Ronin

OMG, hilarious! Particularly that one. Everyone knew in hindsight. ROFLMAO!!! Victory lap ... ?

ROFLMAO!!! Just what I was thinking. Then on to this; There are actually people that think that Whaley did a good job. Let's not forget that he left the profession altogether unless one considers the XFL part of the profession. LOL From GM to XFL admin. Then there's the "what would you have done?" which is used to attempt to pen-in the critic, to which I always respond, not put myself in the original situation to begin with, which is usually one of desperation. And of course the "we didn't know, no one knew." That's the beauty of the draft "experts" all saying essentially the same thing with none of them ever stepping out of the mainstream on their "independent" analyses. Talk about resting in the safety and comfort of the mass mentality. Makes one wonder given all of the draft busts how come almost none of the so-called experts can ever pick them out ahead of time. Good stuff!

Yup, that's exactly what it was. And funnier yet because Montana was so obviously done by that point. GREAT game tho, outstanding time. We hooked up with a group of Bills fans in the lots, some of the best tailgating next to Rich.

I'm sorry, was I interacting with you? And what, you simply can't help yourself but to flame and violate your own terms of service, that just oh by the way you're supposed to be enforcing, as a mod, or am I off. Sounds like a little bit of a mental disease if you ask me, but then again I'm no doctor, I just play one on TV.

I'll tell you what was crazy, we were at the game and afterwards on the radio they were raking Young across the coals talking about how he'd never amount to anything. We're just laughing thinking what on earth these people were watching, dude had 450 passing yards, mostly to Mike Sherrard and John Taylor, another 50 rushing, half as much as their RBs, 3 TDs. The rest of course is history but we were literally laughing our asses off.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that I had responded to you. Thanks for the significant contribution in butt-in fashion to the overall conversation. Feel better? And not that there's anything to be critical about or anything given his top-5 passing performance last season. Just sayin' ....

