Toronto games coming to an end?

[Ed]

It looks like a somewhat secretive meeting between the Bills and Rogers media has been scheduled for Jan. 12. Only speculation right now as to what it is about, but hopefully both sides agree that it's not really in anyone's best interest to continue the series and they just cancel it.

http://blogs.canoe.ca/krykslants/nfl/exclusive-bills-rogers-set-to-meet-in-two-weeks/

[TacklingDummy]

The Bills are not going to leave money on the table.

The NFL is a business.

[Buffalogic]

Please cancel this bull****!!

[SpikedLemonade]

As much as the Bills want out of the deal, Rogers wants out of it twice as much.

Pro-rate the balance of the deal and hand the money back.

Perhaps the news will be just what Ralph needs...

[SquishDaFish]

God I hope so. Ill gladly pay more for my seasons if adding a game at the Ralph happens

[SpikedLemonade]

God I hope so. Ill gladly pay more for my seasons if adding a game at the Ralph happens

Of course, when the Bills have the or one of the lowest seat prices in the NFL. Still the Bills had a black out and had to manufacturer a few more sell outs this past year.

I doubt a new owner will be keen on investing a billion dollars into this team without raising seat prices to at least the league average given he can`t sell corporate boxes at any where close to that.

[better days]

Of course, when the Bills have the or one of the lowest seat prices in the NFL. Still the Bills had a black out and had to manufacturer a few more sell outs this past year.

I doubt a new owner will be keen on investing a billion dollars into this team without raising seat prices to at least the league average given he can`t sell corporate boxes at any where close to that.

The Bills have the 7 lowest average ticket price in the NFL.

In other words, there are 6 teams that have a lower price.

And there is less than $10 difference from the Bills price & the next two teams above them.

The Bills have NOT MADE the playoffs in FOURTEEN YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND, the Bills are NOT the ONLY team that had to manufacture sellouts this year!!

INCLUDING the PLAYOFFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ICRockets]

I wish I could be encouraged by this, but Jan. 12 is my birthday so for this to happen it would mean I actually get to have a reason to be really, really happy. I'm never happy. Sorry guys.

[clumping platelets]

It may have been successful if Bills' season ticket holders were given first opportunity to game tickets as part of the season ticket package.

You have the Buffalo Season Ticket Package that only has games played at the Ralph for price X

You have the Toronto Season Ticket Package that includes the game(s) played in Toronto with the comparable season ticket(s) for price Y

Give the loyal season ticket holder a chance to buy tickets first

This was a charlie foxtrot from the beginning

[coastal]

I'm never happy.anger issues.

shocking.

[BertSquirtgum]

God I hope so. Ill gladly pay more for my seasons if adding a game at the Ralph happens

Why should we pay more? I've been paying the same as I have been when I was still getting eight games.

[ticatfan]

It may have been successful if Bills' season ticket holders were given first opportunity to game tickets as part of the season ticket package.

You have the Buffalo Season Ticket Package that only has games played at the Ralph for price X

You have the Toronto Season Ticket Package that includes the game(s) played in Toronto with the comparable season ticket(s) for price Y

Give the loyal season ticket holder a chance to buy tickets first

This was a charlie foxtrot from the beginningYou buy season tickets to watch the game in your stadium, not in another city in another country. End this now, the NFL is not coming to canada.

[Mr. Pink]

The only way it ends is if Toronto decides not to extend the series. It's additional revenue for the team. They care about their bottom line.

[better days]

The only way it ends is if Toronto decides not to extend the series. It's additional revenue for the team. They care about their bottom line.

Toronto has to agree to end the deal as well as the Bills.

But I have to believe they are losing money up there.

If the Rodgers group thought the Bills series would show the NFL that Toronto is an NFL City & would be a good place for the Bills or another team to relocate to, that has failed miserably.

Continuing to lose games in Toronto that could cause the Bills to miss the playoffs next year affects the bottom line for the Bills

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I honestly can't see who's benefiting from it at this point. The Bills lose a home game and look like a joke, Toronto has got to be losing its ass financially, and the fans and players hate it. The only upside I see is that it keeps us out of the rotation for the even more godawful London game, but still.

[coastal]

They are talking to Rogers about a complete purchase of the bills.

[Ed]

Was it ever reported what the Bills actually got financially for this second Toronto deal? I know the first deal was something like $87 million for 5 regular season and 3 preseason games.

I believe this new deal was also for 5 years, but only included 1 preseason game. I never saw any financial numbers related to the new deal though. I'd be curious to know what the actual annual net gain for the Bills is.

[SpikedLemonade]

Was it ever reported what the Bills actually got financially for this second Toronto deal? I know the first deal was something like $87 million for 5 regular season and 3 preseason games.

I believe this new deal was also for 5 years, but only included 1 preseason game. I never saw any financial numbers related to the new deal though. I'd be curious to know what the actual annual net gain for the Bills is.

The initial 5 year deal was for $78M and was publicized widely.

I have searched everywhere and cannot find the dollar amount for the new 5 year deal but it was said to be for less money than the first 5 year deal.

The first deal included 3 pre-season games (the third one was given back to Buffalo when Toronto said there was a scheduling conflict) and this deal only includes 1 pre-season game.

My suspicion is that this 2nd deal was for less than half the amount of the first deal and was kept quiet not to embarrass the Bills.

I hope the deal is cancelled because having it does not serve any of Roger`s purposes to have a laughing stock of a franchise like the Bills play in Toronto and hopefully the Bills will look for revenue elsewhere by perhaps increasing ticket prices.

[better days]

The initial 5 year deal was for $78M and was publicized widely.

I have searched everywhere and cannot find the dollar amount for the new 5 year deal but it was said to be for less money than the first 5 year deal.

The first deal included 3 pre-season games (the third one was given back to Buffalo when Toronto said there was a scheduling conflict) and this deal only includes 1 pre-season game.

My suspicion is that this 2nd deal was for less than half the amount of the first deal and was kept quiet not to embarrass the Bills.

I hope the deal is cancelled because having it does not serve any of Roger`s purposes to have a laughing stock of a franchise like the Bills play in Toronto and hopefully the Bills will look for revenue elsewhere by perhaps increasing ticket prices.

Maybe the dollar amount was kept quiet as not to embarrass the Rodgers group.

Maybe the cost per game is the same, but less games played = less money.

Say what you want about Ralph & Russ, but neither of them is stupid.

[SpikedLemonade]

Maybe the dollar amount was kept quiet as not to embarrass the Rodgers group.

Maybe the cost per game is the same, but less games played = less money.

Say what you want about Ralph & Russ, but neither of them is stupid.

The Rogers group was already embarrassed by the 1st deal.

The only reason for a 2nd deal after the first failed was for Rogers to appear still interested and involved to the NFL owners for when the team is up for sale and other potential buyers want to relocate the Bills to cities where the Bills have not played a game for the past 5+ years. Any sale of the Bills must be approved by the NFL owners.

Betting on a 95 year old to die before he is 100 is a good bet.

[Ed]

The initial 5 year deal was for $78M and was publicized widely.

I have searched everywhere and cannot find the dollar amount for the new 5 year deal but it was said to be for less money than the first 5 year deal.

The first deal included 3 pre-season games (the third one was given back to Buffalo when Toronto said there was a scheduling conflict) and this deal only includes 1 pre-season game.

My suspicion is that this 2nd deal was for less than half the amount of the first deal and was kept quiet not to embarrass the Bills.

I hope the deal is cancelled because having it does not serve any of Roger`s purposes to have a laughing stock of a franchise like the Bills play in Toronto and hopefully the Bills will look for revenue elsewhere by perhaps increasing ticket prices.
Less than half is probably a good guess considering how much they had to slash ticket prices and still struggled to sell them. Even if they sold all 54K seats for an average of $125 that's still less than $7 million per game and less than $35 million over 5 years. And that's just gross revenue.

So either Rogers is losing money, or the Bills are making way less off this second deal, which would be a good reason to keep the numbers a secret. Maybe the Bills just aren't making enough off this for it to be worth all the backlash and criticism.

It really doesn't seem like there's much benefit for either side at this point, so maybe there is a good chance both sides will just agree to cancel the deal.

At this point what can they really do to make this series more lucrative for both sides like they had hoped originally?

[better days]

The Rogers group was already embarrassed by the 1st deal.

The only reason for a 2nd deal after the first failed was for Rogers to appear still interested and involved to the NFL owners for when the team is up for sale and other potential buyers want to relocate the Bills to cities where the Bills have not played a game for the past 5+ years. Any sale of the Bills must be approved by the NFL owners.

Betting on a 95 year old to die before he is 100 is a good bet.

I agree with everything you say in this post.

But the 2nd contract is an even bigger embarassment for Rodgers than the first contract because the support dwindled to less than it was the first deal.

To pay all that money & not show the NFL you are an NFL type City.................EMBARRASSING.

[trapezeus]

toronto isn't an nfl city because buffalo is in play. if toronto got the full season, it would be more beneficial as fans would turn out at higher prices.

i hate the deal as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend that people don't go because they aren't an nfl town. they can be. it just makes no sense for a consumer to by so much for a toronto game when you could pay less for a different experience 2 hours south.

[better days]

toronto isn't an nfl city because buffalo is in play. if toronto got the full season, it would be more beneficial as fans would turn out at higher prices.

i hate the deal as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend that people don't go because they aren't an nfl town. they can be. it just makes no sense for a consumer to by so much for a toronto game when you could pay less for a different experience 2 hours south.

Is Toronto a BASEBALL town? An NBA town?

NO!!!!!!!!!!! to both.

Toronto is & always will be a HOCKEY town.

The Leafs RULE.....................just as the Sabres do on WGR.

[SpikedLemonade]

I agree with everything you say in this post.

But the 2nd contract is an even bigger embarassment for Rodgers than the first contract because the support dwindled to less than it was the first deal.

To pay all that money & not show the NFL you are an NFL type City.................EMBARRASSING.

Toronto showed they are not willing to pay high prices to see the current Buffalo Bills.

Nothing more.

It is still the 4th largest city in NA.

$2B investments happen in Toronto much more often than they do in Buffalo.

The Bills will never leave Buffalo due to a lack of regular fan support (seat sale revenue is shared) but due to a lack of corporate box sales (revenue not shared). The latter is not going to change any time soon.

I cannot think of a city as economically depressed and declining for almost 40 years like Buffalo that used taxpayer revenue to cover most of the costs of a new NFL stadium in the past 5 years. I just don`t see it happening.

[SpikedLemonade]

Is Toronto a BASEBALL town? An NBA town?

NO!!!!!!!!!!! to both.

Toronto is & always will be a HOCKEY town.

The Leafs RULE.....................just as the Sabres do on WGR.

You seem to have a low opinion of Toronto.

You should probably visit it again.

[jdaltroy5]

It may have been successful if Bills' season ticket holders were given first opportunity to game tickets as part of the season ticket package.

You have the Buffalo Season Ticket Package that only has games played at the Ralph for price X

You have the Toronto Season Ticket Package that includes the game(s) played in Toronto with the comparable season ticket(s) for price Y

Give the loyal season ticket holder a chance to buy tickets first

This was a charlie foxtrot from the beginningThey did that the first year.

A season ticket holder who spent $400 for the whole season wasn't going to shell out twice as much to go to a single game.

[jdaltroy5]

Is Toronto a BASEBALL town? An NBA town?

NO!!!!!!!!!!! to both.

Toronto is & always will be a HOCKEY town.

The Leafs RULE.....................just as the Sabres do on WGR.Toronto usually has above average attendance for every sport, despite the fact that there hasn't been a legitimate contending team here in 20 years.

[better days]

You seem to have a low opinion of Toronto.

You should probably visit it again.

I think Toronto is a GREAT City.

It is just not an NFL City.

As for WGR, I do have a low opinion of that radio station.

[better days]

Toronto usually has above average attendance for every sport, despite the fact that there hasn't been a legitimate contending team here in 20 years.

Well, with an abundant wealthy population, Toronto SHOULD have that.

BUT it is a HOCKEY Town & always will be.

Tell me I'm wrong about that.

[jimmifli]

Well, with an abundant wealthy population, Toronto SHOULD have that.

BUT it is a HOCKEY Town & always will be.

Tell me I'm wrong about that.
More than 5 times as many people attended a Bluejays game last season.

[ticatfan]

I honestly can't see who's benefiting from it at this point. The Bills lose a home game and look like a joke, Toronto has got to be losing its ass financially, and the fans and players hate it. The only upside I see is that it keeps us out of the rotation for the even more godawful London game, but still.TO needs to pull it head out of it ass and support the argos.

[Ed]

I think Toronto is a GREAT City.

It is just not an NFL City.

As for WGR, I do have a low opinion of that radio station.
I think this Toronto series only proves that people don't want to overpay to rent a crap product for a day.

Any city with millions of people can be an NFL city if they have their own team and identity.

[BuffRanger]

It's gotten more and more embarrassing by the year. Hopefully the meeting is for Rogers to buy out the deal and we can leave yet another huge Russ Brandon cluster **** in the past.

[BertSquirtgum]

The Bills are not going to leave money on the table.

The NFL is a business.

After hearing the interview with russ brandon about the series. I believe they will.

[better days]

I think this Toronto series only proves that people don't want to overpay to rent a crap product for a day.

Any city with millions of people can be an NFL city if they have their own team and identity.

Well, they don't want to do that in Toronto.

In London & Mexico City, people are more than happy to pay to see the NFL when they can on a rental basis.

But then Toronto is a HOCKEY Town, NOT an NFL Town.

[better days]

More than 5 times as many people attended a Bluejays game last season.

Wow. Seriously?

Do you think the fact the Bluejays play in a Stadium that holds TWICE as many people as the Stadium the Leafs play in, or the fact the Bluejays play twice as many games as the Leafs does not have an effect on those numbers?

[jdaltroy5]

Well, with an abundant wealthy population, Toronto SHOULD have that.

BUT it is a HOCKEY Town & always will be.

Tell me I'm wrong about that.That's ridiculous.

Sure, Toronto is a hockey town, but that doesn't mean that they can't support an NFL team.

Boston, New York, and Chicago are considered baseball towns.

Should they get rid of their football teams?

[WagonCircler]

That's ridiculous.

Sure, Toronto is a hockey town, but that doesn't mean that they can't support an NFL team.

Boston, New York, and Chicago are considered baseball towns.

Should they get rid of their football teams?

Those are huge, rabid sports towns. Toronto isn't even in their league in any category.

[jimmifli]

Wow. Seriously?

Do you think the fact the Bluejays play in a Stadium that holds TWICE as many people as the Stadium the Leafs play in, or the fact the Bluejays play twice as many games as the Leafs does not have an effect on those numbers?
Yes. Also there are twice as many home games to attend. What's your point?

[THATHURMANATOR]

You seem to have a low opinion of Toronto.

You should probably visit it again.

What would have to do with Toronto the city?

He is talking fan allegience.

[jdaltroy5]

Those are huge, rabid sports towns. Toronto isn't even in their league in any category.
-The Toronto Blue Jays rank in the top ten three times for overall attendance in a season in the history of MLB. Boston and Chicago aren't in there at all.
-The Toronto Rock rank number 1 in average attendance for NLL. They also have 3 of the top 5 highest attendance numbers for a single game.
-The Leafs are the most valuable franchise in the NHL. The average ticket is $50 more expensive than the second most expensive team.
-The Raptors haven't been good for a decade, but when they actually were, their attendance was higher than Boston, New York, or Chicago. It's still been above average despite the fact that they've made it out of the first round of the playoffs once in their 20 years of existence.

When a team in Toronto is crappy, the attendance is still usually at least average. Unless it's the Leafs, in which case people will always pay top dollar.

When a team in Toronto is actually good, people come out in droves.

[jimmifli]

-The Toronto Blue Jays rank in the top ten three times for overall attendance in a season in the history of MLB. Boston and Chicago aren't in there at all.
-The Toronto Rock rank number 1 in average attendance for NLL. They also have 3 of the top 5 highest attendance numbers for a single game.
-The Leafs are the most valuable franchise in the NHL. The average ticket is $50 more expensive than the second most expensive team.
-The Raptors haven't been good for a decade, but when they actually were, their attendance was higher than Boston, New York, or Chicago. It's still been above average despite the fact that they've made it out of the first round of the playoffs once in their 20 years of existence.

When a team in Toronto is crappy, the attendance is still usually at least average. Unless it's the Leafs, in which case people will always pay top dollar.

When a team in Toronto is actually good, people come out in droves.

Also the Yankees, Redsox and Cubs are part of the history of the city. The Bluejays and Raptors haven't been around long enough for that to be true. The only franchise that has history is absolutely woven into the culture of the city, much the same as those franchises.

[SpikedLemonade]

What would have to do with Toronto the city?

He is talking fan allegience.

He thinks only hockey works in Toronto and that is false.

Why would Toronto based NFL fans have an allegiance to the Buffalo Bills.

[WagonCircler]

-The Toronto Blue Jays rank in the top ten three times for overall attendance in a season in the history of MLB. Boston and Chicago aren't in there at all..

PLEASE!!! You understand that this is solely due to stadium size, right? Or are you so thick that you consider ***** TORONTO more of a baseball city than Boston of Chicago????? Holy S H I T!!!!

Chicago and Boston have historic, 100+ year old stadiums that they won't tear down because they're national treasures.

And you're cherry picking THREE seasons?

WOW. This might be the dumbest post in the history of the internet.

No one is arguing that Toronto isn't a good hockey town. Just that, other than hockey, it's a s.hitty sports town, which it is.

[jdaltroy5]

PLEASE!!! You understand that this is solely due to stadium size, right? Or are you so thick that you consider ***** TORONTO more of a baseball city than Boston of Chicago????? Holy S H I T!!!!

Chicago and Boston have historic, 100+ year old stadiums that they won't tear down because they're national treasures.

And you're cherry picking THREE seasons?

WOW. This might be the dumbest post in the history of the internet.

No one is arguing that Toronto isn't a good hockey town. Just that, other than hockey, it's a s.hitty sports town, which it is.Wow, let's create a strawman and then call it the dumbest post in the history of the internet.

No one is saying that Toronto is more of a baseball town that Boston, Chicago, or New York.

I'm saying it's not a ****ty sports town like you think it is and I'm using attendance numbers from different sports to support that.

I would use MLS as well, but we're talking about sports here.

[WagonCircler]

Wow, let's create a strawman and then call it the dumbest post in the history of the internet.

No one is saying that Toronto is more of a baseball town that Boston, Chicago, or New York.

