preventing that outcome.

This is why Brandon just did another unpopular Toronto deal. More and more Ontario fans are coming down and it makes the actual team market look far larger than #49.

The Bills have been moving for years. It's not a given the next owner will move in year 7. All depends who buys them.

[better days]

:rofl:

Sorry, but you have not been "proven correct" about anything.

Of course owners will use anything they can as leverage to get a better stadium deal. But, to assign motive of the NFL as "not really want(ing) a team in LA" is downright ridiculous.

Even saying that the other owners don't want a team in LA is ludicrous.

What evidence do you have that the NFL, or ANY owner, does not want a team in LA?? The answer is, you don't. Owners threatening to move to LA is NOT evidence.

I don't think you are "crazy" for putting forth such a premise...just ignorant. As in, you have no clue as the motivation of the NFL, or the team owners.

The only reason there is no team in LA right now is the lack of 21st century stadium, and the difficult political and budget situation in California. I think there is more evidence that every single team owner would prefer a team be in LA because having a NFL team in the #2 media market (http://www.proadvance.com/topmediamarkets.html) means more revenue for every single team.

Take a look at that media list. You have to go down to the 23rd market to see a metropolitan area that does not already have a NFL team (#19 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto is close to Oakland/San Fran, and #20 Orlando-Daytona Beach is close to Tampa). And the 23rd market, Portland, can easily be included in the Seattle market.

Buffalo, at #49, is primed to be moved. The only other teams in NFL markets smaller than Buffalo are Jacksonville (which is the other team most likely to move to LA) and Green Bay, which will NEVER move. The right stadium deal comes along in LA, and the new owner (after Wilson dies and the team goes to auction) and you can kiss the Bills goodbye. And the stadium lease the Bills just signed would have little effect in preventing that outcome.

You are the one who is ignorant. The FACT both Carolina & Atlanta used LA as leverage to try to get Stadium improvments proves my point.

[better days]

:roflmao:


get over yourself, yordad. I was right about Lossman when he was in Buffalo while you and 98% of this board were nuthugging all over him with excuses. did I ask for an apology from you or anybody else when I was insulted?? HELL NO!!!!!!!!! a lot of you idiots were too busy LICKING (pun intended) your wounds.

And if you were rooting for Trent Edwards in that race, you deserve no apology because he sucked as much as Losman so you were not correct anymore than Losman fans were.

[YardRat]

ANY city is 'eligible' to be used as leverage. Hell, if Davy Crockett bought the Jaguars and wanted to move them into a newly-approved billion dollar stadium in San Antonio, the league isn't going to say 'No'.

[better days]

ANY city is 'eligible' to be used as leverage. Hell, if Davy Crockett bought the Jaguars and wanted to move them into a newly-approved billion dollar stadium in San Antonio, the league isn't going to say 'No'.

The League would say no to San Antionio, because Jerry Jones would say no. LA & maybe Toronto are the only Cities that have the cachet to be used as leverage at this point in time. Which makes the Bills deal with Toronto a good deal for Buffalo. The Bills have claimed the Toronto market as theirs.

[YardRat]

The League would say no to San Antionio, because Jerry Jones would say no. LA & maybe Toronto are the only Cities that have the cachet to be used as leverage at this point in time. Which makes the Bills deal with Toronto a good deal for Buffalo. The Bills have claimed the Toronto market as theirs.

I wouldn't bet on it, and San Antonio is closer to the Houston market than Dallas anyway.

They didn't turn down the return of football to the Baltimore market, despite it's proximity to DC and Philly (MUCH closer than SA/Dal/Hous).

[better days]

I wouldn't bet on it, and San Antonio is closer to the Houston market than Dallas anyway.

They didn't turn down the return of football to the Baltimore market, despite it's proximity to DC and Philly (MUCH closer than SA/Dal/Hous).

Baltimore & San Antonio are two completely different situations. For one thing Baltimore had their team stolen in the middle of the night by Irsey. For another, San Antonio while closer to Houston is Cowboys territory & I'm sure Houston would join the Cowboys in voting against a team in San Antonio.

[notacon]

You are the one who is ignorant. The FACT both Carolina & Atlanta used LA as leverage to try to get Stadium improvments proves my point.

No, it doesn't. All it proves is that an owner will use any rhetoric he can to get a viable stadium. Something the Bills do not have, BTW.

Actually, your premise is silly, and your lame insistence that you are "right" and deserve "an apology" just reveals your profound immaturity.

[better days]

No, it doesn't. All it proves is that an owner will use any rhetoric he can to get a viable stadium. Something the Bills do not have, BTW.

Actually, your premise is silly, and your lame insistence that you are "right" and deserve "an apology" just reveals your profound immaturity.