You said a mouthful there, and no worries at all about "rambling"/tangents, etc., I love the back-n-forth and this is a complex topic. Again, you have to keep in mind the politics that support that kind of stuff. Any monetary benefit to funding taxpayers is derived in terms of sales taxes typically. But do the math and it seems like a ludicrous proposition. Also, think stadiums like DC (Skins), Foxborough (Pats), and I'm sure several others whereby their teams contribute way more to the general funds but are nowhwere near "walkaround" areas. I've never been to Lambeau but based on the pics that doesn't seem that way either. I'm sure there are more also not having been to them all. The Meadowlands is way out in the middle of nowhere with zero "walkaround" area with two very profitable teams. I'll still always default to the value of tailgating in Buffalo since we obviously cannot support the pricey corporate seats that other markets do. I'm convinced that since we've sucked attendance would have been far lower if we had crappy tailgating like DC or other places. Same here, I have no political horse in the race, I simply react to league-wide trends & patterns and our local circumstances, particularly as contrasted with other markets and teams. For instance, I've never seen the degree and robustness of tailgating so far as we have. There was one exception which was the Niners when they were at Candlestick, but I haven't been to the new park so I have no idea whether or how it's changed. I agree with that up to the point, on implication, that tradition is enough to carry a team. The whole Cleveland/Baltimore fiasco demonstrates that, same with Houston moving to Tennessee, or the Rams moving to St. Louis. Tradition takes a bigtime backseat to money, make no mistake about that. The tradition may be a tiebreaker but that's about it insofar as the league is concerned. That's more or less a shell-game of sorts however. OK, so the county owns it, as they do Rich, and which I don't think will happen again since the county has already pulled it's pockets out of its pants revealing that they're empty. Couple that with a very significant if not majority of population that doesn't want yet another tax hike to pay for it. But even if it were to happen the taxpayers would still be picking up the tab, but the entire tab at that point and presumably w/o a 15+ year commitment from the team, or only as long as whatever their lease were. Look at it this way, if it makes no sense to build it w/o any involvement from the team, it's all but inconceivable that the team's 8 uses/year would be the use that puts it over the top and into profitability. Just not seeing that, particularly in Buffalo. Now maybe the downtown area has changed so much in recent years that it's like that now, I don't know, but based on what I know that simply doesn't seem viable. It's not like DC where the restaurants are open on the periphery where people eat all week long, I simply don't see that kind of foot-traffic in Buffalo. I'll believe the profitability model when I see it otherwise and will consider it to be a political smokescreen until that time. Anything else would be unwise. On that, to start, Indianapolis is a completely different city, eh. Otherwise, you hit the nail right on the head here. That's where the NFL prefers to have teams/stadiums, where the most "rich fans" that can afford "ridiculous PSLs" are. As you say, Buffalo simply isn't that place. For the same reasons, directly or indirectly, I see the same lack of viability with the "lease" [from the county] arrangement. As to Lucas Oil Stadium, Indiana also isn't NY and Indy far from WNY, I simply not only don't see "support" for something like that, last time there was a big outcry against it. Do you really see that being apropos to Buffalo? I'm struggling with it, mightily. Again, the primary economic boost to the taxpayers funding it is via sales tax. Add up the amount of sales tax collected every year and do the math. It's amazing how short these superficial studies fall. And then again, that's if the politicos actually repay the taxpayers, ... since when does that happen? I'm tellin' ya, it's all smoke-n-mirrors which is what politicians specialize in across the board. I don't think so, but maybe. It wasn't all that long ago, and frankly, on teams that on paper were better than ours is today, that we were struggling to get 40k seasons annually. It took the smooth talking Whaley, who was regarded just as highly as Beane is today, to sweet-talk fans into excitement again. And think about it, consider the hype on Allen, if the teams falls from a mistake there, man, that fall's going to be huge. The whole "BILL-ieve" thing is all but a joke today which is where "The Process" will be if it doesn't work out. Here's the thing that I've noticed, older fans are dwindling and their interest is falling off fast as A, they age, and B, they feel like they've been fleeced one too many times and don't want to be played for fools again. Many, a great many, that I've known, go to games primarily for the tailgating but wouldn't otherwise. So in getting back to that downtown stadium, if tailgating is hindered there will be a dropoff in the interest in going to games, the only question is to what extent, but I believe that it would not only be significant,, but that w/o a highly competitive (aka playoff competitive) team, it would be terminal. Hopefully we'll never find out. But still, I don't think that odds of that "perfect storm" scenario are anywhere close to that low. The team I'd say at best is 50/50 to render "The Process" viable and even less of Allen working out, again, at best. If that happens then I'm pretty sure that the team will become more of a financial burden to the league in the eyes of a majority of owners. The only other factor was a recession, which WNY weathers worse than other areas of the country, and that's all but a given with only the day/hour being unknown. So again, I don't think that's a "far from happening" thing. That stadium lease is up after this season pending only a 3-year extension that will go quickly with long-term decisions beginning to have to be made as early as next year. It's not really a question of abandonment othewise, it's more a question of whether or not it will succeed. Many a politician, particularly in WNY (Rochester very specifically) have tried to "renovate downtown" yet have merely dug bigger debt holes from which to climb out of. Here's where the Pegulas may be pissing into the wind, but the problem with WNY derives itself form the oppressive tax structure which is driving indigenous people from the state in no small numbers. That circumstance is nowhere even close to changing, not even on the horizon as such. And for eco-political reasons that I won't get into and no doubt you are aware of, those taxes will not be reduced anytime soon as they can't be or what remains crumbles. It's a lose-lose situation for the state, particularly WNY. Either way, I'm highly doubtful that the Pegula's goal will ever be realized as they envision it. As mentioned, they're pissing into the eco-political headwinds. If you ask me, they'll continue to fund it until they go broke, then the gig will be up. It'll be worse than 2008/2009, which was covered up in a way that will not be possible yet again. Having said that, again, WNY doesn't weather recessions as well as most parts of the country. As to the TV contracts, those do not appear to be a big part of the equation or problem insofar as we're concerned. We'll see, it's fun to discuss, and any number of outcomes are possible with any number of permutations of things we're discussing. For example, one outcome is that they manage to scrape together enough to build a downtown stadium, which would seem to be against what the Pegs have implied is possible, but let's say it happens. Suppose that it's only for 50k seats but that demand diminishes for exactly the reason that tailgating changes so significantly that many fans, particularly older ones, completely lose interest in merely "going to games" as fans in other markets do. That would cause an unsolvable problem at that time. We'll see, but the first hurdle is getting Allen corrected. If that doesn't happen then the first portion of my incredibly unlikely scenario will be firmly in place. From where I sit, analytically, I don't think we're far from that occurring. It will mean a new coach & GM, which means "square one," ... again. Given the hype on Allen, and considering that every times that happens more fans fall off into "prove it to me first" territory, I think that the situation will be relatively dark for us. Unfortunately there's nothing we can control about the vast majority of it. The one thing that we can control is subsidizing a poorly performing team, but my personal policy is that the owners treat it like a business, even to the extent of doing whatever they can to have us working stiffs fund their business expenses, the players treat it like a business, so I treat it like a business in that regard. If they want my money it'll only be given in exchange for a product that I want, not in efforts to create fear that if I don't subsidize the team then they'll move. It's either a business or it isn't, but the league makes that determination, not us. We should know more about this team and McBeane's implicit status within a few short months. We should know more about the future direction of the location of the team within the next year or so as we enter the lease-option years ending after the '22 season a mere 3-1/2 years from now. If they're going to build a new stadium we should know by the end of next year as plans and construction will need to begin. Same for a renovation.