I'm saying it's not a ****ty sports town like you think it is and I'm using attendance numbers from different sports to support that.

I would use MLS as well, but we're talking about sports here.

Your comment that "Chicago and Boston" don't show up in the top ten all-time individual seasons is asinine. It's either a knowingly misleading statement or an ignorant one.

Boston and Chicago are home to baseball shrines. Toronto is the home to the second worst stadium in baseball. An absolute embarrassment to the sport.

They don't have, nor will they ever have, an NFL team, save for renting ours once a year.

The NBA still exists? Well, if it does, you might want to choose two other NBA cities if you're going to engage in a basketball dick measuring contest.

When it comes to sports towns, Toronto is a huge hockey town and a podunk sports town.

[jdaltroy5]

Your comment that "Chicago and Boston" don't show up in the top ten all-time individual seasons is asinine. It's either a knowingly misleading statement or an ignorant one.

Boston and Chicago are home to baseball shrines. Toronto is the home to the second worst stadium in baseball. An absolute embarrassment to the sport.

They don't have, nor will they ever have, an NFL team, save for renting ours once a year.

The NBA still exists? Well, if it does, you might want to choose two other NBA cities if you're going to engage in a basketball dick measuring contest.

When it comes to sports towns, Toronto is a huge hockey town and a podunk sports town.Yeah, Boston is such a huge sports town that they lost 2 other football teams before the Patriots stuck. And even then, they had massive trouble with attendance when they weren't winning. Not to mention that they were threatening to move to St. Louis for years before Parcells got there.

And look at the NHL. Sure, they have great attendance now, but before those teams were contenders, they regularly ranked near the bottom of the pack in attendance.

From 2000-2008 Boston AND Chicago cracked the top 20 in attendance twice. COMBINED. One was 19th and the other was 18th. That's in a watered down league that has been crammed down the throat in places that never see snow. At one point, Chicago wasn't even getting 13k to their games. And that's with one of the biggest stadiums in the league. Hell they didn't even broadcast on TV for the longest time.

Look, I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with Boston and Chicago. I've been to both cities (and their baseball stadiums) and they are great.

But Toronto is just as passionate about sports as any place in the States.

Maybe not the same passion as every other city in every other sport, but we always support our teams, even when they're lousy, which they usually are.

[SpikedLemonade]

What 3 keys do I press again to get rid of thisÉ.

Crap!

[ticatfan]

And the only team that has brought home the bacon in the last while, the argos. But unfortunitly the CFL is not good enough for TO. And before you know it no CFL no NFL = No football in toronto.

[better days]

When a team in Toronto is crappy, the attendance is still usually at least average. Unless it's the Leafs, in which case people will always pay top dollar.

When a team in Toronto is actually good, people come out in droves.

In other words Toronto is a HOCKEY town filled with BANDWAGON fans for other sports.

Just as I said.

[better days]

Yes. Also there are twice as many home games to attend. What's your point?

My point is you do not have one.

[WagonCircler]

Yeah, Boston is such a huge sports town that they lost 2 other football teams before the Patriots stuck..

Wow! Did you borrow the Wayback Machine for that one? Prior to the mid 1950s, the NFL hadn't taken hold anywhere. It's a TV sport, and until the televised "Greatest Game Ever Played" between the Colts and Giants, pro football lagged far, far behind college football in terms of popularity.

As for the rest of your comment, do you mean to say that the majority of the US doesn't give a rat's ass about the NHL? Shocking.

Canada=Hockey country.

US=Football country.

There's some bleed over, of course, but by and large, that's the way it is.

[better days]

He thinks only hockey works in Toronto and that is false.

Why would Toronto based NFL fans have an allegiance to the Buffalo Bills.

Toronto based NFL fans have no allegiance to the Bills & not much allegiance to the NFL either.

That is why the Series needs to end. It was a failure from the start because there are not enough NFL fans in Toronto to put even 40 thousand people in that crappy dome.

[cookie G]

But Toronto is just as passionate about sports as any place in the States.

Maybe not the same passion as every other city in every other sport, but we always support our teams, even when they're lousy, which they usually are.

In terms of football...I just don't see it...

There ARE passionate fans in TO..as you and Spiked are an example, but 2, or a 1000, or 10000, doesn't make a passionate fanbase

I know you and Spiked, as I'm sure a number of Torontarians (That'd be a cool Godzilla rival name), carry a bit of arrogance with this oft repeated..."we're too smart to pay overpriced seating for an inferior product.."

Well...here's the deal with that...

As to ticket pricing- all NFL seating is overpriced. It will be overpriced if you get an expansion franchise, an annual doormat or a contender. Your ticket price won't be set by team performance, it will be set by your geographic location. It is an expensive city...ticket prices will be among the highest in the NFL.

As to the inferior/superior product- if you get an expansion team, you WILL get an inferior product, and it will be inferior for 5 years are longer. Will this oft stated statement remain true? Will fans stop attending games after year 2 or year 3 because they will not pay for an inferior product? The NFL expansion or relocation committee won't like that.

Or do you expect your franchise, whether it is an expansion franchise..or the Rams, or the Bills...to suddenly become a perennial powerhouse because it is in Toronto? Even teams with good ownership, such as Atlanta and Houston...go through some pretty tough times. Houston went through...7 years of losing before they became decent? And then became a terrible team this year again? Its part of the NFL.

In terms of "support"...there is support..and then there is NFL support, especially modern NFL support. A half full stadium doesn't cut it in the NFL. The lowest average attendance in the NFL this year was Oakland..at 80% capacity. 25 of the 32 teams played in stadiums at least 90% full..(even Buffalo). Besides Oakland..no team was below 85%.

Houston almost always plays to sellouts or close to it...even this year. And they have ever since they became the Texans. They've had 3 winning seasons in their history and still put in 70,000 people every weekend.

Cleveland has had I think 1 winning season since the new franchise was created. Again, like Houston, they put 70,000 into their stadium every week.

Now answer honestly...do you see that happening in Toronto? Its easy to say..'we'll support a winner"...well yeah, every city in the US will do that.

Will they support them in a down year? Or a mediocre year? Will they fill their stadium to 90% when they are 6-10?
Because that's the modern NFL.

And as much as tickets are overpriced...the NFL still wants to see full stadiums and gets embarrassed by half empty stadiums. The reason is..it looks bad on TV. It makes the product look cheap.

You know..with the Toronto series, especially after this last game...it wouldn't have shocked me if Goodell got on the phone with Russ and whoever from Toronto...and said, "guys..we have to do something here. You have a half empty cave where no one is paying attention to the game..it really looks bad".

As much as the NFL might drool over the potential revenue in Toronto, or expansion into a Canadian market... I'm sure the decision makers also know they can't have a half empty, or 2/3 full stadium on TV most of the season. Its bad for TV.

I just don't know that Toronto will support a franchise...good times AND bad...year in and year out. The Toronto series was a bad showing. Attendance of 30,000 for their long established Argos doesn't help the argument of supporting a professional football team. The standards of support in the NFL are just a lot higher than they are for the NBA or even MLB.

[trapezeus]

but i don't think toronto fans are going to buy an expensive ticket when a much cheaper one exists. if there was no other option and the team is branded with toronto, i think pride sells out the stadium and more importantly the boxes.

and that's where the NFL is going. they don't care about the average fan. their price of ticket has outpaced inflation in the last ten years at a comical pace. the bills get dinged with lower cost tickets, but the county subsidizes some of that. so its not like ralph is missing out on revenue. to get his kickback, he has to keep it at a certain level. i'm sure that little caveat would remain for a new owner looking to see if the bills could stay in buffalo.

the nfl used to have very few blackouts. now they have a handful of teams not selling out each game. and they had a playoff scare. but the TV money and the box money is too good to care. these kind of pompous outlooks tend to be something that could make the NFL the NBA in 5-10 years. their saving grace is that they only have 16 games and people still care with the numerous betting games and fantasy football to save fans of bad teams.

[jdaltroy5]

In other words Toronto is a HOCKEY town filled with BANDWAGON fans for other sports.

Just as I said.I never said that Toronto isn't a hockey town. Clearly it is.

My point is that they have no problem supporting other teams and the attendance numbers for EVERY other sport reinforce that.

[jdaltroy5]

Wow! Did you borrow the Wayback Machine for that one? Prior to the mid 1950s, the NFL hadn't taken hold anywhere. It's a TV sport, and until the televised "Greatest Game Ever Played" between the Colts and Giants, pro football lagged far, far behind college football in terms of popularity.

As for the rest of your comment, do you mean to say that the majority of the US doesn't give a rat's ass about the NHL? Shocking.

Canada=Hockey country.

US=Football country.

There's some bleed over, of course, but by and large, that's the way it is.Of course that's the way it is, I'm not arguing otherwise.

I'm saying multiple sports can co-exist in a single town.

Toronto will never, ever put the NFL before the Leafs, but that doesn't mean that an NFL team can't thrive here.

It doesn't have to be the big ticket item in order for it to work.

[DraftBoy]

Of course that's the way it is, I'm not arguing otherwise.

I'm saying multiple sports can co-exist in a single town.

Toronto will never, ever put the NFL before the Leafs, but that doesn't mean that an NFL team can't thrive here.

It doesn't have to be the big ticket item in order for it to work.

Actually I think it does, why would the NFL invest in a city where it can't be #1 while in season?

No other NFL city has that issue.

[Skooby]

Actually I think it does, why would the NFL invest in a city where it can't be #1 while in season?

No other NFL city has that issue.

How about the LA area?

[DraftBoy]

How about the LA area?

Is there currently a team in LA?

[jdaltroy5]

In terms of football...I just don't see it...

There ARE passionate fans in TO..as you and Spiked are an example, but 2, or a 1000, or 10000, doesn't make a passionate fanbase

I know you and Spiked, as I'm sure a number of Torontarians (That'd be a cool Godzilla rival name), carry a bit of arrogance with this oft repeated..."we're too smart to pay overpriced seating for an inferior product.."

Well...here's the deal with that...

As to ticket pricing- all NFL seating is overpriced. It will be overpriced if you get an expansion franchise, an annual doormat or a contender. Your ticket price won't be set by team performance, it will be set by your geographic location. It is an expensive city...ticket prices will be among the highest in the NFL. Yes, but there's overpriced and completely pricing yourself out of the market. Like I said, they originally wanted $800 for one seat to a preseason game and regular season game. The most expensive average tickets in the league are under $300 for a game. And that's for the Giants, a team that has won multiple Super Bowls recently and has a brand new stadium. Not the Buffalo Bills in a baseball stadium.


As to the inferior/superior product- if you get an expansion team, you WILL get an inferior product, and it will be inferior for 5 years are longer. Will this oft stated statement remain true? Will fans stop attending games after year 2 or year 3 because they will not pay for an inferior product? The NFL expansion or relocation committee won't like that. Just look at TFC in the MLS. They've been around since 2007 and have never even flirted with a winning record.

They averaged 20k per game in their first season and have averaged 19,600 since then.


Or do you expect your franchise, whether it is an expansion franchise..or the Rams, or the Bills...to suddenly become a perennial powerhouse because it is in Toronto? Even teams with good ownership, such as Atlanta and Houston...go through some pretty tough times. Houston went through...7 years of losing before they became decent? And then became a terrible team this year again? Its part of the NFL. Hey, if there's one thing Toronto knows, it's a bad sports franchise.


In terms of "support"...there is support..and then there is NFL support, especially modern NFL support. A half full stadium doesn't cut it in the NFL. The lowest average attendance in the NFL this year was Oakland..at 80% capacity. 25 of the 32 teams played in stadiums at least 90% full..(even Buffalo). Besides Oakland..no team was below 85%.

Houston almost always plays to sellouts or close to it...even this year. And they have ever since they became the Texans. They've had 3 winning seasons in their history and still put in 70,000 people every weekend.

Cleveland has had I think 1 winning season since the new franchise was created. Again, like Houston, they put 70,000 into their stadium every week.

Now answer honestly...do you see that happening in Toronto? Its easy to say..'we'll support a winner"...well yeah, every city in the US will do that.

Will they support them in a down year? Or a mediocre year? Will they fill their stadium to 90% when they are 6-10?
Because that's the modern NFL. I really don't think they'll have a problem with that. You can look at every other team in Toronto as an example. You can say that 30k at a baseball game isn't 70k at a football game. Sure, it's not. But you have to look at it relative to its peers. If they can pull above average attendance at a basketball game or baseball game, there's no reason that they can't pull above average attendance at a football game. Cleveland, KC, Houston, or Oakland aren't selling out their other stadiums either.


And as much as tickets are overpriced...the NFL still wants to see full stadiums and gets embarrassed by half empty stadiums. The reason is..it looks bad on TV. It makes the product look cheap.

You know..with the Toronto series, especially after this last game...it wouldn't have shocked me if Goodell got on the phone with Russ and whoever from Toronto...and said, "guys..we have to do something here. You have a half empty cave where no one is paying attention to the game..it really looks bad". And again, it's a ridiculously overpriced ticket to a crappy team in a baseball stadium.

Would you pay $400 to go and watch the Florida Panthers play at Kauffman Stadium? Of course not. But would you pay $100 to watch the Kansas City Panthers play in a real hockey arena?


As much as the NFL might drool over the potential revenue in Toronto, or expansion into a Canadian market... I'm sure the decision makers also know they can't have a half empty, or 2/3 full stadium on TV most of the season. Its bad for TV.

I just don't know that Toronto will support a franchise...good times AND bad...year in and year out. The Toronto series was a bad showing. Attendance of 30,000 for their long established Argos doesn't help the argument of supporting a professional football team. The standards of support in the NFL are just a lot higher than they are for the NBA or even MLB.I think the first thing they would have to do is get an actual NFL stadium. The Alouettes used to play in the Stade D'Olympique and it was awful. When they moved to McGill University, the atmosphere was so much better that they could afford to raise the ticket prices.

Clearly, the SkyDome is not an NFL stadium. They would need to invest in an open air stadium that is close to the TTC and highways and allow for tailgating.

That is a major hurdle and the biggest obstacle standing in the way at the moment. I don't know if they'll ever be able to get over it because they won't build a stadium without a team and they won't get a team without a stadium.

[jdaltroy5]

Actually I think it does, why would the NFL invest in a city where it can't be #1 while in season?

No other NFL city has that issue.
I would say that NY puts the Knicks before the Giants and Chicago puts the Bulls before the Bears. The Bears are probably even behind the Hawks right now.

Hell, depending on the season, Boston puts the Celtics before the Pats too.

The NFL doesn't care what place they are in, they care about the total revenue.

[Skooby]

Is there currently a team in LA?

Now you know why there isn't, proving your point.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Actually I think it does, why would the NFL invest in a city where it can't be #1 while in season?

No other NFL city has that issue.

You sure about that? You don't think the Dolphins play second fiddle to the Heat? The Rams to the Cardinals?

Hell, the Steelers couldn't even fill 90% of their seats this season and the Penguins are over capacity nearly every night.

[jdaltroy5]

You sure about that? You don't think the Dolphins play second fiddle to the Heat? The Rams to the Cardinals?

Hell, the Steelers couldn't even fill 90% of their seats this season and the Penguins are over capacity nearly every night.
For a long time, the Lions were probably sitting behind the Wings and Pistons as well.

[DraftBoy]

I would say that NY puts the Knicks before the Giants and Chicago puts the Bulls before the Bears. The Bears are probably even behind the Hawks right now.

I would strongly disagree with both those assessments.


Hell, depending on the season, Boston puts the Celtics before the Pats too.

Again I don't believe so.


The NFL doesn't care what place they are in, they care about the total revenue.

Oh they most certainly care about what place they are in, let's not make a mistake there. They want to be #1 at all times no matter what.

[DraftBoy]

You sure about that? You don't think the Dolphins play second fiddle to the Heat? The Rams to the Cardinals?

Hell, the Steelers couldn't even fill 90% of their seats this season and the Penguins are over capacity nearly every night.

Not in Miami no, maybe in St. Louis I could buy that.

Penguins have a sub 20,000 seat stadium, that compared to the 65,000 seat stadium is a bit of a stretch.

[jdaltroy5]

I would strongly disagree with both those assessments.I didn't even include baseball because their seasons only overlap by a month or two depending on how the team is doing.

But if you include baseball, the NFL is not #1 in a lot of areas. Most notably New York, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Miami, and a strong case could be made for a lot of other places.


Oh they most certainly care about what place they are in, let's not make a mistake there. They want to be #1 at all times no matter what.Just to use round numbers, do you think they would rather make 1 mil and be number 1 in KC or make 10 mil and be number 2 in Toronto?

[jdaltroy5]

Not in Miami no, maybe in St. Louis I could buy that.

Penguins have a sub 20,000 seat stadium, that compared to the 65,000 seat stadium is a bit of a stretch.
Yeah and the Pens also have 41 home games.

It's hard to compare these things like that.

And what about college teams?

The NFL definitely plays second fiddle to a lot of college teams.

[better days]

You sure about that? You don't think the Dolphins play second fiddle to the Heat? The Rams to the Cardinals?

Hell, the Steelers couldn't even fill 90% of their seats this season and the Penguins are over capacity nearly every night.

Miami is filled with bandwagon fans. Just like Toronto.

But the Fins were in Miami before the Heat, so even if the Heat are more popular, the NFL did not put a team in Miami after that fact.

I just read the Raiders had the smallest crowds this year in the NFL at 85% & NBA, NHL & even baseball have much smaller venues to fill.

[better days]

I didn't even include baseball because their seasons only overlap by a month or two depending on how the team is doing.

But if you include baseball, the NFL is not #1 in a lot of areas. Most notably New York, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Miami, and a strong case could be made for a lot of other places.

Just to use round numbers, do you think they would rather make 1 mil and be number 1 in KC or make 10 mil and be number 2 in Toronto?

A preseason game in New York or Any of those other Cities draws bigger numbers on TV than regular season games of ANY other sport.

[jdaltroy5]

Miami is filled with bandwagon fans. Just like Toronto.

But the Fins were in Miami before the Heat, so even if the Heat are more popular, the NFL did not put a team in Miami after that fact.

I just read the Raiders had the smallest crowds this year in the NFL at 85% & NBA, NHL & even baseball have much smaller venues to fill.
Yeah, but that have 5-10x more games to sell.

And Toronto isn't full of bandwagon fans. Every Toronto team sucks and has for a long time. They all pull in above average attendance despite being more expensive than most other places.


You have no idea what you're talking about and I'm pretty sure you've never even been here.