Well, as I said LA is the only market with the cachet to provide leverage. There has to be something behind the rhetoric.

As far as ownership, the Carolina Panthers are in the same situation as the Bills. An old owner that has made no provision for the future of the team known. And Richardson has had a heart transplant. Ralph could well outlive him.

[notacon]

This is why Brandon just did another unpopular Toronto deal. More and more Ontario fans are coming down and it makes the actual team market look far larger than #49.

The Bills have been moving for years. It's not a given the next owner will move in year 7. All depends who buys them.

Sure, the Toronto deal is an attempt to expand from the #49 market. It will fail. In fact, it has already failed. Toronto sports fans could care less about anything in Buffalo, much less the Bills. I work in Toronto several times a year, and I engage in my own little unscientific polling every time I'm up there. The Bills are irrelevant there, and always will be.

And, as I have put forward before, don't believe for one minute that this 7 year lease is going to stop a new owner from moving the team. Certainly, I agree with you that the team moving will depend on who actually buys the team, but, if the selling takes place via auction like Wilson has stated it will be sold after he dies (something that I would not bet a dollar on), I think the chances of the team eventually moving (I think sooner rather than later), raise much higher than most people think.

Brandon is a chump. He can't play in the big leagues. If a real owner, with real money comes along (which is more likely than not), he is going to have a desire to move the team before he even buys it.

Why? Because Buffalo, with it's population, media size, demographics and stadium situation, is a terrible place to keep a NFL franchise especially with a new owner having to pay close to $1 billion to obtain the club. The numbers just don't add up for keeping the team in Buffalo. The only two mitigating factors will be unbelievably strong local ties, and a new stadium built for the 21st century.

I believe the $100+ million renovation of Orchard Park stadium has made keeping the Bills in Buffalo harder. It's a bad deal if you want the team to stay.

[notacon]

The League would say no to San Antionio, because Jerry Jones would say no. LA & maybe Toronto are the only Cities that have the cachet to be used as leverage at this point in time. Which makes the Bills deal with Toronto a good deal for Buffalo. The Bills have claimed the Toronto market as theirs.

More nonsense.

The reason there will probably never be a team in San Antonio is because their media market is even smaller than Buffalo's.

You really have very little understanding of the economics of the 21st century NFL, don't you?

[notacon]

Baltimore & San Antonio are two completely different situations. For one thing Baltimore had their team stolen in the middle of the night by Irsey. For another, San Antonio while closer to Houston is Cowboys territory & I'm sure Houston would join the Cowboys in voting against a team in San Antonio.

Two teams voting against a franchise move is irrelevant. More teams would vote against a team in San Antonio because of media size.

[better days]

Two teams voting against a franchise move is irrelevant. More teams would vote against a team in San Antonio because of media size.

The point is those two teams would be at the forefront & get other teams to vote with them against any team moving to San Antonio, even if San Antonio suddenly grew. And as I already said, LA is the only City to have the Cachet to provide leverage, market size is a big part of that cachet.

[better days]

Sure, the Toronto deal is an attempt to expand from the #49 market. It will fail. In fact, it has already failed. Toronto sports fans could care less about anything in Buffalo, much less the Bills. I work in Toronto several times a year, and I engage in my own little unscientific polling every time I'm up there. The Bills are irrelevant there, and always will be.

And, as I have put forward before, don't believe for one minute that this 7 year lease is going to stop a new owner from moving the team. Certainly, I agree with you that the team moving will depend on who actually buys the team, but, if the selling takes place via auction like Wilson has stated it will be sold after he dies (something that I would not bet a dollar on), I think the chances of the team eventually moving (I think sooner rather than later), raise much higher than most people think.

Brandon is a chump. He can't play in the big leagues. If a real owner, with real money comes along (which is more likely than not), he is going to have a desire to move the team before he even buys it.

Why? Because Buffalo, with it's population, media size, demographics and stadium situation, is a terrible place to keep a NFL franchise especially with a new owner having to pay close to $1 billion to obtain the club. The numbers just don't add up for keeping the team in Buffalo. The only two mitigating factors will be unbelievably strong local ties, and a new stadium built for the 21st century.

I believe the $100+ million renovation of Orchard Park stadium has made keeping the Bills in Buffalo harder. It's a bad deal if you want the team to stay.

Well, you can believe what you like, but that does not make you correct. When people talk about Buffalo's market size they don't include the rest of Western to Central NY. There are MANY Bills fans spread from Buffalo to Syracuse & now up into Ontario. Aside from the Billion Dollar cost of the team, if the new owner wants to move it he will have moving expenses as well which would help keep the team in Buffalo.

$100 Million, a small investment over 10 years until the New Owner builds a new Stadium in Western NY.