I actually recently changed my preference to Hofmann's which are better than both. Their Jalapeno Cheddar Brat is excellent. They also have the best All-Beef.

Blank stare ... LMAO

He was WTF?!?!

Correct. The onus is on this team to prove it to us, not visa versa. 'tis the season for talk, amongst fans and otherwise.

MO I do my best to separate it from factual info, which is why I stated it like that. Either way, we'll see. If this OL isn't what it's supposed to be, if Morse stays hurt and continues to have injury issues, then I suspect others will have thought the same in hindsight. When you have a risky investment like Allen it would seem that one would go out of the way to ensure his ultimate success.

Indeed, definitely need a pass-rusher or two, particularly with Lorax at 36 and in his last season and Hughes aging with no one to backfill on the edges. Hopefully Oliver's everything that they say.

I think that they could have done more, better than they did. I think it's going to cost them. I don't think that they had the luxury of being able to go defense in round 1 this year regardless of whom they found available. I really think that they should have grabbed Dillard.

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. I would strongly suggest that the strengths of Leinart and Young were notably greater than Allen's and that both brought much more into the NFL than Allen did by a country mile. Both played in the NC game and performed to ultimate levels therein. Allen couldn't even avoid playing the few power-5 teams that he did to the worst levels of any QB in his entire draft, drafted or not. I think that's significant. They didn't bring Allen's issues, which still aren't corrected btw, into the NFL, particularly not Leinart whom at the time many said he was one of the most "nfl ready" QBs in history. Of course many said the same thing about Peterman in his draft class a couple of years ago once again suggesting that talk is cheap. Arm-strength and athleticism, which appear to be the founding elements of McBeane's belief in Allen, are hardly what constitute franchise QBs. They're more kid-in-a-candy-shop type of characteristics that appeal to novice talent evaluators. Whether McBeane in their smarter-by-half approach, which seems to be their entire personnel theme given their drafting of the weak and wounded since they've been here as their core "improvements" to the team, pays off we'll find out soon. I'll give 'em credit, it was a very lofty goal. Whether it was wise we should find out this season coming up shortly and know in full in approximately five months time or less. The one thing that we'll have to agree on is that where Allen is by the end of the season will largely determine his future trajectory as an NFL QB. No blaming the OL or WRs again, particularly not given the lauding talk about the improvements therein.