[jdaltroy5]

A preseason game in New York or Any of those other Cities draws bigger numbers on TV than regular season games of ANY other sport.
So your contention is that the Giants, Bears, and Pats are more popular than the Yankees, Cubs, and Sox?

Seriously?

[THATHURMANATOR]

What are we arguing about here?

Are the Toronto games done or what???

[trapezeus]

i feel like what the north koreans must feel like under the dictatorship of Kim jung un. Having Brandon give away games for money, then potentially have to skip out on the deal early and have no other retribution makes me think, "thank you dear leader. can you please screw up one more draft for us. We fans would be ever so grateful."

[DraftBoy]

I didn't even include baseball because their seasons only overlap by a month or two depending on how the team is doing.

But if you include baseball, the NFL is not #1 in a lot of areas. Most notably New York, Chicago, Boston, Detroit, Miami, and a strong case could be made for a lot of other places.

Just to use round numbers, do you think they would rather make 1 mil and be number 1 in KC or make 10 mil and be number 2 in Toronto?

Yea but that really depends on if you're an in the postseason team or not for Baseball. And Miami? The Marlins are absolute joke attendance wise.

You can't legitimately ask a question where you made up the numbers at random.

[DraftBoy]

Yeah and the Pens also have 41 home games.

It's hard to compare these things like that.

And what about college teams?

The NFL definitely plays second fiddle to a lot of college teams.

I agree its apples and oranges when you look at capacity for stadiums of different sizes.

Which college teams specifically?

[jdaltroy5]

Yea but that really depends on if you're an in the postseason team or not for Baseball. And Miami? The Marlins are absolute joke attendance wise. I meant the Heat, not the Marlins. I agree, the Marlins are a joke.


You can't legitimately ask a question where you made up the numbers at random.Sure I can. It's just a hypothetical situation. Do you think the NFL cares more about money or about being number 1 in the market?

[jdaltroy5]

I agree its apples and oranges when you look at capacity for stadiums of different sizes.

Which college teams specifically?

Florida, Georgia, Kansas (basketball), LSU, Michigan, North Carolina (basketball), Ohio, Penn State, and Tennessee are bigger than their NFL counterpart IMO.

And that doesn't even take into account the programs like Alabama, Oklahoma, and Nebraska since they don't have an NFL team.

I'm sure the NFL would LIKE to be the number one form of entertainment in every market, but they aren't going to pass on a team because they don't think they will be number one.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Not in Miami no, maybe in St. Louis I could buy that.

Penguins have a sub 20,000 seat stadium, that compared to the 65,000 seat stadium is a bit of a stretch.

Do you want to take a look at the capacities of the stadia in Los Angeles that you criticize the fans for not filling? The Coliseum seats 93,000 people and the Rose Bowl over 100K.

Every time this is brought up, I point out the same thing. Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, St. Louis, and Oakland all lost teams. Only in Los Angeles are the fans blamed. I mean, surely you'd be lining up to watch a team that played in a stadium built before the Great Depression, sitting in the worst neighborhood in the western United States during the height of the crack epidemic, while the owner publicly flirted with and took money from other cities?

Pittsburgh has been historically the most dominant team in the NFL and is two years removed from the Super Bowl, yet they get a pass for failing to reach 90% capacity in one of the smallest stadiums in the league?


Miami is filled with bandwagon fans. Just like Toronto.

But the Fins were in Miami before the Heat, so even if the Heat are more popular, the NFL did not put a team in Miami after that fact.

Lots of teams apparently have "bandwagon" fans. The Bills needed multiple manufactured sellouts and 3 of the wildcard games were nearly blacked out. Including Green Bay, for god's sake.

[better days]

Do you want to take a look at the capacities of the stadia in Los Angeles that you criticize the fans for not filling? The Coliseum seats 93,000 people and the Rose Bowl over 100K.

Every time this is brought up, I point out the same thing. Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, St. Louis, and Oakland all lost teams. Only in Los Angeles are the fans blamed. I mean, surely you'd be lining up to watch a team that played in a stadium built before the Great Depression, sitting in the worst neighborhood in the western United States during the height of the crack epidemic, while the owner publicly flirted with and took money from other cities?

Pittsburgh has been historically the most dominant team in the NFL and is two years removed from the Super Bowl, yet they get a pass for failing to reach 90% capacity in one of the smallest stadiums in the league?



Lots of teams apparently have "bandwagon" fans. The Bills needed multiple manufactured sellouts and 3 of the wildcard games were nearly blacked out. Including Green Bay, for god's sake.

NO other team in the NFL has had so little success over such an extended period of time as the Bills.

Add in BAD weather late in the season along with LOSSES that continue to mount & how could you expect anything else?

Bills fans just need HOPE & the Ralph will be filled again.

[DraftBoy]

I meant the Heat, not the Marlins. I agree, the Marlins are a joke.

Look at the Heat's attendance before Lebron.


Sure I can. It's just a hypothetical situation. Do you think the NFL cares more about money or about being number 1 in the market?

Not really, and I think the two are mutually exclusive. Without any evidence you can't say being #2 in Toronto will be more profitable than being #1 in say KC. Especially not 10x more profitable. It's not a fair question to ask or answer.

[DraftBoy]

Florida, Georgia, Kansas (basketball), LSU, Michigan, North Carolina (basketball), Ohio, Penn State, and Tennessee are bigger than their NFL counterpart IMO.

None of Gainesville, Athens (GA), Lawrence, Baton Rouge, Kalamazoo, Chapel Hill, Athens (OH), Happy Valley, and Knoxville have NFL teams...


And that doesn't even take into account the programs like Alabama, Oklahoma, and Nebraska since they don't have an NFL team.

None of the schools you mentioned have NFL teams.


I'm sure the NFL would LIKE to be the number one form of entertainment in every market, but they aren't going to pass on a team because they don't think they will be number one.

I'd be curious to see the numbers on a city by city basis on that.

[DraftBoy]

Do you want to take a look at the capacities of the stadia in Los Angeles that you criticize the fans for not filling? The Coliseum seats 93,000 people and the Rose Bowl over 100K.

Every time this is brought up, I point out the same thing. Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston, St. Louis, and Oakland all lost teams. Only in Los Angeles are the fans blamed. I mean, surely you'd be lining up to watch a team that played in a stadium built before the Great Depression, sitting in the worst neighborhood in the western United States during the height of the crack epidemic, while the owner publicly flirted with and took money from other cities?

Pittsburgh has been historically the most dominant team in the NFL and is two years removed from the Super Bowl, yet they get a pass for failing to reach 90% capacity in one of the smallest stadiums in the league?

Huh? Who is blaming the fans for anything?

[SpikedLemonade]

I think where this tread fails is the focus on seat sales as opposed to suite (corporate boxes) sales.

The former is shared revenue whereas the latter is not shared and kept by the owner.

When there was discussion in the late 90`s of the Bills possibly relocating it was not due to a lack of seat sales but rather the lack of the renewing of corporate boxes at The Ralph.

When the Bills get a new owner, he will insist on a new stadium being built within 10 years. That new stadium will have more and expensive corporate boxes. Who in the Buffalo area will buy them.

That is the advantage Toronto and other wealthier cities have over Buffalo.

Celino and Barnes can only buy so many boxes in Buffalo and they sure ain`t coming from Toronto to buy boxes in Buffalo.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

NO other team in the NFL has had so little success over such an extended period of time as the Bills.

Add in BAD weather late in the season along with LOSSES that continue to mount & how could you expect anything else?

Bills fans just need HOPE & the Ralph will be filled again.

So if the Bills are good the fans will show up?

Is that not the definition of bandwagoning?

Now obviously I don't think Bills fans are actually bandwagon, but the slams on Toronto or Los Angeles fans are a little silly in our situation.


Huh? Who is blaming the fans for anything?

MitchMurray did it just last page. There are multiple markets where the NFL team isn't the #1 draw and they are still viable, Los Angeles would be one of them. I admit they would likely always be #2 behind the Lakers but who cares? It's the #13th largest metro area in the world.

[DraftBoy]

MitchMurray did it just last page. There are multiple markets where the NFL team isn't the #1 draw and they are still viable, Los Angeles would be one of them. I admit they would likely always be #2 behind the Lakers but who cares? It's the #13th largest metro area in the world.

Well that's his fault.

We've identified a grand total of one market we all agree where the NFL is likely a #2 and that's St. Louis outside of that its just people disagreeing without any real facts to backup either point of view.

[better days]

So if the Bills are good the fans will show up?

Is that not the definition of bandwagoning?

Now obviously I don't think Bills fans are actually bandwagon, but the slams on Toronto or Los Angeles fans are a little silly in our situation.



MitchMurray did it just last page. There are multiple markets where the NFL team isn't the #1 draw and they are still viable, Los Angeles would be one of them. I admit they would likely always be #2 behind the Lakers but who cares? It's the #13th largest metro area in the world.

It is not like the Bills had a down year or two.

But why am I telling you that?

Bandwagon fans fall off the wagon quickly.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Well that's his fault.

We've identified a grand total of one market we all agree where the NFL is likely a #2 and that's St. Louis outside of that its just people disagreeing without any real facts to backup either point of view.

You just handwaved Miami away for no reason, so here's some numbers. The Heat draw beyond capacity, the Dolphins were at 85%. In Oakland the Warriors draw to capacity, while the Raiders are at 80%.

And I'm not really sure what needs to be said about Boston and the Red Sox. There are few cities that love any team as much as them.

[stuckincincy]

The CFL seems to satisfy whatever demands Canadians have for live pro football. And its' my understanding that in Canada, all NFL games are available on tv.

Why bother with a NFL franchise?

[DraftBoy]

You just handwaved Miami away for no reason, so here's some numbers. The Heat draw beyond capacity, the Dolphins were at 85%. In Oakland the Warriors draw to capacity, while the Raiders are at 80%.

And I'm not really sure what needs to be said about Boston and the Red Sox. There are few cities that love any team as much as them.

You can't base an opinion of whose #1 based solely on stadium capacity, that's a massive fallacy in the thought. For instance the Dolphins were drawing an 11.3 in Miami in September. That went up as they chased the playoffs.

Stadium capacity is only one factor of what should be a comprehensive analysis.

[jdaltroy5]

NO other team in the NFL has had so little success over such an extended period of time as the Bills.

Add in BAD weather late in the season along with LOSSES that continue to mount & how could you expect anything else?

Bills fans just need HOPE & the Ralph will be filled again.So in Toronto, if attendance is average for a lousy team, they are bandwagon fans.

In Buffalo, if attendance is average for a lousy team, it's because the team is lousy.

Nice to see you are applying the same amount of integrity.

[jdaltroy5]

Look at the Heat's attendance before Lebron.



Not really, and I think the two are mutually exclusive. Without any evidence you can't say being #2 in Toronto will be more profitable than being #1 in say KC. Especially not 10x more profitable. It's not a fair question to ask or answer.It is a fair question and a valid one. You understand the premise of it, but you just don't want to answer it.

The question is very simple, I just used round numbers to make it easy. Does the NFL care more about total revenue or market share. I don't care if a team is 10x more profitable or 1.1x times more profitable, they are always going to care more about total revenue.

They aren't going to pull the Giants, Bears, or Sox because they aren't the main attraction in their area so they can move them to Bangor, Maine where they'll definitely be number one.

[jdaltroy5]

None of Gainesville, Athens (GA), Lawrence, Baton Rouge, Kalamazoo, Chapel Hill, Athens (OH), Happy Valley, and Knoxville have NFL teams...

None of the schools you mentioned have NFL teams. Sure, but they are still considered the same market. Almost all of those teams are within 70 miles of each other. Happy Valley is only 15 miles outside of Pittsburgh.

[DraftBoy]

It is a fair question and a valid one. You understand the premise of it, but you just don't want to answer it.

The question is very simple, I just used round numbers to make it easy. Does the NFL care more about total revenue or market share. I don't care if a team is 10x more profitable or 1.1x times more profitable, they are always going to care more about total revenue.

They aren't going to pull the Giants, Bears, or Sox because they aren't the main attraction in their area so they can move them to Bangor, Maine where they'll definitely be number one.

I'd be happy to answer if you could even begin to show that the disparity you presented is close to real.

[jdaltroy5]

Well that's his fault.

We've identified a grand total of one market we all agree where the NFL is likely a #2 and that's St. Louis outside of that its just people disagreeing without any real facts to backup either point of view.We can't agree that at the very least the NFL is not number one in Boston, New York, or Chicago?

I've been to all three of those cities in the last 2 years. Baseball gear is by far the number one paraphernalia there.

[DraftBoy]

Sure, but they are still considered the same market. Almost all of those teams are within 70 miles of each other. Happy Valley is only 15 miles outside of Pittsburgh.

I see your point, but I'm not sure how many of those towns/cities even fit into the MSA of the pro team market. I can only speak for Atlanta because I live here but Athens is not in our MSA.

[jdaltroy5]

I'd be happy to answer if you could even begin to show that the disparity you presented is close to real.Ok, scrap the numbers.

Take New York for example. Can we agree that the Yankees are the number one team there?

If so, would the NFL move the Giants to say, Butte, Montana, just so they could be number one in that marketplace?

[DraftBoy]

We can't agree that at the very least the NFL is not number one in Boston, New York, or Chicago?

I've been to all three of those cities in the last 2 years. Baseball gear is by far the number one paraphernalia there.

No, I'd lean towards agreeing with Boston and maybe NY, but no way on Chicago.

My wife is from Chicago, the Bears are everything. We also have family on Long Island and they are far bigger Giants fans then they are Yankees or Mets fans however that's not a very relevant data point.

[DraftBoy]

Ok, scrap the numbers.

Take New York for example. Can we agree that the Yankees are the number one team there?

If so, would the NFL move the Giants to say, Butte, Montana, just so they could be number one in that marketplace?

No wait the numbers were you're point so you can't just say scrap the numbers. Do the research and we can have the discussion.

Also are you going to introduce what we are actually measuring, because whether we agree or disagree on whose #1 or #2, if there is no way to define it does it really matter?

[jdaltroy5]

No, I'd lean towards agreeing with Boston and maybe NY, but no way on Chicago.

My wife is from Chicago, the Bears are everything. We also have family on Long Island and they are far bigger Giants fans then they are Yankees or Mets fans however that's not a very relevant data point.I don't know, I went to Chicago in May and I bearly (see what I did there?) saw any Bears gear. It was all Cubs hats and t-shirts.

Granted it was during baseball season, but I just got the impression that it was much more of a baseball town.

[jdaltroy5]

No wait the numbers were you're point so you can't just say scrap the numbers. Do the research and we can have the discussion.

Also are you going to introduce what we are actually measuring, because whether we agree or disagree on whose #1 or #2, if there is no way to define it does it really matter?The numbers weren't my point. My point was asking what the NFL cares about more - market dominance or total revenue.

How am I supposed to do market research for revenue on a team that doesn't exist?

[DraftBoy]

I don't know, I went to Chicago in May and I bearly (see what I did there?) saw any Bears gear. It was all Cubs hats and t-shirts.

Granted it was during baseball season, but I just got the impression that it was much more of a baseball town.

Nicely played.

- - - Updated - - -


The numbers weren't my point. My point was asking what the NFL cares about more - market dominance or total revenue.

How am I supposed to do market research for revenue on a team that doesn't exist?

The numbers are your point, considering that you're saying market dominance and total revenue aren't mutually exclusive.

Why don't you just use real teams?

[jdaltroy5]

The numbers are your point, considering that you're saying market dominance and total revenue aren't mutually exclusive.

Why don't you just use real teams?I can't because one is a hypothetical.

I can take a real team like New York, but in order to "move them" to achieve market dominance, there would be no numbers for that.

[DraftBoy]

I can't because one is a hypothetical.

I can take a real team like New York, but in order to "move them" to achieve market dominance, there would be no numbers for that.

Why don't you just look at a team like the Rams? We agree they are likely the #2 team in a good market. So how far below the Cards are they?

Or Chicago, a more comparable market to Toronto with a large metropolitan area. Compare the Sox, Cubs, Bears, and Hawks. Let's truly see what the disparity is in terms of revenue.

[jdaltroy5]

Why don't you just look at a team like the Rams? We agree they are likely the #2 team in a good market. So how far below the Cards are they?

Or Chicago, a more comparable market to Toronto with a large metropolitan area. Compare the Sox, Cubs, Bears, and Hawks. Let's truly see what the disparity is in terms of revenue.Fine, I'll use New York as an example since they are a large market and aren't number one.

Giants:

Revenue - 338 mil
Operating income - 64 mil
Value - 1.5 billion

Now take a small market team like Buffalo where they are definitely number one in the market.

Revenue - 256 mil
Operating income - 12.6 mil
Value - 870 million

Would the NFL move the Giants to a small town like Buffalo just so they could be number one in every market?

[DraftBoy]

Fine, I'll use New York as an example since they are a large market and aren't number one.

Giants:

Revenue - 338 mil
Operating income - 64 mil
Value - 1.5 billion

Now take a small market team like Buffalo where they are definitely number one in the market.

Revenue - 256 mil
Operating income - 12.6 mil
Value - 870 million

Would the NFL move the Giants to a small town like Buffalo just so they could be number one in every market?

What are the Giants compared to the Yankees financially speaking?

[jdaltroy5]

What are the Giants compared to the Yankees financially speaking?

Revenue: 471 mil
Operating income: 1.4 mil
value 2.4 bil

[IlluminatusUIUC]

You can't base an opinion of whose #1 based solely on stadium capacity, that's a massive fallacy in the thought. For instance the Dolphins were drawing an 11.3 in Miami in September. That went up as they chased the playoffs.

Link?


Stadium capacity is only one factor of what should be a comprehensive analysis.

Stadium capacity is a pretty good start. Yes, the Dolphins/Raiders have a higher capacity stadium than the Heat/Warriors, but OTOH the NFL plays nearly all of its games on weekends when the majority of people are off work. Filling a smaller stadium on a Wednesday night when people have to get up in the morning I'd say is harder than filling a larger stadium on a weekend. At this point in the season the NBA and NFL have played roughly the same amount of home games as well.

http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/sort/homePct
http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance

Also consider that the Heat and Warriors have season ticket waiting lists while the Dolphins and Raiders do not.

http://www.nba.com/warriors/news/warriors-launch-season-ticket-priority-wait-list
http://www.nba.com/heat/tickets/heat_launches_priority_access_club_2011.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_season_ticket_waiting_lists

[jdaltroy5]

So I was bored and I decided to look up some numbers on Forbes.

Total value of the franchise is irrelevant because of revenue sharing, but they broke down each team's percentage of revenue into sport, market, stadium, and brand.