[notacon]

Well, you can believe what you like, but that does not make you correct. When people talk about Buffalo's market size they don't include the rest of Western to Central NY. There are MANY Bills fans spread from Buffalo to Syracuse & now up into Ontario. Aside from the Billion Dollar cost of the team, if the new owner wants to move it he will have moving expenses as well which would help keep the team in Buffalo.

$100 Million, a small investment over 10 years until the New Owner builds a new Stadium in Western NY.

"Moving expenses" :rofl: Come on. Get serious.

You can believe whatever you want too, does not make it true. But, a serious argument makes for a more believable premise. You are not presenting serious arguments.

The long term economics of a NFL franchise seems to be out of your area of comprehension. We're talking about 10's of millions of dollars per year in additional unshared revenue for a LA team over a Buffalo one. The "fans" of central NY, Syracuse etc... don't amount to a hill of beans as compared to LA, or many other markets in the US. The demographics of WNY are all minus.

Now you bring the silly argument about moving expenses?!?!?! Jesus. Do you have any idea of how stupid that sounds?

Additionally, a "new owner" is not going to "build" a stadium. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!! It's all about the stadium deal. It's all about how much a local government is going to kick in to finance a new stadium. That is the ONLY reason a team is not in LA at this very moment.

Listen, I don't have a crystal ball...no one does. I have the profound hope that the Bills will be bought by an owner with strong local ties, and the state of NY and Erie County get smart and get serious about building a real NFL stadium in WNY. But, I'm also an intelligent business person and understand the economics of business.

NO owner, who has the wherewithal to even contemplate buying a NFL team is going to ignore the economics of today's NFL. Even with a new stadium, Buffalo demographics is hard pressed to fill up, and pay for luxury boxes that are the breast milk of successful, and profitable NFL franchises. Buffalo has hardly any corporations based here. Very blue collar population that would just simply not pay for seat licenses that are possible in cities like Dallas.

It's a very challenging situation. Every economic indicator says move the team OUT of Buffalo.

If you think the opposite, or want to keep on the rose colored glasses, you may be using those glasses to watch the Bills head out of town. It is only with a realistic and sufficiently skeptical populace that puts continual pressure on every single politician in New York, that we have a chance to keep this precious team.

Going around talking about "MANY Bills fans spread from Buffalo to Syracuse & now up into Ontario" and especially how "moving expenses", "would help keep the team in Buffalo" is silly talk, and is counter productive to keeping the team here.

[better days]

Moving expenses are REAL. aside from the lease with Erie County, the NFL will charge a relocation fee to whatever team locates there. ANY team in the NFL with 13 STRAIGHT LOSING seasons, would have trouble filling seats, moreso than in Buffalo.

If you & others are right that the NFL wants a team in LA, there should be one committed to playing there before next season starts.

[better days]

"Moving expenses" :rofl: Come on. Get serious.

You can believe whatever you want too, does not make it true. But, a serious argument makes for a more believable premise. You are not presenting serious arguments.

The long term economics of a NFL franchise seems to be out of your area of comprehension. We're talking about 10's of millions of dollars per year in additional unshared revenue for a LA team over a Buffalo one. The "fans" of central NY, Syracuse etc... don't amount to a hill of beans as compared to LA, or many other markets in the US. The demographics of WNY are all minus.

Now you bring the silly argument about moving expenses?!?!?! Jesus. Do you have any idea of how stupid that sounds?

Additionally, a "new owner" is not going to "build" a stadium. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!! It's all about the stadium deal. It's all about how much a local government is going to kick in to finance a new stadium. That is the ONLY reason a team is not in LA at this very moment.

Listen, I don't have a crystal ball...no one does. I have the profound hope that the Bills will be bought by an owner with strong local ties, and the state of NY and Erie County get smart and get serious about building a real NFL stadium in WNY. But, I'm also an intelligent business person and understand the economics of business.

NO owner, who has the wherewithal to even contemplate buying a NFL team is going to ignore the economics of today's NFL. Even with a new stadium, Buffalo demographics is hard pressed to fill up, and pay for luxury boxes that are the breast milk of successful, and profitable NFL franchises. Buffalo has hardly any corporations based here. Very blue collar population that would just simply not pay for seat licenses that are possible in cities like Dallas.

It's a very challenging situation. Every economic indicator says move the team OUT of Buffalo.

If you think the opposite, or want to keep on the rose colored glasses, you may be using those glasses to watch the Bills head out of town. It is only with a realistic and sufficiently skeptical populace that puts continual pressure on every single politician in New York, that we have a chance to keep this precious team.

Going around talking about "MANY Bills fans spread from Buffalo to Syracuse & now up into Ontario" and especially how "moving expenses", "would help keep the team in Buffalo" is silly talk, and is counter productive to keeping the team here.