He has strengths for sure. Can heave the ball further than any QB in the NFL in every likelihood. Among others, athleticism being one which could very well also be "best of" at the present time. But the exercise is weighing the strengths against the weaknesses and attempting to arrive at a conclusion, at least until one is fully demonstrated. Consider, of the three QBs which do you consider had more "strengths" coming into the NFL or even after their first seasons playing, Young, Leinart, or Allen? Here are their first year stats for all three, and break down their game-logs as you see fit. I would argue that Allen has the fewest strengths among the three, yet, how did their careers in the NFL turn out? Passing Rushing Player From To G QBrec Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Rate Int Sk Yds Y/A AY/A NY/A ANY/A Att Yds TD Josh Allen 2018 2018 12 5-6 169 320 52.8 2074 10 67.9 12 28 213 6.5 5.42 5.35 4.37 89 631 8 Matt Leinart 2006 2006 12 4-7 214 377 56.8 2547 11 74.0 12 21 158 6.8 5.91 6.00 5.20 22 49 2 Vince Young 2006 2006 15 8-5 184 357 51.5 2199 12 66.7 13 25 129 6.2 5.19 5.42 4.52 83 552 7 Here's the rushing part of it since that copy was too large; Rushing Player Att Yds TD Josh Allen 89 631 8 Matt Leinart 22 49 2 Vince Young 83 552 7 Not saying Allen will necessarily repeat, but it takes more than a few isolated superficial strengths to create a franchise QB. When we consider that several others, really all others if Allen's better than them all in arm-strength and athleticism for example, that are presently great, don't have Allen's strengths. Some include Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Mahomes, Luck. So clearly Allen's "strengths," at least not to the extent that he has them, are core criteria for becoming a franchise QB. That's indisputable given the reality.

Good post! Well reasoned out! I will comment on a couple parts of it however. Read my post above however. As I view it, a whole lot will be determined by the overall trajectory of the team in the next season or two, either directly or indirectly. I also don't think that the team will stick around, regardless of circumstances, w/o either a new stadium, which if moved downtown I think will be a colossal error in judgment, or a very significantly renovated existing stadium. On this, (and please, tell me if I misunderstood you here); The business (team) expense that historically has been funded more often than any other is the financing on new stadium builds. Look at it this way, suppose you bought a house and had the taxpayers pick up the interest on the home. We all know that when one buys a home under the normal conditions ~ 20% down, etc., that over the course of a 30-year loan, the financing on the home is greater than the purchase price generally speaking. That's what taxpayers have quite often picked up, which is not insignificant. Overall it's typically more than the original cost of the home itself. Recent public pressure is beginning to exterminate such deals as people are starting to question why they as taxpayers have to pay for the business expenses of uber-wealthy multi-billionaire owners. As to the benefit of a community/municality/county, whatever, numerous studies have been conducted illustrating unmistakably that NFL teams do not bring in more in taxes than they suck in via the taxpayers under such scenarios. Besides the enormous elephant sitting in the bathroom sink of why on earth are normal citizens paying the business expenses of uber-wealthy multi-billionaire NFL owners, there is no proven economic benefit to having a team as such, there is only economic burden as such. But here's my question for you, and again, please correct me if I misunderstood your post, and as well, this relates to my post above this one to Mr. WEO, but let's assume that team profitability falters even more because things under McBeane didn't work out and fan interest tapers off, which wouldn't be the first time, which would presumably breach an entirely new level of "hopelessness" that the team will ever be good, and the Bills become a financial burden for the league as such. Frankly, they're already close to that relatively speaking. Do you really then see the league/owners/or even PU supporting the provision of money for the building of a new stadium in Buffalo? I'm having trouble envisioning that in this world that's incessantly being driven by money, profit, and wealth by the most influential and controlling people involved in particular. I also don't see the state ponying up the bucks necessary in an investment that wouldn't benefit the state anymore than it would the county financially. Again, talk is cheap right now, and the power & money in the state hates WNY and treats it like a teat to be sucked dry, the opposite of putting money into it. That's the one thing that I would fully agree with you on. I've always maintained that the Pegulas first-love is an empire in WNY with either the Sabres and/or Bills playing second-fiddle and part-and-parcel of that greater goal. I think that they want to be viewed as the saviors of Buffalo. To what extent their goal as such could be realized w/o the Bills is a good question. I'll finish by stating that we're due for at least another 2008/2009-like recession, and Buffalo has to be among the bottom couple of NFL locales in terms of least likely being able to weather such a recession in terms of having it impact their teams as such and their related profitabilities and related contributions to NFL coffers. It concerns me that the stadium issue may very well overlap the biggest team disappointment(s) in a couple of decades, and on top of that in perfect-storm fashion and entirely out of anyone's control unlike the first two, a looming recession now too. I can't even begin to stress enough how important it may be that things work out with Allen & The Process here this season. There's nothing any of us can do about it except wait and see, but again, I think that it's an enormous mistake to assume that outside pressure and leveraged cannot be applied to a franchise that simply isn't cutting it as a contributing member of the league as such if in fact it works out that way for one or more reasons. And is it really necessary to state that the last thing that any of the decision-makers in this process care about is what the fans want. We're the ones that are always getting bilked on "hopes" and as with during Wilson's reign being scared into attending games "so that the team wouldn't move" as you mentioned. Definitely agree with that. Seems like a lot is on hold pending the completion of the new CBA. But there too, that will impact the owners' share(s) as well implicitly.