New York, Boston, Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, Minnesota, Cleveland, Arizona, San Diego, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, St. Louis, and Oakland all had a higher market value in the MLB than their NFL counterpart.

In terms of brand value, Boston, New York, Philly, Chicago, San Fran, Seattle, Minnesota, Cleveland, San Diego, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, St. Louis, and Oakland all had a more valuable brand in the MLB than their NFL counterpart.

Take that! Your minute point from several pages ago is officially irrelevant!

[DraftBoy]

So I was bored and I decided to look up some numbers on Forbes.

Total value of the franchise is irrelevant because of revenue sharing, but they broke down each team's percentage of revenue into sport, market, stadium, and brand.

New York, Boston, Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, Minnesota, Cleveland, Arizona, San Diego, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, St. Louis, and Oakland all had a higher market value in the MLB than their NFL counterpart.

In terms of brand value, Boston, New York, Philly, Chicago, San Fran, Seattle, Minnesota, Cleveland, San Diego, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, St. Louis, and Oakland all had a more valuable brand in the MLB than their NFL counterpart.

Take that! Your minute point from several pages ago is officially irrelevant!

Well done.

[TacklingDummy]

So I was bored and I decided to look up some numbers on Forbes.

Total value of the franchise is irrelevant because of revenue sharing, but they broke down each team's percentage of revenue into sport, market, stadium, and brand.

New York, Boston, Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, Minnesota, Cleveland, Arizona, San Diego, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, St. Louis, and Oakland all had a higher market value in the MLB than their NFL counterpart.

In terms of brand value, Boston, New York, Philly, Chicago, San Fran, Seattle, Minnesota, Cleveland, San Diego, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, St. Louis, and Oakland all had a more valuable brand in the MLB than their NFL counterpart.

Take that! Your minute point from several pages ago is officially irrelevant!

I'm thinking 82 home games compared to 8 has something to do with it.

[TacklingDummy]

In 2012 for example the Yankees drew 3,542,406 compared to the Giants 643,964.

It's not surprising that MLB teams are more valuable than NFL teams.

[jdaltroy5]

In 2012 for example the Yankees drew 3,542,406 compared to the Giants 643,964.

It's not surprising that MLB teams are more valuable than NFL teams.I didn't compare team value, NFL teams are generally much more valuable than their MLB counterpart because of the TV contract and revenue sharing.

I specifically only compared market value and brand value, not ticket revenue or shared revenue.

[JohnnyGold]

NO other team in the NFL has had so little success over such an extended period of time as the Bills.

Add in BAD weather late in the season along with LOSSES that continue to mount & how could you expect anything else?

Bills fans just need HOPE & the Ralph will be filled again.

Attendance is part of the discussion, but the NFL will never leave Buffalo because of the fact that the region of Western New York/Southern Ontario is enormous--population wise. If you look at a map of regional affiliation (http://alloveralbany.com/images/facebook_nfl_fan_like_data_map.png) for the league, you can see that in the worst of times (now) half of New York state identifies as Bills fans (also note that this map doesn't include Canada, specifically, Toronto, which as the third largest media market in North America is a fairly significant city to have in the Bill's backyard).

The region is populated, and more importantly, is a proven model (the Bills sell tickets, they sell merchandise, and they have an extremely loyal fanbase.)

I get tired of talking about the Bills moving from Buffalo for one very simple reason: there have been plenty of chances over the last 50/60 years for the Bills to leave buffalo, and they have not. This is not coincidental, this is not a happy turn of luck, this is not blind loyalty on Ralph Wilson's part. We are talking about a group of billionaire owners who care about making money hand over fist. If the Bills could make more money somewhere else, they would move, and make more money somewhere else.

But they can't. So they haven't. And most importantly, they won't.

I've said this before, I've emailed it to every hack from the Toronto Sun or Buffalo News that writes an article about the Bills leaving: but look at that regional map (http://alloveralbany.com/images/facebook_nfl_fan_like_data_map.png) again, and now picture *poof* the Bills are gone, and that area is blank (along with Toronto.) Now... you're an owner of a middling (or worse) team like the Jaguars. You're surrounded by encroaching markets like the Falcons, the Dolphins, hell, even the Buccaneers. Your stadium struggles to sell out, and your brand strength has pretty much bottomed out. You're telling me you're going to stay in Jacksonville, and leave that market in western New York/southern Ontario EMPTY... a market with die hard, proven fans, a stadium that is already built (and renovated)?

If the Bills left for L.A. they would have trouble getting the moving vans out of the parking lot, because there would be about 5-6 other teams trying to drive in and take over the Ralph.

This isn't an MBA level discussion here, this is like, a concept you would be expected to understand to take a 100 level business class in college.

The Bills aren't going anywhere. I promise.

[RedEyE]

Attendance is part of the discussion, but the NFL will never leave Buffalo because of the fact that the region of Western New York/Southern Ontario is enormous--population wise. If you look at a map of regional affiliation (http://alloveralbany.com/images/facebook_nfl_fan_like_data_map.png) for the league, you can see that in the worst of times (now) half of New York state identifies as Bills fans (also note that this map doesn't include Canada, specifically, Toronto, which as the third largest media market in North America is a fairly significant city to have in the Bill's backyard).

The region is populated, and more importantly, is a proven model (the Bills sell tickets, they sell merchandise, and they have an extremely loyal fanbase.)

I get tired of talking about the Bills moving from Buffalo for one very simple reason: there have been plenty of chances over the last 50/60 years for the Bills to leave buffalo, and they have not. This is not coincidental, this is not a happy turn of luck, this is not blind loyalty on Ralph Wilson's part. We are talking about a group of billionaire owners who care about making money hand over fist. If the Bills could make more money somewhere else, they would move, and make more money somewhere else.

But they can't. So they haven't. And most importantly, they won't.

I've said this before, I've emailed it to every hack from the Toronto Sun or Buffalo News that writes an article about the Bills leaving: but look at that regional map (http://alloveralbany.com/images/facebook_nfl_fan_like_data_map.png) again, and now picture *poof* the Bills are gone, and that area is blank (along with Toronto.) Now... you're an owner of a middling (or worse) team like the Jaguars. You're surrounded by encroaching markets like the Falcons, the Dolphins, hell, even the Buccaneers. Your stadium struggles to sell out, and your brand strength has pretty much bottomed out. You're telling me you're going to stay in Jacksonville, and leave that market in western New York/southern Ontario EMPTY... a market with die hard, proven fans, a stadium that is already built (and renovated)?

If the Bills left for L.A. they would have trouble getting the moving vans out of the parking lot, because there would be about 5-6 other teams trying to drive in and take over the Ralph.

This isn't an MBA level discussion here, this is like, a concept you would be expected to understand to take a 100 level business class in college.

The Bills aren't going anywhere. I promise.

That's a great write-up and I agree for the most part. But consider that map and then consider median household income. I'm curious if a "new" area with perhaps half the fanbase but a considerable increase in the corporate market might produce higher profit margins. Truth is the fan with a mid range income is not the primary market of the NFL. The Bills have some of the cheapest seats in the NFL because of the lower incomes of the fanbase region. And perhaps that is fine for what it is - after all there will always be a team at the bottom of the league in creating income. And the Bills have probably one of the smallest range of overhead (largely in part due to the lease and the stadium as old as I am). But I'm left to wonder if a more savvy business owner snatching the franchise wouldn't prefer a broader corporate market?

[SpikedLemonade]

Of course, I new owner wants to sell expensive corporate suites that he does not need to share the revenue from with other NFL owners.

That is why Jerry Jones built the new stadium.

There isn't enough corporate base left in Buffalo to wipe the ass of a mosquito and regional corps are not going to travel to Buffalo to buy boxes. Toronto corps certainly won't.

[stuckincincy]

There isn't enough corporate base left in Buffalo to wipe the ass of a mosquito

Heh - quite the analogy... :anvil:

[BuffaloRedleg]

Most everyone is looking backwards in this argument. It's also important to factor in future growth.

I know people like Spiked are in love with the typical woe-as-me party line about Buffalo being a dump and always getting worse, but that is absolutely not the case anymore.

In fact, Buffalo is the best it's ever been in decades. It is continuing to get better. Small businesses are sprouting up everwhere downtown, the grain elevators are being refurbished, the Lafeyette hotel is as good as any hotel I've ever stayed at (even including the price), the waterfront has been cleaned up and has more plans for the future, the area around the hockey arena is being improved... the list goes on and on.

Buffalo is going to be a growing market and get's buzz all the time for being a hipper and hipper place to live. You see it all the time in various news organizations, hell I just read in the Washington Times/Post whatever on their annual in/out list that "Keep uastin Weird" is out and "Buffalove" is in. I met a couple from Vancouver a few months back and the guys father was a major city Planner in Vancouver, and his father just got back from a conference held in Buffalo about the successes of the current progress being made in the city.

If you haven't been downtown and seen all the changes around Elmwood, Allentown, waterfront and hell even Hertel and to a small extent Black Rock you are doing yourself a disservice. The future of the city is bright and any owner would be smart to hang tight in this market and ride the growth. That's how people get rich, not by clinging to the old outdated biases of misinformed or pessimistic people.

[SpikedLemonade]

OK.

Which large corps. are going to buy expensive boxes/suites in a new stadium?

You need a lot of them and they need to be entertaining potential clients/buyers/suppliers/etc.

[DraftBoy]

OK.

Which large corps. are going to buy expensive boxes/suites in a new stadium?

You need a lot of them and they need to be entertaining potential clients/buyers/suppliers/etc.

First Niagara Bank, Dick's, Bass Pro (assuming they ever get their new store), Rogers, Wegman's, M&T Bank, Lackawanna Steel, New Era, Top's, and Sahlen's are a few that spring right to mind.

[TacklingDummy]

I didn't compare team value, NFL teams are generally much more valuable than their MLB counterpart because of the TV contract and revenue sharing. .
I was meaning more valuable to the city they are located in, not overall value to the owner.

I'm sure the Yankees are more valuable to the city of NY than the Giants are to the city of East Rutherford.
The Padres more valuable to the city of San Diego than the Chargers.
The Giants more than the 49ers.
The Marlins more than the Dolphins.
The Rangers more than the Cowboys.
etc...

Just because of 82 home games compared to 8.
More money is put into the local economies for 82 games.
More beers bought, more food bought, more hotels occupied, more souvenirs bought, more tickets sold, etc...

[OpIv37]

Any update on this? Did this meeting actually happen, and if so, any word on what it was about?

[Historian]

First Niagara Bank, Dick's, Bass Pro (assuming they ever get their new store), Rogers, Wegman's, M&T Bank, Lackawanna Steel, New Era, Top's, and Sahlen's are a few that spring right to mind.

I'm sure Kodak has a box still.

General Motors. (Two new engine lines)
International Paper
UB

The list is pretty long and distinguished. Hell, even my podunk company has Bills, Bisons, and Sabres seats.

You people who haven't been here since you moved out in 1995 really do not know what you're talking about. This isn't your Fathers rustbelt city anymore.

[jdaltroy5]

I was meaning more valuable to the city they are located in, not overall value to the owner.

I'm sure the Yankees are more valuable to the city of NY than the Giants are to the city of East Rutherford.
The Padres more valuable to the city of San Diego than the Chargers.
The Giants more than the 49ers.
The Marlins more than the Dolphins.
The Rangers more than the Cowboys.
etc...

Just because of 82 home games compared to 8.
More money is put into the local economies for 82 games.
More beers bought, more food bought, more hotels occupied, more souvenirs bought, more tickets sold, etc...Gotcha, we were just kind of discussing which ones were more important in their respective cities.

Didn't really have much to do with anything, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

First Niagara Bank, Dick's, Bass Pro (assuming they ever get their new store), Rogers, Wegman's, M&T Bank, Lackawanna Steel, New Era, Top's, and Sahlen's are a few that spring right to mind.

You listed ten companies, at least three of which aren't headquartered in New York and one which has been defunct for ten years.

I think you proved Spiked's point rather than your own.

[SpikedLemonade]

First Niagara Bank, Dick's, Bass Pro (assuming they ever get their new store), Rogers, Wegman's, M&T Bank, Lackawanna Steel, New Era, Top's, and Sahlen's are a few that spring right to mind.

Rogers?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Rogers?

I assumed he meant Rogers Communications.

[BuffaloRedleg]

You can argue the details all you want, but Buffalo is a city with a very large upside. Like Historian said, some of you are living in the past.

That's how the place turned into a ****hole in the first place. Backwards, petty people arguing about how bad things are rather than working towards a future. Now it's been put on younger generations to save it. Sorry if that is insulting to some but the proof is in the pudding.

Also, this:



<tbody>
Kaleida Health

Health care system


8,030




Catholic Health System


Health care system


6,709




Employer Services Corp.


Employment-related services


6,559




Tops Markets LLC


Supermarket retailer


5,058




Wegmans Food Markets Inc.


Supermarket retailer


5,000




M&T Bank


Commercial Bank


4,987




Catholic Diocese of Buffalo


Parishes, schools, and institutions


3,500




Roswell Park Cancer Institute


Hospital


3,224




HSBC Bank USA N.A.


Commercial Bank


3,000




Moog Inc.


Manufacturer of precision-control components and defense systems


2,950




Seneca Gaming Corp.


Entertainment


2,881




People Inc.


Services to people with developmental disabilities


2,636




First Niagara Bank


Commercial Bank


2,600




Geico Direct


Insurance Services


2,286




Bank of America


Commercial Bank


2,000




Dresser-Rand Co.


Manufacturers of compressors, engines and steam turbines


2,000




Elderwood Senior Care


Skilled nursing facility


1,926




The Resource Center


Services to people with developmental disabilities


1,806




Delaware North Cos.


Hospitality and food service


1,734




The Alcott HR Group


HR service provider


1,650




Time Warner Cable


Telecommunications


1,600




West-Herr Auto Group


Automobile Sales and Service


1,431




GM Components Holdings


Manufacturer of radiators and heat exchangers


1,411




Cummins Engine Company, Inc.


Manufacturer of diesel engines and engine components


1,400




Verizon


Telecommunications


1,400




Upper Allegany Health System


Hospital


1,391





Blue Cross Blue Shield of Western New York



<tbody>
Aspire of WNY Inc.


Services to people with developmental disabilities


1,300




Ingram Micro Inc.


Distributor of microcomputer products


1,300




Rich Products Corp.


Food manufacturer


1,300




Goodyear Dunlop Tires North American Ltd.


Tire manufacturer


1,150




National Fuel Gas Co.


Integrated Energy Services


1,123




Praxair Inc.


Production and distribution of industrial gases


1,115




Baker Victory Services


Youth Services


1,102




Key Bank


Commercial Bank


1,100




Independent Health


Health Insurance services


1,059




Upstate Niagara Coop Inc.


Food manufacturer


985




General Motors Powertrain-Tonawanda Engine


Manufacturer of car and boat engines


967




Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center


Hospital


967




Heritage Centers


Services to people with developmental disabilities


950




United Parcel Service


Package delivery services


938




National Grid


Energy Utility


900




Pioneer Credit Recovery Inc.


Collection Services


850




Cutco Corp.


Cutlery manufacturing


725




The Buffalo News


Newspaper publishing


715




UB | MD Physicians Group


Physicians


700




Canisius College


Postsecondary Education


696




John W. Danforth Co.


Mechanical Contractor


675




Buffalo Medical Group


Physicians


667




Ford Motor Co.


Manufacturer of subassemblies for cars and trucks


650




Visiting Nursing Association of WNY


Home-health services


650




Greatbatch Inc.


Manufacturer of power sources and precision engineered components


641




Aurubis Buffalo Inc.


Brass and cooper manufacturing


615




DuPont


Manufacturer of acrulic products and poyvinyl films


600




Saint-Gobain Corp.


Manufacturer of abrasives, ceramics, plastics, building materials and reinforcements


600




Northtown Automotive Cos. Inc.


Automobile Sales and Service


590




Life Technologies


Research systems, consumables and services


550




Modern Corp.


Waste management and recycling


544




Alfred University


Postsecondary Education


518




Multisorb Technologies


Active packing technology


510




Univera Healthcare


Health Insurance services


508




The Carriage House Co.


Manufacturer of shelf-stable wet products


450




Catholic Charities of Buffalo


Social Services


423



</tbody>

Health Insurance services


1,500



</tbody>

I know we aren't talking Silicon Valley here but a multitude of those businesses can afford those suites.

[SpikedLemonade]

I assumed he meant Rogers Communications.

If he did, he just doesn't understand how unappealing it is to invite a Toronto based client for a day trip to Buffalo on a Sunday to watch a Bills game. Most clients would simply say they were busy that day.

I don't want to **** on the City of Buffalo since I have spent time there and like it, but well off Toronto citizens laugh at anything Buffalo. You may not like that, but you want them to spend their money there.

My personal experience with corporate box/suite purchasing decision makers in Toronto is that the ACC and Rogers Centre are popular for client entertaining due to their downtown location. The ACC has two layers of boxes that number close to 200. The Rogers Centre has less. They are expensive but are appealing since you can grab a quick drink or dinner with a client before the game and then simply walk to the game. Perhaps a drink after the game and by 11:00 PM everyone is on their way home. Only when the executives of an organization can not use the box on a particular night do those tickets trickle down to lessor important contacts or employees.

There is no way that a city that has been gutted economically over the years has the corporate base to sell corporate boxes at the price and number that a city like Toronto can. There are many other non-NFL American cities like San Antonio that are better positioned for this. Again this revenue is important because it is not shared with the other NFL owners.

When a new owner comes in who has invested a billion into the team (rather than $25K like Ralph did in 1960), he will raise the seat prices year over year for 5 years until he gets the ticket prices to be at least to the average prices throughout the league. I hope the locals put their money where their mouths are and purchase those tickets regardless of whether the Bills are competitive on the field. I believe they will under threat of relocation.

That unfortunately does nothing for the poor Buffalo market for corporate suites.

We will see how this plays out but that 7th year of the lease clause with the drastically reduced relocation penalty will be very telling since Ralph won't make it to that year. That clause was put in there even with the leasehold improvements. Those leasehold improvements were merely to make the Ralph useable for the 10 year period of the lease. They do not extend the life of the Ralph much beyond the 10 years.

A new owner will put a gun to the taxpayer's heads for a new stadium and the NFL owners will support that effort. The question is whether the taxpayers are prepared to continue subsidizing the NFL owner of the Buffalo Bills.

[SpikedLemonade]

You can argue the details all you want, but Buffalo is a city with a very large upside. Like Historian said, some of you are living in the past.