How is pointing out the FACT that MANY Bills fans are not counted because they live outside the CITY of Buffalo counter productive?

And MUCH of the LA population is Hispanic & SOCCER is their sport of choice.

[notacon]

How is pointing out the FACT that MANY Bills fans are not counted because they live outside the CITY of Buffalo counter productive?

And MUCH of the LA population is Hispanic & SOCCER is their sport of choice.

It's counter productive because raising false hopes on the team not moving reduces the pressure on local and state politicians to act to ensure we get our due, and build a real stadium.

I do not think that the Hispanic population is relevant to the LA market. It is literally 5 to 6 times bigger than Buffalo...even including the fans that aren't "counted". I really don't know what you mean by "not counted" anyway. If you mean being included in the media market...maybe. LA has a metropolitan population of somewhere between 12 and 18 MILLION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles_Area), depending on how you count it. Buffalo and Niagara Falls is a little over 1 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo-Niagara_Falls_metropolitan_area). Even if you add Rochester, Syracuse and Southern Ontario, I'd guess you'd be hard pressed to reach 3 million.

Ontario and all of Canada is a hockey market. NFL football, especially the perennially ****ty Bills are irrelevant.

I think your Hispanic/Soccer premise is silly. There is BIG money in LA. Just the prestige of buying luxury boxes for NFL would almost ensure selling them out...in a modern stadium, in the right location.

Listen, I understand your desire to try and twist reality to make it look like Buffalo is a good place to keep a NFL team. What I am saying is that there does not have to be any stretching of facts and reality to make that argument look silly when comparing Buffalo to LA.

Additionally, I think it is going to take a "hair on fire" response from the fans of WNY to get the attention of officials and make sure they understand that allowing the team to move is unacceptable. Trying to rationalize the very real negative situation this area is in by spinning the facts and reality with unrealism is counterproductive to keeping the team here.

Remember...a new team owner is going to look at the cold hard facts...even before he/she buys the team. These people are not stupid. They will not be looking at the wealth of information and twist the facts to make it look like it's a great idea to stay in Buffalo. They are going to look at the realistic facts and make a smart decision without the emotion of desire to keep the team here.

You, yourself have put forward the premise that teams will use the threat of moving to LA to get a more favorable stadium deal. A new owner comes in, and I say that the FACTS will not only make that threat serious, any smart business guy is going to KNOW that moving is the better business thing to do.

[better days]

It's counter productive because raising false hopes on the team not moving reduces the pressure on local and state politicians to act to ensure we get our due, and build a real stadium.

I do not think that the Hispanic population is relevant to the LA market. It is literally 5 to 6 times bigger than Buffalo...even including the fans that aren't "counted". I really don't know what you mean by "not counted" anyway. If you mean being included in the media market...maybe. LA has a metropolitan population of somewhere between 12 and 18 MILLION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles_Area), depending on how you count it. Buffalo and Niagara Falls is a little over 1 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo-Niagara_Falls_metropolitan_area). Even if you add Rochester, Syracuse and Southern Ontario, I'd guess you'd be hard pressed to reach 3 million.

Ontario and all of Canada is a hockey market. NFL football, especially the perennially ****ty Bills are irrelevant.

I think your Hispanic/Soccer premise is silly. There is BIG money in LA. Just the prestige of buying luxury boxes for NFL would almost ensure selling them out...in a modern stadium, in the right location.

Listen, I understand your desire to try and twist reality to make it look like Buffalo is a good place to keep a NFL team. What I am saying is that there does not have to be any stretching of facts and reality to make that argument look silly when comparing Buffalo to LA.

Additionally, I think it is going to take a "hair on fire" response from the fans of WNY to get the attention of officials and make sure they understand that allowing the team to move is unacceptable. Trying to rationalize the very real negative situation this area is in by spinning the facts and reality with unrealism is counterproductive to keeping the team here.

Remember...a new team owner is going to look at the cold hard facts...even before he/she buys the team. These people are not stupid. They will not be looking at the wealth of information and twist the facts to make it look like it's a great idea to stay in Buffalo. They are going to look at the realistic facts and make a smart decision without the emotion of desire to keep the team here.

You, yourself have put forward the premise that teams will use the threat of moving to LA to get a more favorable stadium deal. A new owner comes in, and I say that the FACTS will not only make that threat serious, any smart business guy is going to KNOW that moving is the better business thing to do.

I just read Hispanics now out number whites in Calofornia so yeah, it is relevent. If you take all of Western NY to Central NY along with Ontario, I would bet the number is MIUCH higher than 3 Million. So sutract about 6 Million Hispanics from LA & raise the number in Buffalo closer to where it should be & it is much closer than you think.