Well, to start, it's not necessarily what I think, it's a premise. The league has leverage in these situations, and therefore by inference given the scenario being discussed, the PU would have at least some say in that leverage, would it not. The owners can also certainly apply pressure if their goals aren't being met. To think otherwise is to be naive. Otherwise, until further notice a "new stadium" is just talk. I don't see it happening. To start, the county's broke and can't pony up anything significant. There's enough of an opposition amongst county taxpayers that don't want to be bilked to help fund the Pegulas business operations along with a growing sentiment league wide as such. Taxes are high enough in NY, people don't want additional ones, particularly the taxpayers that don't have a certain level of fan interest as such. I count myself among those insisting that business expenses be paid entirely by the business, not the taxpayer. Small business owners don't get taxpayer assistance, why should large business owners. The Pegula's have also stated that they're not made of money and can't just conjure up $1B+ which is what a new stadium will cost. The state seemed highly reluctant to pitch in much for the renovation and has also stated that they wouldn't pony up more than few hundred M despite any recent rhetoric by either the Pegulas or the state otherwise. Granted, that can change, but until it does it's all talk. I don't know whether it's changed or not, but a mere couple of years ago we were the last ranked team in terms of value according to Forbes. Two of the people claiming that the Bills need a new stadium to remain viable are Goodell and Mara. It would be unwise to not assume that those were bow shots. We'll see what happens, but A, talk is cheap, and B, new stadiums these days cost notably more than $1B. Here's the thing, we often here "what the fans think/want" here in Buffalo, and you can count me in among those that don't care for a new stadium. I'd much prefer a renovation of the existing one. But we keep hearing via implication how that won't be enough by some relevant and quite significant parties. If you ask me, game attendance in Buffalo is heavily tied to the tailgating environment. I've been to many stadiums and I've never seen more fans sitting in the lots once the game starts watching the game on their TVs there than in Buffalo. In some cities it's unheard of. To me, moving the stadium further into the lake-effect snow-zone or downtown with parking relegated to garages and the like would be a terminal mistake, but that's after any decision as such is made. Either way, I don't think that this is 100% in the hands of the Pegulas as you and others would like to think. Maybe I'm entirely off, but given that the entire nation revolves around money I don't think so. The people with the most seem to always want as much of it as they can get and I don't see this being any different. Eventually it's all going to come down to how much money the team is making for the NFL, not the owners of the team. Let's take a mathematical limit as an analogy. Suppose for a moment that all of a sudden the Bills became unprofitable, let's just say that they broke even. Ridiculous you say, perhaps so given the current climate. But let's assume that Allen tanks, McD & Beane are fired, which frankly wouldn't be far behind, and as the team enters the option years it essentially sucks again pending yet another coach/GM hire/rebuild. My position is and has been that that's not a good recipe for getting funding for a new stadium. That's also a pretty high place for us to fall from hope wise, no one can argue that. In fact, I'd say that it would be the biggest fall during our last two cecades of futility. Who knows how the fans would react, but going back to that mathematical limit, suppose that fan interest approaches modern era worst. Considering that we're already on the bottom of the heap in terms of contributions to league goals, I don't see how that would sit well with anyone. It wouldn't sit well with us either, but we'd be willing to see things through. Unfortunately, unless the team were to expect fans to financially subsidize a substandard product as such, it shouldn't be a reach to envision a significant downturn in attendance under such a scenario however. Granted, it's not the "cheap seats" which make the biggest contributions to team revenues, but then again, our income from the expensive seats and suites pales in comparison to that of most if not all other NFL teams at this point. We're near the bottom there too. It's a complex scenario and impossible to predict how it plays out, but it shouldn't be a reach to realize that "cheap seat" fan support isn't going to be the cornerstone of whether or not the team sticks around. My angle is that I don't think we'll be entering the stadium-lease option years, during which a new stadium will undoubtedly be discussed, and doing ourselves any favors to help ourselves as such by having yet another cycle of a outgoing coach and GM and a team with its best players (Shady, Kyle, Lorax, Hughes) on the outs or gone while having fans' hopes once again dashed in the greatest dashing of hopes since the '90s team diminished. Some may think otherwise, and hey, maybe it won't matter. I have trouble envisioning that it won't however. We'll see what happens and should be hearing at least something starting next year sometime. As well, whether or not the requisite strides in team performance are made this season will factor into that as well. If team play ascends to the highest hopes of many fans, then it should help our cause as such in a pretty big way. But if not, I see no reason to not expect the opposite.

