Sabres owner has interest in Bills

[G. Host]

Rochester billionaire B. Thomas Golisano on Wednesday called the Buffalo Bills "a huge asset to this community," and didn't rule out playing a role to ensure the franchise doesn't leave town.

"It's concerning to me," said Golisano, who owns the Buffalo Sabres. "I'm very interested in the topic. How I would get involved is undetermined at this point."

Golisano said he wouldn't "rule out anything."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/04/05/bc.fbn.bills.golisano.ap/

At least they are willing to post it.... If we were as dead to league/media as some claim they would not bother.

[ICE74129]

It doesn't mean spit if wilson wont sell

[Mitchy moo]

:bullseye:
It doesn't mean spit if wilson wont sell

[Turf]

Frankly I think Ralph hates the league right now and wants out. This is a cry for help. He would sell to a local owner in a heartbeat IMO.

[socalfan]

Frankly I think Ralph hates the league right now and wants out. This is a cry for help. He would sell to a local owner in a heartbeat IMO.

If he did sell, he could be hurting the Bills in the long term. One of the other terms for revenue sharing that the higher revenue owners have added is ---


IF YOU SELL YOUR TEAM, THE NEW OWNER(S) ARE INELIGIBLE FOR REVENUE SHARING.

Do you think they added that just to tweak Ralph's nose....or maybe stick it to western NY??

http://wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=36859

[Turf]

If he did sell, he could be hurting the Bills in the long term. One of the other terms for revenue sharing that the higher revenue owners have added is ---


IF YOU SELL YOUR TEAM, THE NEW OWNER(S) ARE INELIGIBLE FOR REVENUE SHARING.


http://wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=36859


Today was the first I knew about this in the new CBA and I can't believe it hasn't been more widely known.
That one hurts bigtime. I don't understand it at all, or the logic of it, or why it was passed so unanimously.
So a team that has been purchased will always be disenfranchised from shared revenues other teams get? What's the sense in that?

[nova]

Jerry Jones and Co., and Jones in particular, have never wanted to share a penny of their revenue. The only reason why they agreed to a revenue sharing plan is to get enough owners to sign the collective barganing agreement so they would have cost certanty. Any chance they have to save a penny they will take.

Fear is why the agreement passed with only 2 decenters. Chances are if this wasn't an 11th hour and 59minute and 58 second agreement, then the vote would probably have been closer.

[socalfan]

Today was the first I knew about this in the new CBA and I can't believe it hasn't been more widely known.
That one hurts bigtime. I don't understand it at all, or the logic of it, or why it was passed so unanimously.
So a team that has been purchased will always be disenfranchised from shared revenues other teams get? What's the sense in that?

I imagine, the large revenue owners either want to pare down the league; or open new markets. Some are talking about Europe and Asia. Can you imagine an away game in London?

[Michael82]

If it meant keeping the Buffalo Bills, I would be willing to say good bye to the Buffalo Sabres. :bigwave:

[Billsrock4life]

If it meant keeping the Buffalo Bills, I would be willing to say good bye to the Buffalo Sabres. :bigwave:

lol same with me, dont watch hockey anyways