[BertSquirtgum]

No, but that does not mean anything. I did not really expect any of the Rat Bastards that insulted me to apologize. I still was right to ask for an apology.

Have a better day, better days.

[notacon]

I just read Hispanics now out number whites in Calofornia so yeah, it is relevent. If you take all of Western NY to Central NY along with Ontario, I would bet the number is MIUCH higher than 3 Million. So sutract about 6 Million Hispanics from LA & raise the number in Buffalo closer to where it should be & it is much closer than you think.

Jesus. Now you are bringing bigotry into the equation. Hispanics can't be counted as football fans??? Wow. How incredibly unserious that statement is. Do you realize that millions of Hispanics were born and raised in the USA, and are just the same kind of American as you or I??? To think not is bigotry at it's worst.

You can drink any flavor of Kool-Aid you like. Keep on fooling yourself that LA is not more attractive to a NFL owner that falling population, growing older, cheapskate WNY....and you'll be fooling yourself while the team leaves you wondering what the hell happened.

[notacon]

BTW...take your fictitious football hating 3 million Hispanics away from 18 million, and add these 2 million hockey loving canadians and Central NY "fans" to the 1 million in Buffalo and Niagara Falls and LA is STILL FIVE TIMES THE MARKET!!!

You are delusional...and your false impression is exactly why I am so worried about the future of the Bills in WNY. Keep your head firmly buried in the sand. When you come up for air, the Bills will be gone.

Hell, I'd even give you 6 million football hating Hispanics and the LA market is still FOUR TIMES as big as Buffalo's football market.

It's basic math.

[better days]

Jesus. Now you are bringing bigotry into the equation. Hispanics can't be counted as football fans??? Wow. How incredibly unserious that statement is. Do you realize that millions of Hispanics were born and raised in the USA, and are just the same kind of American as you or I??? To think not is bigotry at it's worst.

You can drink any flavor of Kool-Aid you like. Keep on fooling yourself that LA is not more attractive to a NFL owner that falling population, growing older, cheapskate WNY....and you'll be fooling yourself while the team leaves you wondering what the hell happened.


Living in Fla, I have some hispanic friends. I am not racist, just stating facts. And I can tell you for one thing, there are far more hispanics in this Country today that were born somewhere other than in the USA than were born here. I would bet even most that are born in the US, are soccer fans first & foremost. For hispanics, Soccer is #1, baseball #2 football may be a distant third.

Like I said, if you are right about LA, a team should be commited to playing there before the next season starts, but I would not hold my breath waiting for that if I were you.

[notacon]

Living in Fla, I have some hispanic friends. I am not racist, just stating facts. And I can tell you for one thing, there are far more hispanics in this Country today that were born somewhere other than in the USA than were born here. I would bet even most that are born in the US, are soccer fans first & foremost. For hispanics, Soccer is #1, baseball #2 football may be a distant third.

Like I said, if you are right about LA, a team should be commited to playing there before the next season starts, but I would not hold my breath waiting for that if I were you.

More nonsense. Please go back and read what I wrote. The reason there is not a team in LA is their stadium situation. This will not be resolved "before the next season starts".

This whole thread is about your false premise, based on nothing. That the "NFL does not want a team in LA"

Nothing you have said supports your rhetoric. And nothing ever will because you are stating a mindset of the league, and I assume, 32 owners. I think you are full of crap.

The evidence I have presented points to a very real possibility. Pay attention and read what I wrote.

Additionally, your bigoted statement about Hispanics is disgusting. You are trying to paint a whole nationality, and those with Spanish surnames, to be somehow different than other Americans. It's bigotry, plain and simple, and not realistic is a discussion comparing the LA media market, number 2 in the nation, to lowly Buffalo.

Your argument is foolish.

[better days]

More nonsense. Please go back and read what I wrote. The reason there is not a team in LA is their stadium situation. This will not be resolved "before the next season starts".

This whole thread is about your false premise, based on nothing. That the "NFL does not want a team in LA"

Nothing you have said supports your rhetoric. And nothing ever will because you are stating a mindset of the league, and I assume, 32 owners. I think you are full of crap.

The evidence I have presented points to a very real possibility. Pay attention and read what I wrote.

Additionally, your bigoted statement about Hispanics is disgusting. You are trying to paint a whole nationality, and those with Spanish surnames, to be somehow different than other Americans. It's bigotry, plain and simple, and not realistic is a discussion comparing the LA media market, number 2 in the nation, to lowly Buffalo.

Your argument is foolish.

As far as Hispanics, I was stating facts, nothing bigoted about it. The English & all Europeans prefer soccer to American Football as well.