That's how the place turned into a ****hole in the first place. Backwards, petty people arguing about how bad things are rather than working towards a future. Now it's been put on younger generations to save it. Sorry if that is insulting to some but the proof is in the pudding.

Also, this:



<tbody>
Kaleida Health
Health care system

8,030



Catholic Health System

Health care system

6,709



Employer Services Corp.

Employment-related services

6,559



Tops Markets LLC

Supermarket retailer

5,058



Wegmans Food Markets Inc.

Supermarket retailer

5,000



M&T Bank

Commercial Bank

4,987



Catholic Diocese of Buffalo

Parishes, schools, and institutions

3,500



Roswell Park Cancer Institute

Hospital

3,224



HSBC Bank USA N.A.

Commercial Bank

3,000



Moog Inc.

Manufacturer of precision-control components and defense systems

2,950



Seneca Gaming Corp.

Entertainment

2,881



People Inc.

Services to people with developmental disabilities

2,636



First Niagara Bank

Commercial Bank

2,600



Geico Direct

Insurance Services

2,286



Bank of America

Commercial Bank

2,000



Dresser-Rand Co.

Manufacturers of compressors, engines and steam turbines

2,000



Elderwood Senior Care

Skilled nursing facility

1,926



The Resource Center

Services to people with developmental disabilities

1,806



Delaware North Cos.

Hospitality and food service

1,734



The Alcott HR Group

HR service provider

1,650



Time Warner Cable

Telecommunications

1,600



West-Herr Auto Group

Automobile Sales and Service

1,431



GM Components Holdings

Manufacturer of radiators and heat exchangers

1,411



Cummins Engine Company, Inc.

Manufacturer of diesel engines and engine components

1,400



Verizon

Telecommunications

1,400



Upper Allegany Health System

Hospital

1,391



Blue Cross Blue Shield of Western New York



<tbody>
Aspire of WNY Inc.

Services to people with developmental disabilities

1,300



Ingram Micro Inc.

Distributor of microcomputer products

1,300



Rich Products Corp.

Food manufacturer

1,300



Goodyear Dunlop Tires North American Ltd.

Tire manufacturer

1,150



National Fuel Gas Co.

Integrated Energy Services

1,123



Praxair Inc.

Production and distribution of industrial gases

1,115



Baker Victory Services

Youth Services

1,102



Key Bank

Commercial Bank

1,100



Independent Health

Health Insurance services

1,059



Upstate Niagara Coop Inc.

Food manufacturer

985



General Motors Powertrain-Tonawanda Engine

Manufacturer of car and boat engines

967



Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center

Hospital

967



Heritage Centers

Services to people with developmental disabilities

950



United Parcel Service

Package delivery services

938



National Grid

Energy Utility

900



Pioneer Credit Recovery Inc.

Collection Services

850



Cutco Corp.

Cutlery manufacturing

725



The Buffalo News

Newspaper publishing

715



UB | MD Physicians Group

Physicians

700



Canisius College

Postsecondary Education

696



John W. Danforth Co.

Mechanical Contractor

675



Buffalo Medical Group

Physicians

667



Ford Motor Co.

Manufacturer of subassemblies for cars and trucks

650



Visiting Nursing Association of WNY

Home-health services

650



Greatbatch Inc.

Manufacturer of power sources and precision engineered components

641



Aurubis Buffalo Inc.

Brass and cooper manufacturing

615



DuPont

Manufacturer of acrulic products and poyvinyl films

600



Saint-Gobain Corp.

Manufacturer of abrasives, ceramics, plastics, building materials and reinforcements

600



Northtown Automotive Cos. Inc.

Automobile Sales and Service

590



Life Technologies

Research systems, consumables and services

550



Modern Corp.

Waste management and recycling

544



Alfred University

Postsecondary Education

518



Multisorb Technologies

Active packing technology

510



Univera Healthcare

Health Insurance services

508



The Carriage House Co.

Manufacturer of shelf-stable wet products

450



Catholic Charities of Buffalo

Social Services

423


</tbody>

Health Insurance services

1,500


</tbody>


You may think Buffalo is doing better than it has in the past but the issue is how well it is doing as compared to potential relocating cities.

Many of the organizations you list can't justify spending over $200K a year on a corporate box. Crap, there are charities in that list -- who the hell are they going to entertain in those boxes?

[BuffaloRedleg]

You may think Buffalo is doing better than it has in the past but the issue is how well it is doing as compared to potential relocating cities.

Many of the organizations you list can't justify spending over $200K a year on a corporate box. Crap, there are charities in that list -- who the hell are they going to entertain in those boxes?

Like I said, it's not silicon valley. Kaleida, Tops, Wegmans (I know, not based here), M&T, Roswell, HSBC, Seneca, First Niagara, Geico, BoA, Time Warner, Blue Cross, Rich Products, Greatbach all to some degree have the potential to be involved in corporate box seats. I'm pretty sure that also a lot of businesses split them, I could swear I've seen that in the past. I imagine there are some that I didn't name that would participate in that.

I know what you are getting at, but what I'm saying is that it is not as bleak as you are making it seem. This area is growing... it's not there yet, but smart businessmen buy low and ride it high. A lot of this of course matters who buys the team, we might get someone evil who says **** it we're going to LA (which despite what people say is by no means a guarunteed moneymaker). Let's just hope that's not the case.

[SpikedLemonade]

I hope the Bills don't move either but that is all it really is -- hope.

The new lease does give the situation some time since even if Ralph were to die tomorrow, I can't see the team being moved before that 7th year lease clause window -- 2019 or 2020. A $400M relocation penalty other than that year is enough deterrent. Plus the purchase process will take some time and a new owner will not be approved by the NFL owners if the first words out of his mouth is that he wants to move the team. I expect the NFL will require him to keep the team in Buffalo unless certain conditions are not met (seat sales, suite sales, promise of a new stadium, etc.).

This will be a very interesting story with many twists and turns. The Bills certainly will be relevant again.

[better days]

First Niagara Bank, Dick's, Bass Pro (assuming they ever get their new store), Rogers, Wegman's, M&T Bank, Lackawanna Steel, New Era, Top's, and Sahlen's are a few that spring right to mind.

How did you not include Sargento? The BEST cheese in America, a Buffalo Company.

[better days]

You may think Buffalo is doing better than it has in the past but the issue is how well it is doing as compared to potential relocating cities.

Many of the organizations you list can't justify spending over $200K a year on a corporate box. Crap, there are charities in that list -- who the hell are they going to entertain in those boxes?

How many boxes do you think there are to sell in a Stadium?

Along with the Companies Draftboy named & Sargento which I named already, Companies like Rich products (which had the naming rights for years to the Stadium), New Era which is a HUGE NFL & sporting goods apparel company, Cummins Engine ( one of the best diesel engines made)

The list is LONG enough to fill the Boxes in a Stadium in Buffalo, especially with a great marketing man like Russ.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

How many boxes do you think there are to sell in a Stadium?

Right now RWS has 65 full suites at club level and 56 dugout suites. Any significant renovation or new stadium would attempt to increase that number significantly. The Rams left LA to get a stadium with 120 full boxes almost 20 years ago, but Dallas has 300 in the Jerry Dome. We'll obviously have to fall somewhere closer to the former than the latter, but that's still a notable increase.


Along with the Companies Draftboy named & Sargento which I named already, Companies like Rich products (which had the naming rights for years to the Stadium), New Era which is a HUGE NFL & sporting goods apparel company, Cummins Engine ( one of the best diesel engines made)

The list is LONG enough to fill the Boxes in a Stadium in Buffalo, especially with a great marketing man like Russ.

Again, DraftBoy was listing every company he could think of and he was still bringing in companies from Canada, Pennsylvania, and the dustbin of history. And you can't even name 5 more without bringing up a company from Wisconsin (sorry, that's where Sargento is based) and repeating New Era.

Even assuming that every single one of these companies would buy a box in the new RWS (a HUGE assumption), you're still looking at dozens and dozens to find buyers for. Buffalo just doesn't have the corporate base of its competitors for this franchise.

Be honest with yourself for a second. Imagine the Bills never existed but everything else was the same. If the NFL was going to grant an expansion franchise, would they really put it in Buffalo?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Here is a list of GDP by metro area:

http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2013/201311-report.pdf

Buffalo comes in at #56, the second smallest in the league. Even if you combine it with Rochester, that only moves it up to 33rd, which is still in the Bottom 5 ahead of only Nashville, Jax, New Orleans, and Green Bay.

[OpIv37]

So, rather than have the same old argument about whether Buffalo can still support an NFL team in 2014, does anyone know if this meeting actually happened and if so, what was discussed?

[BuffaloRedleg]

Here is a list of GDP by metro area:

http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2013/201311-report.pdf

Buffalo comes in at #56, the second smallest in the league. Even if you combine it with Rochester, that only moves it up to 33rd, which is still in the Bottom 5 ahead of only Nashville, Jax, New Orleans, and Green Bay.

Yes, but Jax can't even sell out their stadium. I don't think NO did that well during their multitude of years where they were terrible (not sure though).

I get what you are saying, but the area is growing and that matters. Buffalo also covers a lot of real estate, which matters as well.

I'm not pretending to be a subject matter expert on this stuff, I'll leave it to all of you guys. I do however know that Buffalo is a city on the rise and that has value, whether it's tangible right now or not.

[BertSquirtgum]

So, rather than have the same old argument about whether Buffalo can still support an NFL team in 2014, does anyone know if this meeting actually happened and if so, what was discussed?

x2

[better days]

Even assuming that every single one of these companies would buy a box in the new RWS (a HUGE assumption), you're still looking at dozens and dozens to find buyers for. Buffalo just doesn't have the corporate base of its competitors for this franchise.

Be honest with yourself for a second. Imagine the Bills never existed but everything else was the same. If the NFL was going to grant an expansion franchise, would they really put it in Buffalo?

Well, Buffalo is not Dallas or NY City, or LA, or Toronto.

But compare Buffalo to Nashville................how many corporations are located there?

Or Jacksonville..............how many corporations are located there?

We all know Buffalo is a small City, BUT Buffalo played a MAJOR ROLE in making the NFL what it is today.

You can not play the what if game of if the Bills never existed anymore than you can if all the manufacturing jobs never left this country.

The NFL will not approve a move of the Bills as long as FANS support the Bills.

It would be a HUGE BLACK EYE on the NFL to spit in the face of fans that have SUPPORTED a team that played a major role in the HISTORY of the NFL.

And yes I know about the Browns & Colts. I believe the NFL LEARNED something from that.

[BuffaloRedleg]

Well, Buffalo is not Dallas or NY City, or LA, or Toronto.

But compare Buffalo to Nashville................how many corporations are located there?

Or Jacksonville..............how many corporations are located there?

We all know Buffalo is a small City, BUT Buffalo played a MAJOR ROLE in making the NFL what it is today.

You can not play the what if game of if the Bills never existed anymore than you can if all the manufacturing jobs never left this country.

The NFL will not approve a move of the Bills as long as FANS support the Bills.

It would be a HUGE BLACK EYE on the NFL to spit in the face of fans that have SUPPORTED a team that played a major role in the HISTORY of the NFL.

And yes I know about the Browns & Colts. I believe the NFL LEARNED something from that.

People underestimate this. The whole blue collar image is very important to the NFL. When people talk about the NFL not existing in 20 years, it may be partly because they started blowing up teams in smaller markets and destroying their fan base to chase higher revenue.

At the end of the day yes those box seats are important, but jersey sales and TV contracts matter as well. If you start alienating your fan bases those last 2 will suffer.

I say this with no reservation that if they moved the Bills I'd never buy another Jersey again and I'd treat the NFL like I treat the NBA. I'll catch a few playoff games and the championship and that's it.

[OpIv37]

And yes I know about the Browns & Colts. I believe the NFL LEARNED something from that.

Yeah, they learned that expanding to new markets means more money. Indianapolis struggled for a while but they've been good for 15 years and look pretty set for the foreseeable future. They also have a top 3 stadium in the league. They lost the Baltimore market for 15 years or so, but the Ravens came back and won 2 SB's in their first 16 years. Meanwhile Cleveland still has a ****ty team that still gets support.

Translation: the NFL didn't lose fans by transplanting the Colts and Browns. They GAINED fans. The NFL isn't going to leave the Bills in Buffalo because of some abstract sense of history or tradition. If the next owner wants to move the team, the NFL will approve or deny the move based on one factor and one factor only: whether they think the team will be more profitable in Buffalo or somewhere else.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Yes, but Jax can't even sell out their stadium. I don't think NO did that well during their multitude of years where they were terrible (not sure though).

New Orleans was on the brink of being moved when it got hit by Hurricane Katrina. In fact, you could make the case that it actually saved the franchise there because Benson was hit with a firestorm of criticism afterwards for even suggesting the possibility. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Benson#Saints_relocation_controversy)


Well, Buffalo is not Dallas or NY City, or LA, or Toronto.

But compare Buffalo to Nashville................how many corporations are located there?

Or Jacksonville..............how many corporations are located there?

It's probably on par with Jax and behind Nashville, but so what? Those are unquestionably bottom tier NFL markets.


We all know Buffalo is a small City, BUT Buffalo played a MAJOR ROLE in making the NFL what it is today.

Well, Ralph Wilson did and he's in the hall of fame for it. But we are supposed to be looking forward here.


You can not play the what if game of if the Bills never existed anymore than you can if all the manufacturing jobs never left this country.

How is that relevant to what I said? My question is: If the Bills never existed, would the NFL seriously consider putting an expansion team here? I say we wouldn't even be in the top 5. Ralph Wilson has 50 years of history with the city and no major expenses because the team was paid off decades ago. The new owner is going to be taking on nearly a billion dollars in debt to own this team, in a market that's been pretty well tapped.


The NFL will not approve a move of the Bills as long as FANS support the Bills.

It would be a HUGE BLACK EYE on the NFL to spit in the face of fans that have SUPPORTED a team that played a major role in the HISTORY of the NFL.

And yes I know about the Browns & Colts. I believe the NFL LEARNED something from that.

Again I direct your attention to the string of manufactured sellouts this season despite some of the lowest ticket prices in the league. Bills fans are true diehards but I think even we've reached our breaking point with this franchise. The NFL and the state are subsidizing this team and we're still struggling to fill the stadium.


At the end of the day yes those box seats are important, but jersey sales and TV contracts matter as well. If you start alienating your fan bases those last 2 will suffer.

I say this with no reservation that if they moved the Bills I'd never buy another Jersey again and I'd treat the NFL like I treat the NBA. I'll catch a few playoff games and the championship and that's it.

Jersey sales and TV contracts are shared revenue. Buffalo receives payouts from that pool, we don't pay into it. If the team moved to a larger market where they could pay into that pool, the pie would actually get bigger for the other owners.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Yeah, they learned that expanding to new markets means more money. Indianapolis struggled for a while but they've been good for 15 years and look pretty set for the foreseeable future. They also have a top 3 stadium in the league. They lost the Baltimore market for 15 years or so, but the Ravens came back and won 2 SB's in their first 16 years. Meanwhile Cleveland still has a ****ty team that still gets support.

Translation: the NFL didn't lose fans by transplanting the Colts and Browns. They GAINED fans. The NFL isn't going to leave the Bills in Buffalo because of some abstract sense of history or tradition. If the next owner wants to move the team, the NFL will approve or deny the move based on one factor and one factor only: whether they think the team will be more profitable in Buffalo or somewhere else.

This is important. As relevant and meaningful as the Bills are to us, how relevant are they to other teams' fans? New York and New England have a longstanding rivalry with each other and Miami is not invested in the Bills rivalry the way they used to be. Outside of ours, which fanbase is gonna mourn the Bills?

[Ed]

This is important. As relevant and meaningful as the Bills are to us, how relevant are they to other teams' fans? New York and New England have a longstanding rivalry with each other and Miami is not invested in the Bills rivalry the way they used to be. Outside of ours, which fanbase is gonna mourn the Bills?
Not relevant at all. They're easily one of the most irrelevant franchises in the league right now.

Other fans will mourn the Bills as much as Bills fans would mourn the Jags or Rams if they were relocated.

[jdaltroy5]

How is that relevant to what I said? My question is: If the Bills never existed, would the NFL seriously consider putting an expansion team here? I say we wouldn't even be in the top 5. Ralph Wilson has 50 years of history with the city and no major expenses because the team was paid off decades ago. The new owner is going to be taking on nearly a billion dollars in debt to own this team, in a market that's been pretty well tapped.
I'm curious about that actually.

What do you think the top 5 markets would be for the NFL?

[jimmifli]

My question is: If the Bills never existed, would the NFL seriously consider putting an expansion team here? I say we wouldn't even be in the top 5.
It would be somewhere in the current area the Bills' serve. The NFL strategy is about TV ratings, and that means covering the largest TV markets with local teams.

http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets

Buffalo is the 51st largest TV market in America. But is also serves Syracuse (81) and Rochester (80). When you look at the TV markets that are larger, there aren't many that don't already have a local team. From a TV ratings point of view almost any move (outside of LA) would likely result in lower ratings. And lower ratings mean less shared revenue on the next TV deal.

So, a new owner may want to move the Bills, but he's going to have an uphill battle convincing 31 other owners that it's in their best interest to approve a sale. Especially if you buy into the idea that the current owners prefer to use LA as a threat to extort tax dollars for stadiums.

[better days]

New Orleans was on the brink of being moved when it got hit by Hurricane Katrina. In fact, you could make the case that it actually saved the franchise there because Benson was hit with a firestorm of criticism afterwards for even suggesting the possibility. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Benson#Saints_relocation_controversy)



It's probably on par with Jax and behind Nashville, but so what? Those are unquestionably bottom tier NFL markets.

Neither Jax or Nashville have the history the Bills do.

Well, Ralph Wilson did and he's in the hall of fame for it. But we are supposed to be looking forward here.

If Bills fans did not support the team in the early days of the AFL, the team could well have moved or gone belly up as the entire AFL could have.
The NFL would be an entirely different landscape if not for the fans in Buffalo.



How is that relevant to what I said? My question is: If the Bills never existed, would the NFL seriously consider putting an expansion team here? I say we wouldn't even be in the top 5. Ralph Wilson has 50 years of history with the city and no major expenses because the team was paid off decades ago. The new owner is going to be taking on nearly a billion dollars in debt to own this team, in a market that's been pretty well tapped.

If manufacturing never left the Country, Buffalo would be a MUCH BIGGER City, there would be plenty of Corporations, no need for this discussion.
IF a BIG word of only 2 letters.

The FACT is the Bills have existed since 1960 & are a BIG part of NFL HISTORY.

Again I direct your attention to the string of manufactured sellouts this season despite some of the lowest ticket prices in the league. Bills fans are true diehards but I think even we've reached our breaking point with this franchise. The NFL and the state are subsidizing this team and we're still struggling to fill the stadium.

ENOUGH of the manufactured sell outs. Teams had manufactured sellouts in the PLAYOFFS.
And there are teams that have MUCH LOWER prices than the Bills.



Jersey sales and TV contracts are shared revenue. Buffalo receives payouts from that pool, we don't pay into it. If the team moved to a larger market where they could pay into that pool, the pie would actually get bigger for the other owners.

There was a time when baseball had the biggest pie. It was a nice big tasty APPLE Pie.

"As American as baseball & apple pie" USED to be. Well, that pie is MUCH SMALLER today.

Today, an NFL preseason game has more TV viewers than a regular season baseball game.

But if the NFL continues to alienate its fan base, that won't last forever.

[better days]

This is important. As relevant and meaningful as the Bills are to us, how relevant are they to other teams' fans? New York and New England have a longstanding rivalry with each other and Miami is not invested in the Bills rivalry the way they used to be. Outside of ours, which fanbase is gonna mourn the Bills?

Well, I was pissed when Irsey moved the Colts in the middle of the night to Indy.

And I was pissed when Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore. Not that Baltimore didn't deserve a team, but it should have been an expansion team.

All we can do is to wait for Ralph to die to see what happens to the Bills.

For me & MOST Bills fans, if the Bills ever move, the NFL will be dead to me. They could bury it with Ralph.

[Ed]

Well, I was pissed when Irsey moved the Colts in the middle of the night to Indy.

And I was pissed when Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore. Not that Baltimore didn't deserve a team, but it should have been an expansion team.

All we can do is to wait for Ralph to die to see what happens to the Bills.

For me & MOST Bills fans, if the Bills ever move, the NFL will be dead to me. They could bury it with Ralph.
And yet you continued to follow and support the NFL even though they pissed you off. And the NFL continued to grow in popularity and profits despite being dead in Baltimore and Cleveland. If the Bills ever moved you would just be a full time Bucs fan. You wouldn't boycott the NFL.

[BuffaloRedleg]

And yet you continued to follow and support the NFL even though they pissed you off. And the NFL continued to grow in popularity and profits despite being dead in Baltimore and Cleveland. If the Bills ever moved you would just be a full time Bucs fan. You wouldn't boycott the NFL.

I don't think this is true. A lot of Buffalo fans are fans because they are tied to our identity. I don't watch the NBA because we don't have a team, same with a lot of people in Buffalo.

I think you'd find that a lot of of the people in WNY have their love of Football tied to the Bills, not to the NFL. You would absolutely not find people all of a sudden becoming Steelers fans or something.

Cleveland also got their team back, and so did Baltimore (eventually). So I'm not sure that argument is relevant unless you are thinking Buffalo would eventually get a team back.

I absolutely 100% would stop watching football except for the playoffs (or if i'm bored on a Sunday), and I can't be the only one. I could in no way stomach all of a sudden being a fan of another team after 10 years of making fun of people who claim to be "the biggest Cowboys fan" and they are from Long Island.

[BuffaloRedleg]

This is important. As relevant and meaningful as the Bills are to us, how relevant are they to other teams' fans? New York and New England have a longstanding rivalry with each other and Miami is not invested in the Bills rivalry the way they used to be. Outside of ours, which fanbase is gonna mourn the Bills?

I think a lot would. I get props all the time for being a Bills fan and they respect our fanbase a lot. They poke fun at me obviously because we stink, but anyone with half a heart would certainly care. Not enough to boycott the NFL or anything, but I think they would agree it's horse**** if they move. If they don't, they're serious douchebags.

You are also talking about relevency as a product of success. If the team were good we'd be relevant, regardless of our market (that is a huge IF of course). The relevancy of our market has nothing to do with our relevancy in the NFL and to other fans. Carolina is all of a sudden relevant because they got Cam Newton and started winning, not because they are an awesome football market. Relevancy ebbs and flows.

[better days]

And yet you continued to follow and support the NFL even though they pissed you off. And the NFL continued to grow in popularity and profits despite being dead in Baltimore and Cleveland. If the Bills ever moved you would just be a full time Bucs fan. You wouldn't boycott the NFL.

Nope, I would be a Gators fan & NHL Sabres fan.

I would not watch the NFL at all.

I am not saying if the Bills move fans of other teams would stop watching, but I think most Bills fans would stop.

Moving the Bills would just be one more STUPID move by the NFL like playing regular season games in London.

There was a time the Pro Bowl was a GOOD game to watch. It was a matter of pride for the players & fans which conference was better.

Now look at it. No teams at all, just a bunch of fantasy players running around. I won't be watching that game & I doubt many people will.

That could be the future of the entire NFL.

[SpikedLemonade]

I hope the Bills never move but predicting the demise of the NFL if only in part due to a relocation of the Buffalo Bills is just plain stupid.

[better days]

I hope the Bills never move but predicting the demise of the NFL if only in part due to a relocation of the Buffalo Bills is just plain stupid.

Well, baseball still exists. But it is no longer America's National pastime.

I'm not saying moving the Bills will force the NFL out of business, but if they keep ruining the NFL & moving the Bills would be a part of that, the popularity of the NFL will diminish until another sport overtakes it

like the NFL overtook MLB. With HD TV, Hockey is much better to watch on TV than it used to be.

[DraftBoy]

You listed ten companies, at least three of which aren't headquartered in New York and one which has been defunct for ten years.

I think you proved Spiked's point rather than your own.

Since when did a HQ have to be headquartered in NY to have a presence in the local market? Multiple companies with offices in Atlanta but who are not stationed here own Falcons boxes.

I pulled major corporations with a presence in Buffalo (or had one).

[Ed]

I don't think this is true. A lot of Buffalo fans are fans because they are tied to our identity. I don't watch the NBA because we don't have a team, same with a lot of people in Buffalo.

I think you'd find that a lot of of the people in WNY have their love of Football tied to the Bills, not to the NFL. You would absolutely not find people all of a sudden becoming Steelers fans or something.

Cleveland also got their team back, and so did Baltimore (eventually). So I'm not sure that argument is relevant unless you are thinking Buffalo would eventually get a team back.

I absolutely 100% would stop watching football except for the playoffs (or if i'm bored on a Sunday), and I can't be the only one. I could in no way stomach all of a sudden being a fan of another team after 10 years of making fun of people who claim to be "the biggest Cowboys fan" and they are from Long Island.
I'm sure there are Bills fans that would no longer support the NFL if the team moved, but my point is that the NFL would just keep on rolling along and continue to grow. And with the Bills struggling for so long now, I see plenty of fans that care more about their fantasy teams at this point. Between fantasy, pick em, survivor pools, and gambling, there are plenty of reasons for fans to still be interested in the NFL if their teams move.

I get that the Bills leaving Buffalo would be devastating for it's fans and the area, but it wouldn't be devastating to the NFL. You're not going to see a decrease in revenue for the NFL if the Bills were to relocate.

[DraftBoy]

If he did, he just doesn't understand how unappealing it is to invite a Toronto based client for a day trip to Buffalo on a Sunday to watch a Bills game. Most clients would simply say they were busy that day.

I don't want to **** on the City of Buffalo since I have spent time there and like it, but well off Toronto citizens laugh at anything Buffalo. You may not like that, but you want them to spend their money there.

My personal experience with corporate box/suite purchasing decision makers in Toronto is that the ACC and Rogers Centre are popular for client entertaining due to their downtown location. The ACC has two layers of boxes that number close to 200. The Rogers Centre has less. They are expensive but are appealing since you can grab a quick drink or dinner with a client before the game and then simply walk to the game. Perhaps a drink after the game and by 11:00 PM everyone is on their way home. Only when the executives of an organization can not use the box on a particular night do those tickets trickle down to lessor important contacts or employees.

There is no way that a city that has been gutted economically over the years has the corporate base to sell corporate boxes at the price and number that a city like Toronto can. There are many other non-NFL American cities like San Antonio that are better positioned for this. Again this revenue is important because it is not shared with the other NFL owners.

When a new owner comes in who has invested a billion into the team (rather than $25K like Ralph did in 1960), he will raise the seat prices year over year for 5 years until he gets the ticket prices to be at least to the average prices throughout the league. I hope the locals put their money where their mouths are and purchase those tickets regardless of whether the Bills are competitive on the field. I believe they will under threat of relocation.

That unfortunately does nothing for the poor Buffalo market for corporate suites.

We will see how this plays out but that 7th year of the lease clause with the drastically reduced relocation penalty will be very telling since Ralph won't make it to that year. That clause was put in there even with the leasehold improvements. Those leasehold improvements were merely to make the Ralph useable for the 10 year period of the lease. They do not extend the life of the Ralph much beyond the 10 years.

A new owner will put a gun to the taxpayer's heads for a new stadium and the NFL owners will support that effort. The question is whether the taxpayers are prepared to continue subsidizing the NFL owner of the Buffalo Bills.

:rofl:

I'm not defending Buffalo or calling it a destination, I take it for what it is. I was born there but don't live there any longer nor do I have a desire to move back. My point was that there are plenty of companies in the area who could pay for boxes.

As for ticket prices, they need to be raised, no question at all.

[jimmifli]

If he did, he just doesn't understand how unappealing it is to invite a Toronto based client for a day trip to Buffalo on a Sunday to watch a Bills game. Most clients would simply say they were busy that day.

I don't want to **** on the City of Buffalo since I have spent time there and like it, but well off Toronto citizens laugh at anything Buffalo. You may not like that, but you want them to spend their money there.

My personal experience with corporate box/suite purchasing decision makers in Toronto is that the ACC and Rogers Centre are popular for client entertaining due to their downtown location. The ACC has two layers of boxes that number close to 200. The Rogers Centre has less. They are expensive but are appealing since you can grab a quick drink or dinner with a client before the game and then simply walk to the game. Perhaps a drink after the game and by 11:00 PM everyone is on their way home. Only when the executives of an organization can not use the box on a particular night do those tickets trickle down to lessor important contacts or employees.

There is no way that a city that has been gutted economically over the years has the corporate base to sell corporate boxes at the price and number that a city like Toronto can. There are many other non-NFL American cities like San Antonio that are better positioned for this. Again this revenue is important because it is not shared with the other NFL owners.

When a new owner comes in who has invested a billion into the team (rather than $25K like Ralph did in 1960), he will raise the seat prices year over year for 5 years until he gets the ticket prices to be at least to the average prices throughout the league. I hope the locals put their money where their mouths are and purchase those tickets regardless of whether the Bills are competitive on the field. I believe they will under threat of relocation.

That unfortunately does nothing for the poor Buffalo market for corporate suites.

We will see how this plays out but that 7th year of the lease clause with the drastically reduced relocation penalty will be very telling since Ralph won't make it to that year. That clause was put in there even with the leasehold improvements. Those leasehold improvements were merely to make the Ralph useable for the 10 year period of the lease. They do not extend the life of the Ralph much beyond the 10 years.

A new owner will put a gun to the taxpayer's heads for a new stadium and the NFL owners will support that effort. The question is whether the taxpayers are prepared to continue subsidizing the NFL owner of the Buffalo Bills.

This argument misses the point.

Of course a new owner would want to move the team. But they need permission. And that means it needs to be in the interest of the rest of the owners.

And that's actually much tougher than it seems. No other owner wants to see someone buy the Bills on the cheap and then double their money by moving them to LA. Especially when they all lose their stadium extortion threat. No way a move to LA gets approved without some kind of massive fee shared with the NFL and existing owners.

So the argument for relocation that a new owner must make in order to convince the rest of the NFL owners is: increased revenue for them. And that means a larger TV market. And there just aren't very many TV markets that would be more attractive to existing owners than Buffalo. Almost everything is already served, so encroachment becomes a problem, and after that it's pretty diminishing returns.

I see relocation being an uphill battle.

[THATHURMANATOR]

ARE THEY CANCELING THE TORONTO SERIES OR NOT?

[SpikedLemonade]

No question the NFL owners are saving LA for a new team rather than a relocation, but San Antonio is a good possibility.

Here is an article on 10 US city possibilities and although only 5 are viable it gives some city pop stats ==> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/413268-nfl-expansion-cities-that-could-host-a-team-and-team-names/page/10

[better days]

No question the NFL owners are saving LA for a new team rather than a relocation, but San Antonio is a good possibility.

Here is an article on 10 US city possibilities and although only 5 are viable it gives some city pop stats ==> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/413268-nfl-expansion-cities-that-could-host-a-team-and-team-names/page/10

Jerry Jones would not allow a team in San Antonio. That is Cowboys Country.

And NY has two teams because the Jets were in the AFL while the Giants were in the NFL.

I don't see any owner giving up his territory to a new team.

[SpikedLemonade]

Jerry Jones would not allow a team in San Antonio. That is Cowboys Country.

The population and interest would certainly support it. I doubt the Cowboys would be impacted.

Vegas is another viable alternative.

Once Ralph departs, it will play out.

[better days]

The population and interest would certainly support it. I doubt the Cowboys would be impacted.

Vegas is another viable alternative.

Once Ralph departs, it will play out.

The population could support a team in San Antonio, but how would that benefit Jerry Jones & the Cowboys?

Ans: It would not be in the Cowboys best interest to allow a team in San Antonio.

And Vegas is a big enough headache with gambling with no team there.

You will not see an NFL team in Vegas.

I guess we will have to put up with this STUPID thread until Ralph dies.

[SpikedLemonade]

Ralph will never die right?

[Generalissimus Gibby]

Ralph will never die right?

You remember the episode of Dr. Who -- the first one they aired back in like 2006 after a 15 year hiatus -- where Dr. Who and co. are around at the literal end of the world? Well, I am quite confident that Ralph was aboard the ship to see it happen.

[better days]

Ralph will never die right?

Ralph & this thread could both last another 6 or 7 years.

[Ed]

No question the NFL owners are saving LA for a new team rather than a relocation, but San Antonio is a good possibility.

Here is an article on 10 US city possibilities and although only 5 are viable it gives some city pop stats ==> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/413268-nfl-expansion-cities-that-could-host-a-team-and-team-names/page/10
I would have thought OKC would be on that list too. OKC would be a better option than at least a few of those cities. Omaha and OKC would be decent options since they wouldn't be competing with other markets. Portland would work too.

I just can't really see anymore expansion teams. 32 teams works really well with the 4 team divisions. I don't see how they would re-align them if they start adding more teams.

[jimmifli]

I would have thought OKC would be on that list too. OKC would be a better option than at least a few of those cities. Omaha and OKC would be decent options since they wouldn't be competing with other markets. Portland would work too.

I just can't really see anymore expansion teams. 32 teams works really well with the 4 team divisions. I don't see how they would re-align them if they start adding more teams.
OKC is 45, Omaha 76. That's not going to move the needle on TV ratings. Might be worse than Bills country (51 +80 +81).

San Antonio (37) and Salt Lake City (32) seem like the only large TV audiences that aren't already in another team's region and bring a sufficiently greater TV audience to get a relocation approved. With both, you'd end up with a realignment problem, something other owners don't want to deal with.

[SpikedLemonade]

San Antonio already has a 65K stadium that a NFL team could play in while a new stadium is built.

I am assuming a new city would require the promise of a new stadium (not necessarily built with public funds).

As much as the NFL owners are motivated by TV ratings, new stadiums seem to turn them on as well.

[better days]

San Antonio already has a 65K stadium that a NFL team could play in while a new stadium is built.

I am assuming a new city would require the promise of a new stadium (not necessarily built with public funds).

As much as the NFL owners are motivated by TV ratings, new stadiums seem to turn them on as well.

Well, I would love to see you sell Jerry Jones on the idea he should allow a team to move to San Antonio.

[BuffaloRedleg]

Either way you look at it, the BIlls aren't doing poorly. Sure they don't make as much money as some other teams, but jeez there are some other teams who are doing much worse before we start talking Bills movement.

I'd take the guarunteed money in Buffalo over taking a chance of moving to OKC and going bust. Anyone ever been there? It ****ing sucks.

[BuffaloRedleg]

When some of you guys talk about Buffalo I feel like you are talking about this:

http://www.cwhahn.com/buffalo/

If you haven't been there in a bit, it has uhhhh changed.

[OpIv37]

Either way you look at it, the BIlls aren't doing poorly. Sure they don't make as much money as some other teams, but jeez there are some other teams who are doing much worse before we start talking Bills movement.

I'd take the guarunteed money in Buffalo over taking a chance of moving to OKC and going bust. Anyone ever been there? It ****ing sucks.

Except that OKC isn't the only potential destination for the next owner the Bills....

Look, at the moment there is no definitive evidence to prove that the Bills are moving, and there is no definitive evidence to prove that they aren't moving either.... but some of you seem like you're trying really hard to mind-**** yourself into thinking that there is no way the Bills could possibly move, and that simply isn't the reality.

Like I said before, it's all about money. Ralph is holding onto life by a thread, and there will be a new owner in the near future. When the new owner takes over, he may or may not want to move the team, and whether the league approves the move or not depends on one thing and one thing only: where the other owners think they will make the most money. If the other owners think the team is more valuable in Buffalo, the team stays. If they think another location is more profitable, the team goes. It's that simple.

[BertSquirtgum]

Does anybody have any actual info about this meeting or is this senseless rambling about nothing going to continue?

[BuffaloRedleg]

Except that OKC isn't the only potential destination for the next owner the Bills....

Look, at the moment there is no definitive evidence to prove that the Bills are moving, and there is no definitive evidence to prove that they aren't moving either.... but some of you seem like you're trying really hard to mind-**** yourself into thinking that there is no way the Bills could possibly move, and that simply isn't the reality.

Like I said before, it's all about money. Ralph is holding onto life by a thread, and there will be a new owner in the near future. When the new owner takes over, he may or may not want to move the team, and whether the league approves the move or not depends on one thing and one thing only: where the other owners think they will make the most money. If the other owners think the team is more valuable in Buffalo, the team stays. If they think another location is more profitable, the team goes. It's that simple.

Well it's not about mind****ing or saying that it is impossible. We are just giving counterarguments as to why we don't think it will happen. If anyone says it has NO CHANCE of happening, they are deluded. I just believe that Buffal is an up and coming city and is continuously getting better every year. It is a viable market and will become more viable over the next decade if it continues it's upward movement. We all agree that it is almost entirely about money, but the money not being in Buffalo is not a foregone conclusion like you think it is.