As far as LA, I did not say a team should be playing there by next season, I said a team should be COMMITED to play there by next season. In other words they will move to LA after the Stadium is built. or they could play at the Coloseum for a year or two if need be. If LA is such a great deal & the NFL WANTS a team there, they will make it happen. Both the Raiders & Chargers have history in LA, both play in OLD Stadiums, both can't sell their Stadiums out & both can't get anew Stadium built in the City they are in. Why does not one or both of them commit to move to LA before next season starts?

[gr8slayer]

I really wish that L.A. would just hurry up and get a team so everyone can stop talking about it.

[OpIv37]

Moving expenses are REAL. aside from the lease with Erie County, the NFL will charge a relocation fee to whatever team locates there. ANY team in the NFL with 13 STRAIGHT LOSING seasons, would have trouble filling seats, moreso than in Buffalo.

If you & others are right that the NFL wants a team in LA, there should be one committed to playing there before next season starts.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.


Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, dear.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Oh, how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]

Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

[better days]

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.


Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, dear.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Oh, how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]

Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Moral of the story: LA is the stupid rock that Homer (people that think the NFL wants a team in LA) wants to buy.

[OpIv37]

ohhhhhh, swing and a miss!

[better days]

ohhhhhh, swing and a miss!

Yeah, you struck out, better luck next time.

Like I said IF the NFL wants a team in LA there is NO reason a team should not be committed to play there before the start of next season. BOTH the Raiders & Chargers are playing in Stadiums much worse than the Ralph & they can't sell seats. If a team in LA was something the NFL REALLY wanted, the NFL would find a way to get it done, like helping finance a new Stadium.

[OpIv37]

Yeah, you struck out, better luck next time.

Like I said IF the NFL wants a team in LA there is NO reason a team should not be committed to play there before the start of next season. BOTH the Raiders & Chargers are playing in Stadiums much worse than the Ralph & they can't sell seats. If a team in LA was something the NFL REALLY wanted, the NFL would find a way to get it done, like helping finance a new Stadium.

Swing and a miss.

There are lots of things that have to happen for a team to move. They have to be unhappy with their current stadium situation. They have to be at the end of their lease or have the ability to get out of it. They have to have a city that isn't working with them and an owner that wants to move. They have to have a deal in place with the LA stadium people. They have to have a place to play until it's finished.

You keep talking about moving expenses and how hard it is for teams to move, but then you create some arbitrary timetable and try to say that if no team complies with said timetable, it proves you right. Huh? "It's hard to move but if no one moves, then I'm right."

[OpIv37]

Baltimore & San Antonio are two completely different situations. For one thing Baltimore had their team stolen in the middle of the night by Irsey. For another, San Antonio while closer to Houston is Cowboys territory & I'm sure Houston would join the Cowboys in voting against a team in San Antonio.

Um, you talk about the proximity argument than use Baltimore as an example? Huh?

Have you looked at a map? If you can time it when there's no traffic, you can drive from the Ravens' stadium to the Redskins' stadium in 45 minutes. They're MAYBE 35 miles apart as the crow flies. I make that drive probably twice a week. And Philly is only about an hour and a half from Baltimore.

[better days]

Swing and a miss.

There are lots of things that have to happen for a team to move. They have to be unhappy with their current stadium situation. They have to be at the end of their lease or have the ability to get out of it. They have to have a city that isn't working with them and an owner that wants to move. They have to have a deal in place with the LA stadium people. They have to have a place to play until it's finished.

You keep talking about moving expenses and how hard it is for teams to move, but then you create some arbitrary timetable and try to say that if no team complies with said timetable, it proves you right. Huh? "It's hard to move but if no one moves, then I'm right."


I said COMMITMENT to move before, but I will repeat it for you. COMMITMENT to move. In other words the promise to move to LA when a Stadium is built. Both the Raiders & Chargers could move before next season if LA had a suitable stadium to play in.

And NOBODY has to have a deal in place with people currently proposing a Stadium in LA. A team could negotiate their own stadium deal if they wanted to. There are only two such deals on the table now, why not 3 or 4?

Do you think LA should build a Stadium BEFORE any team COMMITS to play there?

[better days]

Um, you talk about the proximity argument than use Baltimore as an example? Huh?

Have you looked at a map? If you can time it when there's no traffic, you can drive from the Ravens' stadium to the Redskins' stadium in 45 minutes. They're MAYBE 35 miles apart as the crow flies. I make that drive probably twice a week. And Philly is only about an hour and a half from Baltimore.

Philly is even closer to NJ. I am talking about TERRITORY an owner has staked out for himself, Like the Bills have done with Toronto. The Cowboys & Texans will vote down a team moving to San Antonio just as the Bills would vote down a team moving to Toronto.

[OpIv37]

I said COMMITMENT to move before, but I will repeat it for you. COMMITMENT to move. In other words the promise to move to LA when a Stadium is built. Both the Raiders & Chargers could move before next season if LA had a suitable stadium to play in.

And NOBODY has to have a deal in place with people currently proposing a Stadium in LA. A team could negotiate their own stadium deal if they wanted to. There are only two such deals on the table now, why not 3 or 4?

Do you think LA should build a Stadium BEFORE any team COMMITS to play there?
You think any team is going to commit to move without all those issues i mentioned worked out? Please.

And no team is going to commit to move until the last minute because if they commit to move they will get ZERO support at home. No team wants to be a lame duck in their current city.

[OpIv37]

Philly is even closer to NJ. I am talking about TERRITORY an owner has staked out for himself, Like the Bills have done with Toronto. The Cowboys & Texans will vote down a team moving to San Antonio just as the Bills would vote down a team moving to Toronto.

Md was clearly Redskins territory before the Ravens moved in.....

Now, a lot of the younger people in the MD suburbs of DC are Ravens fans because they don't remember the Skins being good whereas the Ravens have been excellent. If Snyder couldn't block the Ravens, Jones won't be able to block San Antonio.

[better days]

Md was clearly Redskins territory before the Ravens moved in.....

Now, a lot of the younger people in the MD suburbs of DC are Ravens fans because they don't remember the Skins being good whereas the Ravens have been excellent. If Snyder couldn't block the Ravens, Jones won't be able to block San Antonio.

Baltimore had an NFL team for YEARS before the Ravens moved there, so it was NOT clearly Redskins Territory. Neither you or I know if the Redskins even tried to block that move, I do not remember that being the case. Just because the Ravens moved to Baltimore does not mean a team could move to San Antonio. I think Jones & the owner of the Texans could get enough votes to block such a move into Texas.

[OpIv37]

Baltimore had an NFL team for YEARS before the Ravens moved there, so it was NOT clearly Redskins Territory. Neither you or I know if the Redskins even tried to block that move, I do not remember that being the case. Just because the Ravens moved to Baltimore does not mean a team could move to San Antonio. I think Jones & the owner of the Texans could get enough votes to block such a move into Texas.
Baltimore was without a team for 15 years and it was becoming Redskins territory, and some parts of traditional Redskins territory are now Ravens territory. So, the territory argument doesn't hold up.

[better days]

You think any team is going to commit to move without all those issues i mentioned worked out? Please.

And no team is going to commit to move until the last minute because if they commit to move they will get ZERO support at home. No team wants to be a lame duck in their current city.

I already addressed the issues you mentioned. BOTH the Chargers & Raiders COULD move to LA if they wanted to. And they don't have to deal with the people with current proposals for a Stadium if they don't want to either. There are 2 Stadium proposals on the table NOW. One in Downtown LA & one in the City of Industry. There is no reason the owner of a team could not propose a third proposal for a Stadium.

And unless a Stadium is built BEFORE a team COMMITS to play there, some team will have to be a lame duck for LA to get a new team.

And the Ravens were a lame duck for a year in Cleveland before moving to Baltimore.
- - - Updated - - -


Baltimore was without a team for 15 years and it was becoming Redskins territory, and some parts of traditional Redskins territory are now Ravens territory. So, the territory argument doesn't hold up.

YEAH, it does.

[notacon]

As far as Hispanics, I was stating facts, nothing bigoted about it. The English & all Europeans prefer soccer to American Football as well.

As far as LA, I did not say a team should be playing there by next season, I said a team should be COMMITED to play there by next season. In other words they will move to LA after the Stadium is built. or they could play at the Coloseum for a year or two if need be. If LA is such a great deal & the NFL WANTS a team there, they will make it happen. Both the Raiders & Chargers have history in LA, both play in OLD Stadiums, both can't sell their Stadiums out & both can't get anew Stadium built in the City they are in. Why does not one or both of them commit to move to LA before next season starts?

Yes, a deal will be done for a NFL team in LA, probably within the next decade. The politics of California are ripe with uncertainty and volatility. To ignore the lure of a huge market like LA, especially trying lamely to compare Buffalo to LA, is foolish. Every single economic reality points to Buffalo not being a viable market to keep a NFL team in, while every economic reality points to LA being a much better place to place a NFL team.

The only thing that has held back LA getting a team is the stadium. Buffalo's stadium sucks. No $100 million face lift will ever change that fact. The lack of corporations that fill luxury boxes just adds to the uncertainty of the Bills staying in Buffalo even if we got a new stadium.

Your original premise, and very absurd request for an "apology" is still not supported by any kind of reasonable facts.