Niether side knows anything, so uhh all we can do is discuss it. Would you rather have your argument unopposed? That's pretty boring.

[OpIv37]

Does anybody have any actual info about this meeting or is this senseless rambling about nothing going to continue?

Yeah, you, me and Thurm already made posts to that affect with no results. So either nothing happened, or no one here knows.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

It would be somewhere in the current area the Bills' serve. The NFL strategy is about TV ratings, and that means covering the largest TV markets with local teams.

http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets

Buffalo is the 51st largest TV market in America. But is also serves Syracuse (81) and Rochester (80). When you look at the TV markets that are larger, there aren't many that don't already have a local team. From a TV ratings point of view almost any move (outside of LA) would likely result in lower ratings. And lower ratings mean less shared revenue on the next TV deal.

So, a new owner may want to move the Bills, but he's going to have an uphill battle convincing 31 other owners that it's in their best interest to approve a sale. Especially if you buy into the idea that the current owners prefer to use LA as a threat to extort tax dollars for stadiums.

How many teams are even left to pull that gambit on? San Diego, Buffalo, Oakland, and Jacksonville are the only teams that have a realistic chance to move. Oakland has been openly exploring the possibility of sharing the Santa Clara stadium so that leaves three. And only one of those teams has a geriatric owner who's family is selling when he dies.



I think a lot would. I get props all the time for being a Bills fan and they respect our fanbase a lot. They poke fun at me obviously because we stink, but anyone with half a heart would certainly care. Not enough to boycott the NFL or anything, but I think they would agree it's horse**** if they move. If they don't, they're serious douchebags.

So they'd be annoyed by it, but it wouldn't actually affect their consumption of the NFL's product?


Since when did a HQ have to be headquartered in NY to have a presence in the local market? Multiple companies with offices in Atlanta but who are not stationed here own Falcons boxes.

I pulled major corporations with a presence in Buffalo (or had one).

"A presence" meaning what exactly? Just because a company has a call center or a factory here doesn't mean they are going to be interested in hosting clients in a Bills box.


Jerry Jones would not allow a team in San Antonio. That is Cowboys Country.

And NY has two teams because the Jets were in the AFL while the Giants were in the NFL.

I don't see any owner giving up his territory to a new team.


Well, I would love to see you sell Jerry Jones on the idea he should allow a team to move to San Antonio.

Jerry Jones believes a lot of things which aren't so. Just because he may claim ownership of the San Antonio market doesn't mean the other owners have to agree with that. The Alamodome is 280 miles from the Jerry Dome. You could fit Colorado on its short axis in between the two of them. It's the third point of the Texas triangle, and it can support its own franchise.

FWIW, that's where the Saints nearly moved in the mid 2000's

[OpIv37]

Well it's not about mind****ing or saying that it is impossible. We are just giving counterarguments as to why we don't think it will happen. If anyone says it has NO CHANCE of happening, they are deluded. I just believe that Buffal is an up and coming city and is continuously getting better every year. It is a viable market and will become more viable over the next decade if it continues it's upward movement. We all agree that it is almost entirely about money, but the money not being in Buffalo is not a foregone conclusion like you think it is.

Niether side knows anything, so uhh all we can do is discuss it. Would you rather have your argument unopposed? That's pretty boring.

Buffalo fans are consistent. It's been 14 years of losing and it wasn't until this season that the team had to manufacture sellouts. Most teams would never last that long. Contrast that with the Patriots: there were no Patriots fans in the 90's, and there won't be any once Bellicheck and Brady retire and the team goes into a rebuilding cycle.

So it comes down to which one is more profitable for the NFL: a big market team with a fickle fan base, or a small market team with a consistent fan base? There is no public data available to answer that question, so it all comes down to what the NFL owners think is the most profitable.

My personal opinion: the NFL is losing consistent, lifelong fans by trying to appeal to the wealthy flavor-of-the-month crowd. Example: a lot of people in DC and the surrounding MD and VA suburbs are either giving up on the NFL altogether or becoming Ravens fans because the Skins have been so bad and they can't afford to bring their families to the games. I was 11 the first time I went to a Bills game, but a lot of lifelong Redskins fans can't afford to bring their families to the games now, so the kids never develop that affinity for the team. However, the NFL has acted in a way that shows they value the wealthy, fairweather fan over the lifelong middle-class or blue collar fan.

So, we shall see what happens. I'm not convinced either way, but I'm concerned that the Bob Krafts, Jerry Jones' and Dan Snyders' of the league are tired of subsidizing revenue-sharing recipients like Buffalo and only care about finding the next big trend to cut down on their costs.

[BuffaloRedleg]

Buffalo fans are consistent. It's been 14 years of losing and it wasn't until this season that the team had to manufacture sellouts. Most teams would never last that long. Contrast that with the Patriots: there were no Patriots fans in the 90's, and there won't be any once Bellicheck and Brady retire and the team goes into a rebuilding cycle.

So it comes down to which one is more profitable for the NFL: a big market team with a fickle fan base, or a small market team with a consistent fan base? There is no public data available to answer that question, so it all comes down to what the NFL owners think is the most profitable.

My personal opinion: the NFL is losing consistent, lifelong fans by trying to appeal to the wealthy flavor-of-the-month crowd. Example: a lot of people in DC and the surrounding MD and VA suburbs are either giving up on the NFL altogether or becoming Ravens fans because the Skins have been so bad and they can't afford to bring their families to the games. I was 11 the first time I went to a Bills game, but a lot of lifelong Redskins fans can't afford to bring their families to the games now, so the kids never develop that affinity for the team. However, the NFL has acted in a way that shows they value the wealthy, fairweather fan over the lifelong middle-class or blue collar fan.

So, we shall see what happens. I'm not convinced either way, but I'm concerned that the Bob Krafts, Jerry Jones' and Dan Snyders' of the league are tired of subsidizing revenue-sharing recipients like Buffalo and only care about finding the next big trend to cut down on their costs.

I 100% agree with everything you are saying, well put. I guess we can get back to the original topic now.

[better days]

Except that OKC isn't the only potential destination for the next owner the Bills....

Look, at the moment there is no definitive evidence to prove that the Bills are moving, and there is no definitive evidence to prove that they aren't moving either.... but some of you seem like you're trying really hard to mind-**** yourself into thinking that there is no way the Bills could possibly move, and that simply isn't the reality.

Like I said before, it's all about money. Ralph is holding onto life by a thread, and there will be a new owner in the near future. When the new owner takes over, he may or may not want to move the team, and whether the league approves the move or not depends on one thing and one thing only: where the other owners think they will make the most money. If the other owners think the team is more valuable in Buffalo, the team stays. If they think another location is more profitable, the team goes. It's that simple.

I think most of us are just sick & tired of hearing it is a forgone conclusion the Bills will move when Ralph dies.

And there could be conditions on the sale of the team that we don't know about yet.

Could the team move? Possibly.

But why do we need to hear about this until Ralph dies?

[OpIv37]

I think most of us are just sick & tired of hearing it is a forgone conclusion the Bills will move when Ralph dies.

And there could be conditions on the sale of the team that we don't know about yet.

Could the team move? Possibly.

But why do we need to hear about this until Ralph dies?
Because this stupid team can't make the playoffs so we have nothing else to talk about in January.

[better days]

Because this stupid team can't make the playoffs so we have nothing else to talk about in January.

Except people have been talking about the Bills moving EVERY month of the year.

Preseason, regular season, post season, offseason. Someone will start a thread about the Bills moving.

I was told it was absolutely certain there would be a team playing in the new Stadium in LA this year.

I said I would believe a new Stadium in LA after I saw dirt moved.

[OpIv37]

Every time something comes up with the Toronto situation, the moving talk is going to start because it's all related. Toronto is a potential landing spot if the Bills move, do the Bills need the Toronto deal to remain viable in Buffalo, etc.

[trapezeus]

still no word on it still being on or not. russ is a clone of ralph. no way he can leave a single penny off the table for th good of the team. because ever since he's been in ralph's inner circle, they've only maximized profit for themselves and put out a crappy team. and they know their family benefits from this crappy low cost production than trying to be a champion. he has no shame.

I hope that the year his low production, crap coach, no scouting, russ in charge team actually shows signs of life that the toronto loss is the game that effectively knocks us out of the playoffs. is he too stupid to realize that if we actually were good, that single game could be killer?

[Historian]

Just as an aside...Tops was just purchased by their managers and is now local again, believe it or not.

I don't know all the details, but they are not owned by that Penna firm anymore.

[stuckincincy]

Just as an aside...Tops was just purchased by their managers and is now local again, believe it or not.

I don't know all the details, but they are not owned by that Penna firm anymore.

I'm way behind the times. When did the Costallanos sell it?

[better days]

How many teams are even left to pull that gambit on? San Diego, Buffalo, Oakland, and Jacksonville are the only teams that have a realistic chance to move. Oakland has been openly exploring the possibility of sharing the Santa Clara stadium so that leaves three. And only one of those teams has a geriatric owner who's family is selling when he dies.




So they'd be annoyed by it, but it wouldn't actually affect their consumption of the NFL's product?



"A presence" meaning what exactly? Just because a company has a call center or a factory here doesn't mean they are going to be interested in hosting clients in a Bills box.





Jerry Jones believes a lot of things which aren't so. Just because he may claim ownership of the San Antonio market doesn't mean the other owners have to agree with that. The Alamodome is 280 miles from the Jerry Dome. You could fit Colorado on its short axis in between the two of them. It's the third point of the Texas triangle, and it can support its own franchise.

FWIW, that's where the Saints nearly moved in the mid 2000's

In order to move a team, it requires approval of the owners as does buying a team.

Jerry Jones has the clout to keep a team out of San Antonio.

The Saints THREATENED to move to get a new Stadium deal as a number of teams have done, but they were nowhere close to moving.

Like I said a move to San Antonio would require approval & Jerry Jones will never allow that to happen.

[SpikedLemonade]

In order to move a team, it requires approval of the owners as does buying a team.

Jerry Jones has the clout to keep a team out of San Antonio.

The Saints THREATENED to move to get a new Stadium deal as a number of teams have done, but they were nowhere close to moving.

Like I said a move to San Antonio would require approval & Jerry Jones will never allow that to happen.

Why did he not prevent the Houston Texans franchise?

[Ed]

In order to move a team, it requires approval of the owners as does buying a team.

Jerry Jones has the clout to keep a team out of San Antonio.

The Saints THREATENED to move to get a new Stadium deal as a number of teams have done, but they were nowhere close to moving.

Like I said a move to San Antonio would require approval & Jerry Jones will never allow that to happen.

Does approval have to be unanimous?

[better days]

Why did he not prevent the Houston Texans franchise?

Because Houston had a team that was stolen from them.

The NFL could not deny Houston a chance at another team.

[better days]

Does approval have to be unanimous?

I think for ownership it does. May not need 100% approval to move a team, I'm not sure, but it is a LARGE majority needed in any case.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

In order to move a team, it requires approval of the owners as does buying a team.

Jerry Jones has the clout to keep a team out of San Antonio.

The Saints THREATENED to move to get a new Stadium deal as a number of teams have done, but they were nowhere close to moving.

Like I said a move to San Antonio would require approval & Jerry Jones will never allow that to happen.

http://tinyurl.com/lbwd9f7


The Dallas Cowboys' owner, Jerry Jones, said yesterday that he would not mind if the New Orleans Saints moved to San Antonio, but he said this was not the time to discuss the Saints' future

[better days]

http://tinyurl.com/lbwd9f7

This was after Hurracane Katrina. Jones said the PC thing.

What goes on behind closed doors is another thing.

And LA was in play for a team (as it still is) if you read the article.

There was & is no chance a team moves to San Antonio.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

This was after Hurracane Katrina. Jones said the PC thing.

What goes on behind closed doors is another thing.

And LA was in play for a team (as it still is) if you read the article.

There was & is no chance a team moves to San Antonio.

What? You have it completely backwards. The PC thing would have been to strongly oppose moving the saints, not support it!

[better days]

What? You have it completely backwards. The PC thing would have been to strongly oppose moving the saints, not support it!

There was no Stadium in New Orleans to play in.

It was destroyed by the Hurricane.

And even before that, Benson wanted a new Stadium there.

Jones was supporting a fellow owner, saying he would not oppose the Saints in San Antonio.

That is what I meant when I said PC thing. It was meant to put pressure on N.O. to build or rebuild the Superdome.

But if the Saints would have moved anywhere it would have been to LA.

"Jones acknowledged that the Saints had been considered a contender to move to Los Angeles, which has no N.F.L. franchise."

[DraftBoy]

There was no Stadium in New Orleans to play in.

It was destroyed by the Hurricane.

And even before that, Benson wanted a new Stadium there.

Jones was supporting a fellow owner, saying he would not oppose the Saints in San Antonio.

That is what I meant when I said PC thing. It was meant to put pressure on N.O. to build or rebuild the Superdome.

But if the Saints would have moved anywhere it would have been to LA.

"Jones acknowledged that the Saints had been considered a contender to move to Los Angeles, which has no N.F.L. franchise."
You think the PC thing was to put pressure on a city and a citizenry that had just been hit by a massive Hurricane that destroyed billions of dollars worth of infrastructure and cost a number of people their lives?

Not sure how you define that as PC.

[Ed]

I think for ownership it does. May not need 100% approval to move a team, I'm not sure, but it is a LARGE majority needed in any case.
Well when the Oilers moved to Tennessee they needed 23 owners to approve the move. No single owner can block a move.

Why would Jerry Jones really be that opposed to a team in San Antonio anyway? It's 275 miles away, so it's not like he'd lose out on ticket sales and tv revenue is shared.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Jones was supporting a fellow owner, saying he would not oppose the Saints in San Antonio.

As DraftBoy suggested, I'm not sure that supporting a fellow owner at the expense of a city that was so heavily damaged qualifies as "PC"


But if the Saints would have moved anywhere it would have been to LA.

"Jones acknowledged that the Saints had been considered a contender to move to Los Angeles, which has no N.F.L. franchise."

While IMO LA is the better market, San Antonio already has the foundation for an NFL quality facility. Not the best one, obviously, but the estimate to renovate it is less than $200 million as opposed to building a whole new one in Los Angeles. New Orleans -> San Antonio also doesn't require an division re-alignment. Further, the Saints had already established a presence there. In that specific situation, San Antonio was the far more likely option.

[better days]

As DraftBoy suggested, I'm not sure that supporting a fellow owner at the expense of a city that was so heavily damaged qualifies as "PC"



While IMO LA is the better market, San Antonio already has the foundation for an NFL quality facility. Not the best one, obviously, but the estimate to renovate it is less than $200 million as opposed to building a whole new one in Los Angeles. New Orleans -> San Antonio also doesn't require an division re-alignment. Further, the Saints had already established a presence there. In that specific situation, San Antonio was the far more likely option.


Except for the fact I don't think Jerry Jones would allow a team to go to San Antonio.

Why would he? NOTHING for him to gain by that.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Except for the fact I don't think Jerry Jones would allow a team to go to San Antonio.

Why would he? NOTHING for him to gain by that.

Why wouldn't he? Taking a team from a market that receives shared revenue (Jax and Buffalo) and moving to one that could generate it (San Antonio) increases his cut of the proceeds. How much of his non-shared revenue is really coming from the San Antonio market? It's 280 miles away.

[jdaltroy5]

Except for the fact I don't think Jerry Jones would allow a team to go to San Antonio.

Why would he? NOTHING for him to gain by that.You do realize that Jerry Jones doesn't control the league right?

You keep saying that Jerry won't allow it, but if the other owners think they can make more money with a team in San Antonio, then it doesn't matter what Jerry thinks.

[better days]

Why wouldn't he? Taking a team from a market that receives shared revenue (Jax and Buffalo) and moving to one that could generate it (San Antonio) increases his cut of the proceeds. How much of his non-shared revenue is really coming from the San Antonio market? It's 280 miles away.

Jerry would like to see a team in LA, NOT San Antonio.

There would be no benefit to a team in San Antonio for him, it would just cut into his market.

I would bet Jerry makes a lot of money selling Cowboys gear to fans throughout the State of Texas as well as to idiots that live in Canada, Philly etc.

[better days]

You do realize that Jerry Jones doesn't control the league right?

You keep saying that Jerry won't allow it, but if the other owners think they can make more money with a team in San Antonio, then it doesn't matter what Jerry thinks.

Jerry Jones has a lot of clout with other owners. You don't know that?

He would have no problem getting others to vote with him to block a move to San Antonio.

And if a prospective buyer suggested he wanted to move the Bills there, I doubt he would even be allowed to buy the Bills.

[DraftBoy]

Jerry Jones has a lot of clout with other owners. You don't know that?

He would have no problem getting others to vote with him to block a move to San Antonio.

And if a prospective buyer suggested he wanted to move the Bills there, I doubt he would even be allowed to buy the Bills.[/QUOTE]

You have no idea how much clout Jerry has nor do you even have the faintest idea about how a floated move to San Antonio would go down. You're making broad assumptions about topics none of can speak at all intelligently on.

[jdaltroy5]

Jerry Jones has a lot of clout with other owners. You don't know that?

He would have no problem getting others to vote with him to block a move to San Antonio.

And if a prospective buyer suggested he wanted to move the Bills there, I doubt he would even be allowed to buy the Bills.Why does he have clout? Because he's in the public eye more than other owners?

You have no idea how much pull he has, so stop speculating.

And if he had so much clout, how did they get a team in Houston? That city is closer than San Antonio.

It doesn't matter how much pull he has, if the owners think they can make more in SA, then they're going to approve it.

[jimmifli]

if the owners think they can make more in SA
It's the 37th largest TV market and probably already gets good ratings for an NFL game. Buffalo is 51 (+80 Rochester and +81Syracuse) and would likely be scorched earth for the NFL for a long time if the Bills left. Small gain+ big loss does not equal a compelling argument.

It's tough to see how the Bills moving to San Antonio could even be neutral for ratings. Buffalo might be a ****ty spot to own an NFL team but it's a pretty good spot for the NFL to have an NFL team.

[jdaltroy5]

It's the 37th largest TV market and probably already gets good ratings for an NFL game. Buffalo is 51 (+80 Rochester and +81Syracuse) and would likely be scorched earth for the NFL for a long time if the Bills left. Small gain+ big loss does not equal a compelling argument.

It's tough to see how the Bills moving to San Antonio could even be neutral for ratings. Buffalo might be a ****ty spot to own an NFL team but it's a pretty good spot for the NFL to have an NFL team.Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that San Antonio WILL be a better market.