And, your Hispanic comment was indeed bigoted. We're not talking about Europe, we are talking about LA. Hispanics that have been in this country for many generations, and you are flippantly grouping them together and assigning a mass preference toward soccer and mass apathy toward the NFL. It's absurd. In a market like LA, second largest in the US, that is somewhere between 12 million and 18 million, your attempt to discount a "majority" of that market because they may have a certain family background is the epitome of bigotry.

The fact that you don't even realize that it's bigoted make it even worse.

I will state for the umpteenth time. No one knows how much of a threat the lure of the LA market will be on the Bills when a new owner takes over the team. What I am saying is that minimizing the threat of the lure of the LA market with unrealistic and bigoted reasons is self defeating.

I can assure you with 100% certainty, being very experienced in business, that any new owner will not accept your comparison of the LA market and Buffalo market. In fact, I can assure you that they would think it's monumentally foolish and laughable.

[better days]

Yes, a deal will be done for a NFL team in LA, probably within the next decade. The politics of California are ripe with uncertainty and volatility. To ignore the lure of a huge market like LA, especially trying lamely to compare Buffalo to LA, is foolish. Every single economic reality points to Buffalo not being a viable market to keep a NFL team in, while every economic reality points to LA being a much better place to place a NFL team.

The only thing that has held back LA getting a team is the stadium. Buffalo's stadium sucks. No $100 million face lift will ever change that fact. The lack of corporations that fill luxury boxes just adds to the uncertainty of the Bills staying in Buffalo even if we got a new stadium.

Your original premise, and very absurd request for an "apology" is still not supported by any kind of reasonable facts.

And, your Hispanic comment was indeed bigoted. We're not talking about Europe, we are talking about LA. Hispanics that have been in this country for many generations, and you are flippantly grouping them together and assigning a mass preference toward soccer and mass apathy toward the NFL. It's absurd. In a market like LA, second largest in the US, that is somewhere between 12 million and 18 million, your attempt to discount a "majority" of that market because they may have a certain family background is the epitome of bigotry.

The fact that you don't even realize that it's bigoted make it even worse.

I will state for the umpteenth time. No one knows how much of a threat the lure of the LA market will be on the Bills when a new owner takes over the team. What I am saying is that minimizing the threat of the lure of the LA market with unrealistic and bigoted reasons is self defeating.

I can assure you with 100% certainty, being very experienced in business, that any new owner will not accept your comparison of the LA market and Buffalo market. In fact, I can assure you that they would think it's monumentally foolish and laughable.


First off what I said about Hispanics prefering Soccer to American Football is NOT biggeted. It is FACT. What is biggeted is to think the World revolves around America & American Sports. Soccer or Football as it is known as around the World, is the number one sport in the WORLD, NOT American Football.

A DECADE before LA gets a new team? If it is such a great market, teams should be clamoring to go there. But maybe it is the high taxes, gang violence, smog, & earthquakes that make LA less than desirable.

[OpIv37]

I already addressed the issues you mentioned. BOTH the Chargers & Raiders COULD move to LA if they wanted to. And they don't have to deal with the people with current proposals for a Stadium if they don't want to either. There are 2 Stadium proposals on the table NOW. One in Downtown LA & one in the City of Industry. There is no reason the owner of a team could not propose a third proposal for a Stadium.

And unless a Stadium is built BEFORE a team COMMITS to play there, some team will have to be a lame duck for LA to get a new team.

And the Ravens were a lame duck for a year in Cleveland before moving to Baltimore.
- - - Updated - - -

YEAH, it does.
1. Your conclusion is still faulty. Just because those two particular teams may choose not to move does NOT mean the NFL doesn't want a team in LA.

2. You saying "yeah it does" doesn't make the territory argument hold up. I'll take your utter inability to respond as surrendering the point.

[better days]

1. Your conclusion is still faulty. Just because those two particular teams may choose not to move does NOT mean the NFL doesn't want a team in LA.

2. You saying "yeah it does" doesn't make the territory argument hold up. I'll take your utter inability to respond as surrendering the point.

I already made my point about territory. We do not know what went on behind the scene, but I think it is evident the NFL WANTED a team back in Baltimore after the Colts were stolen from that City in the middle of the night.

As far as LA, as I have said over & over, if the NFL WANTS a team in LA they will find a way to get it done NOW, not in the next decade. There are things the NFL could do to put a team in LA NOW, such as financing a Stadium. California may be under the Pacific Ocean a decade from now.

[Albany,n.y.]

Baltimore was without a team for 15 years and it was becoming Redskins territory, and some parts of traditional Redskins territory are now Ravens territory. So, the territory argument doesn't hold up.

It was actually only 12 seasons and some of them were occupied by the USFL Stars & the CFL Colts.
Since you live there, I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt over the people who are saying you're wrong about the area becoming Redskins territory before the Ravens.