I'm saying if the owners think they can make more money there, then Jerry Jones won't be able to stand in the way.

[Ed]

You have no idea how much clout Jerry has nor do you even have the faintest idea about how a floated move to San Antonio would go down. You're making broad assumptions about topics none of can speak at all intelligently on.
You didn't know that better days gets to sit in on all the owners meetings?

[Mace]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that San Antonio WILL be a better market.

I'm saying if the owners think they can make more money there, then Jerry Jones won't be able to stand in the way.

Jurrah has alot of monnah, a bug new stuhdium, kicks alotta monnah buck in to them revenuers pool.

He could flick his wrist and send the league to Boise. NFL is not coming to San Antonio or anywhere unless Jurrah says ok. Unfortunate, but unavoidable, much like his GM work.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Jerry would like to see a team in LA, NOT San Antonio.

There would be no benefit to a team in San Antonio for him, it would just cut into his market.

I would bet Jerry makes a lot of money selling Cowboys gear to fans throughout the State of Texas as well as to idiots that live in Canada, Philly etc.

Jerry would prefer a team in Los Angeles, but that may not be his choice to make. Like I said, Los Angeles has the better market but San Antonio has the easier transition for some teams.

And the Cowboys gear argument is moot. Merchandise sales are shared revenue.

[better days]

He would have no problem getting others to vote with him to block a move to San Antonio.

And if a prospective buyer suggested he wanted to move the Bills there, I doubt he would even be allowed to buy the Bills.

You have no idea how much clout Jerry has nor do you even have the faintest idea about how a floated move to San Antonio would go down. You're making broad assumptions about topics none of can speak at all intelligently on.[/QUOTE]

Well, I listen to football talk all the time. From local radio WDAE, To The Bills station WGR, The Pats* station WEEI, ESPN, FOX, And Sirius Radio.

I can tell you from listening & watching & reading, Jerry Jones has a LOT of CLOUT.

Nobody has to believe me.......................keep your eyes & ears open & you will see for yourself.

[better days]

Jerry would prefer a team in Los Angeles, but that may not be his choice to make. Like I said, Los Angeles has the better market but San Antonio has the easier transition for some teams.

And the Cowboys gear argument is moot. Merchandise sales are shared revenue.

Does the NFL split merchandise equally?

Or is it like ticket sales, the Team selling gets the Lions share.

As I have said Jerry has a LOT of clout with the other owners.

I don't think he would have a problem getting the necessary votes to block a move to San Antonio.

[GingerP]

While it is true the NFL bylaws state the league controls any franchise relocation, that doesn't mean they can block a team from moving. The league bylaws state that a team needs to apply for relocation and the league must approve, but that doesn't mean much.

The NFL does not have an anti-trust exemption, thus they can't circumvent anti-trust laws. As recently as 2010 (as part of when the lockout led the league and players to court, the American Needle case), the courts ruled the NFL is not a single business, but is considered 32 separate businesses. Thus, they are subject to anti-trust regulations.

What that means, is if the other teams tried to block a team from moving, they would be guilty of collusion and would violate anti-trust laws. That is what happened with Al Davis wanted to move from Oakland to LA. The league voted to block the move, and had a court issue an injunction stopping the move. Davis filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, and won. Then he moved his team anyway.

So, if a team wants relocation, the NFL can vote to block the move. However, if that team really wants to move they can just do it anyway, because the NFL has no legal standing to block an individual business from moving.

[better days]

While it is true the NFL bylaws state the league controls any franchise relocation, that doesn't mean they can block a team from moving. The league bylaws state that a team needs to apply for relocation and the league must approve, but that doesn't mean much.

The NFL does not have an anti-trust exemption, thus they can't circumvent anti-trust laws. As recently as 2010 (as part of when the lockout led the league and players to court, the American Needle case), the courts ruled the NFL is not a single business, but is considered 32 separate businesses. Thus, they are subject to anti-trust regulations.

What that means, is if the other teams tried to block a team from moving, they would be guilty of collusion and would violate anti-trust laws. That is what happened with Al Davis wanted to move from Oakland to LA. The league voted to block the move, and had a court issue an injunction stopping the move. Davis filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, and won. Then he moved his team anyway.

So, if a team wants relocation, the NFL can vote to block the move. However, if that team really wants to move they can just do it anyway, because the NFL has no legal standing to block an individual business from moving.

Good point. BUT If the NFL THINKS a potential owner would want to move a team & the NFL does not want that to happen, that potential owner will not be approved to purchase the team.

[BertSquirtgum]

Does anybody have any actual info about this meeting or is this senseless rambling about nothing going to continue?

[OpIv37]

Does anybody have any actual info about this meeting or is this senseless rambling about nothing going to continue?

Seriously.

Hurkey and I usually disagree on everything but I'm completely with him on this one. Did the meeting happen, and if so, what was discussed?

Based on the lack of reporting on it, I'm guessing that either it didn't happen, or it was just about some mundane details that weren't worth reporting.

[jimmifli]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that San Antonio WILL be a better market.

I'm saying if the owners think they can make more money there, then Jerry Jones won't be able to stand in the way.
I get that. But...

I've yet to see an argument for ANY market that would benefit other owners. I'm not sure one can be made.

[OpIv37]

I get that. But...

I've yet to see an argument for ANY market that would benefit other owners. I'm not sure one can be made.

There is a very simple one: revenue.

The owners have a revenue sharing agreement. The more money that is made by the revenue-sharing recipients, the less money that the revenue-sharing benefactors have to sell out. And, in an ideal world for the owners of the big money teams, every team would make enough money that revenue sharing would become obsolete.

If Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft, Dan Snyder and the other revenue-sharing contributors think another city would make more money than Buffalo, they'd approve a move without a second thought. If they feel the gains would be minimal or there wouldn't be gains at all, they won't approve a move. It really is that simple.

[jimmifli]

There is a very simple one: revenue.
HOLY **** REALLY!!!

[BuffaloRedleg]

Oh lordy I a-seen a whole mess'a speculatin' here amongst all a-parties involved, yessir.

[DraftBoy]

Well, I listen to football talk all the time. From local radio WDAE, To The Bills station WGR, The Pats* station WEEI, ESPN, FOX, And Sirius Radio.

Oh well in that case....

[jdaltroy5]

I get that. But...

I've yet to see an argument for ANY market that would benefit other owners. I'm not sure one can be made.
I don't disagree. I think Buffalo has a large enough market that money can definitely be made.

It's a proven commodity as well. It can make money during a recession and a playoff drought - COMBINED.

I don't know if a new owner is going to want to risk the billions of dollars to relocate, just so he can gain a possible slight percentage jump in revenue.

[sudzy]

Oh well in that case....

It's always funny when someone thinks that the fact they listen too sports talk radio makes them an expert on sports.

[better days]

Oh well in that case....

Yeah, ANYONE with two eyes two ears & half a brain knows it to be a fact,

Jerry Jones has a lot of clout in the NFL.

- - - Updated - - -


It's always funny when someone thinks that the fact they listen too sports talk radio makes them an expert on sports.

I don't claim to be an expert, just INFORMED.

[DraftBoy]

Yeah, ANYONE with two eyes two ears & half a brain knows it to be a fact,

Jerry Jones has a lot of clout in the NFL

Yes but when you take said fact and begin to make broad assumptions you leave the world of logic and go into a crazy land of assumptions, guessing, and making things up to fit a narrative.

[better days]

Yes but when you take said fact and begin to make broad assumptions you leave the world of logic and go into a crazy land of assumptions, guessing, and making things up to fit a narrative.

Why is it a broad assumption to think Jerry Jones would not want anyone cutting into his territory?

That is only logical.

It is the same as the author of that article saying a 2nd team could go into Chicago.

Does ANYONE think the Bears would allow that?

[OpIv37]

Why is it a broad assumption to think Jerry Jones would not want anyone cutting into his territory?

That is only logical.

It is the same as the author of that article saying a 2nd team could go into Chicago.

Does ANYONE think the Bears would allow that?

Of course it's logical to think Jones wouldn't want a team in San Antonio. The illogical part is assuming he has enough clout to block it. If the other owners truly thought they would benefit financially by having a team in San Antonio, I highly doubt they would turn it down just to do Jones a favor.

Of course, like you, I'm just speculating. Unlike you, however, I'm not referring to my speculation as "fact."

[better days]

Of course it's logical to think Jones wouldn't want a team in San Antonio. The illogical part is assuming he has enough clout to block it. If the other owners truly thought they would benefit financially by having a team in San Antonio, I highly doubt they would turn it down just to do Jones a favor.

Of course, like you, I'm just speculating. Unlike you, however, I'm not referring to my speculation as "fact."

Well, like I said, I have heard NFL people talk about Jerry Jones. I have no doubt he could muster the few votes needed to block a team from moving to San Antonio.

It is not like he would need every other owner to vote with him, just a few.

And to think San Antonio would benefit the other owners financially...................that is really the broad illogical assumption.

[OpIv37]

Well, like I said, I have heard NFL people talk about Jerry Jones. I have no doubt he could muster the few votes needed to block a team from moving to San Antonio.

It is not like he would need every other owner to vote with him, just a few.

And to think San Antonio would benefit the other owners financially...................that is really the broad illogical assumption.

I never made that assumption- I said IF that's what they thought. No one here has any idea if the other owners consider San Antonio to be a better market than Buffalo or any other small market team.

[better days]

I never made that assumption- I said IF that's what they thought. No one here has any idea if the other owners consider San Antonio to be a better market than Buffalo or any other small market team.

Well, then why are you & they arguing?

You have no idea.

[OpIv37]

Well, then why are you & they arguing?

You have no idea.
You've been arguing for 12 pages about stuff you have no idea about.

[better days]

You've been arguing for 12 pages about stuff you have no idea about.

WRONG. Just as you & others argued an NFL team would be playing in LA by now, I am the one who was correct when I argued they would not.

[jdaltroy5]

Well, like I said, I have heard NFL people talk about Jerry Jones. I have no doubt he could muster the few votes needed to block a team from moving to San Antonio.

It is not like he would need every other owner to vote with him, just a few.

And to think San Antonio would benefit the other owners financially...................that is really the broad illogical assumption.How did he not block the expansion team in Houston? A city that is CLOSER than San Antonio.

Also, as someone else pointed out, if a team really wants to move, the other teams can't stop them.

[DraftBoy]

Why is it a broad assumption to think Jerry Jones would not want anyone cutting into his territory?

That is only logical.

It is the same as the author of that article saying a 2nd team could go into Chicago.

Does ANYONE think the Bears would allow that?

Wow...just wow.

[better days]

How did he not block the expansion team in Houston? A city that is CLOSER than San Antonio.

Also, as someone else pointed out, if a team really wants to move, the other teams can't stop them.

I already explained that.

Houston had an NFL team. They were called the Houston Oilers.

The NFL including Jerry Jones wanted a team back in Houston after the Oilers were stolen from them.

And Houston is a hell of a lot bigger than San Antonio.

And while the NFL may not be able to prevent a team from moving, they would have no problem blocking a potential owner that wanted to move a team from buying it.

- - - Updated - - -


Wow...just wow.

Great argument.

[jdaltroy5]

I already explained that.

Houston had an NFL team. They were called the Houston Oilers.

The NFL including Jerry Jones wanted a team back in Houston after the Oilers were stolen from them.

And Houston is a hell of a lot bigger than San Antonio.

And while the NFL may not be able to prevent a team from moving, they would have no problem blocking a potential owner that wanted to move a team from buying it.
Yes, Jerry Jones seems like the kind of guy that would definitely take a financial hit for the sake of nostalgia.

Jesus Christ man take a step back and look at your argument. It's ok to admit that you're wrong from time to time.

[better days]

Yes, Jerry Jones seems like the kind of guy that would definitely take a financial hit for the sake of nostalgia.

Jesus Christ man take a step back and look at your argument. It's ok to admit that you're wrong from time to time.

When proven wrong, I have no problem admitting it & have done so in the past (unlike DraftBoy).

But I am not wrong about this, at least I have not been proven wrong.

Jerry Jones did not take any financial hit with Houston getting the Texans.

After the Oilers moved, I would imagine NFL fans in Houston felt the same way Bills fans in Buffalo would feel if the Bills ever move.

[OpIv37]

WRONG. Just as you & others argued an NFL team would be playing in LA by now, I am the one who was correct when I argued they would not.

I said LA is getting a team, I never said they'd have one by now.

[better days]

I said LA is getting a team, I never said they'd have one by now.

Well, maybe you didn't. But somebody arguing with me about it at the time did.

I don't remember you disagreeing with them.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

When proven wrong, I have no problem admitting it & have done so in the past (unlike DraftBoy).

But I am not wrong about this, at least I have not been proven wrong.

I posted a direct quote from Jerry Jones saying he wouldn't mind a team in San Antonio and you rejected it. So your claim is that Jones lied about it even though he had no reason to,


Jerry Jones did not take any financial hit with Houston getting the Texans.

After the Oilers moved, I would imagine NFL fans in Houston felt the same way Bills fans in Buffalo would feel if the Bills ever move.

Why do you think Jerry didn't take a hit when the Oilers moved in? Because the markets are far enough apart that they don't directly compete for the non-shared revenue. And because the markets are large enough that the increase the pool of shared revenue. San Antonio is even farther than that, and larger than the market it would replace.

As noted above, Jerry Jones takes a financial hit by keeping the team in Buffalo. Right now the Bills are profitable specifically because they draw from the shared pool of TV, merch, and ticket revenue far more money then they pay it. Jerry subsidizes Buffalo. Anything that raises the bottom teams of the league up reduces his revenue sharing requirements.

[Ed]

Back to the original topic of the meeting, the links below are for some recent articles discussing it. So it looks to me like the meeting is definitely happening or has happened already, but the exact date isn't known. It just says that the meeting was scheduled for the week of the 12th, not necessarily the day of the 12th. So we may not know any details until next week at the earliest. All the speculation still seems to be leaning towards the Toronto series coming to an end. I'm assuming information we'll start leaking pretty quickly after the meeting, so I'm guessing it may not have happened yet.

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2014/1/4/5272976/buffalo-bills-rogers-communications-schedule-toronto-series-meeting

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/03/buffalo-bills-rogers-set-to-meet-in-two-weeks

http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2014/01/07/buffalo-bills-should-end-toronto-home-games-in-upcoming-meeting/

[stuckincincy]

Back to the original topic of the meeting, the links below are for some recent articles discussing it. So it looks to me like the meeting is definitely happening or has happened already, but the exact date isn't known. It just says that the meeting was scheduled for the week of the 12th, not necessarily the day of the 12th. So we may not know any details until next week at the earliest. All the speculation still seems to be leaning towards the Toronto series coming to an end. I'm assuming information we'll start leaking pretty quickly after the meeting, so I'm guessing it may not have happened yet.

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2014/1/4/5272976/buffalo-bills-rogers-communications-schedule-toronto-series-meeting
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/03/buffalo-bills-rogers-set-to-meet-in-two-weeks
http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2014/01/07/buffalo-bills-should-end-toronto-home-games-in-upcoming-meeting/

Thank you for the links. Good reads.

[jimmifli]

As noted above, Jerry Jones takes a financial hit by keeping the team in Buffalo.

I haven't seen anybody make this case yet. Tickets for 8 games and some merch sales are small potatoes compared to the massive TV contracts.

What markets would make other NFL owners more money than Buffalo?

[better days]

I posted a direct quote from Jerry Jones saying he wouldn't mind a team in San Antonio and you rejected it. So your claim is that Jones lied about it even though he had no reason to,



Why do you think Jerry didn't take a hit when the Oilers moved in? Because the markets are far enough apart that they don't directly compete for the non-shared revenue. And because the markets are large enough that the increase the pool of shared revenue. San Antonio is even farther than that, and larger than the market it would replace.

As noted above, Jerry Jones takes a financial hit by keeping the team in Buffalo. Right now the Bills are profitable specifically because they draw from the shared pool of TV, merch, and ticket revenue far more money then they pay it. Jerry subsidizes Buffalo. Anything that raises the bottom teams of the league up reduces his revenue sharing requirements.

I quoted Jerry Jones in that article saying the Saints were contenders to move to LA.

And Jones did not take a financial hit when Houston got the Texans because the few Cowboys fans in Houston would continue to be Cowboys fans.

San Antonio is filled with Cowboys fan & some/most of them would become fans of the new San Antonio team.

AGAIN, Jones was referring to the fact the Saints had nowhere to play at that time in New Orleans when he said he would not mind them in San Antonio.

And as I said Jones was helping a fellow owner get his new Stadium ( or rather rebuild), but if the Saints would have made a permanent move, it would have been to LA NOT San Antonio.

And if you are saying Jones takes a financial hit from the team being in Buffalo, let's see some figures by a reputable source to back that up.

[OpIv37]

I quoted Jerry Jones in that article saying the Saints were contenders to move to LA.

And Jones did not take a financial hit when Houston got the Texans because the few Cowboys fans in Houston would continue to be Cowboys fans.

San Antonio is filled with Cowboys fan & some/most of them would become fans of the new San Antonio team.

AGAIN, Jones was referring to the fact the Saints had nowhere to play at that time in New Orleans when he said he would not mind them in San Antonio.

And as I said Jones was helping a fellow owner get his new Stadium ( or rather rebuild), but if the Saints would have made a permanent move, it would have been to LA NOT San Antonio.

And if you are saying Jones takes a financial hit from the team being in Buffalo, let's see some figures by a reputable source to back that up.
Are you ****ing serious? Teams like Dallas pay INTO revenue sharing. Teams like Buffalo RECEIVE money from revenue sharing. Get it? Earlier you were referring to your assumptions as "facts" and now you are challenging actual established facts because your argument has been destroyed.

Do you even know what "fact" means?

[OpIv37]

Also, you keep saying San Antonio is full of Cowboy fans- what's your source on that? San Antonio is closer to Houston than Dallas- not by much, but Houston is probably 50 or 60 miles closer.

[better days]

Are you ****ing serious? Teams like Dallas pay INTO revenue sharing. Teams like Buffalo RECEIVE money from revenue sharing. Get it? Earlier you were referring to your assumptions as "facts" and now you are challenging actual established facts because your argument has been destroyed.

Do you even know what "fact" means?

Show me how much money Buffalo gets from Jerry Jones.

How was my argument destroyed?

Even if Buffalo gets some money from Jones, what new market aside from LA or Toronto would not be subsidized in the same respect?