Indeed, but his passing was low-end, to be frank and w/o going into the details that I've laid out many times here, not much better than Rosen's and pretty much only second-to-last except for Rosen who was DFL. We'll see. As I see it, a lot of excuses were made for Allen that the "excuse-makers" now claim are corrected. While I don't agree that our OL is that much improved and same for our WRs, the vast majority of people, fans and media alike, seem to think that they were. So if so, the excuses have been removed and we'll have to see a notable improvement in Allen's passing game this season as a direct result. I'd have done more to help Allen as such. At some point however, if those issues linger, they'll have to be attributed to Allen himself. We'll see how it plays out, but if he ends up being a below-average passer again this season it won't be good. There wouldn't be any good way to dance around that if so. I will reiterate tho, that he was the worst QB in the entire draft, and that includes of all the undrafted QBs as well, not to mention all the QBs in that draft also from small schools as such, against power-5 competition in college. FWIW

If they get a percentage of a shared revenue, which they do, and that shared revenue depends upon how much each team in each locale brings in, which it does, then it only stands to reason that the greater that shared pot is the more the players get as well as the owners. X% of Y dollars is greater as Y increases. Whether or not they, "they" being the players union, have a say or not remains to be seen, but if in fact it happens that the 1.5% taken for the "stadium credits" increases to 5%, or whatever, then I don't know why the PU wouldn't at least fight for some say in the matter. The NFL is a funny cat, the owners treat it like a business except when they go to the taxpayers to cover their financing (or whatver part) for their new stadiums, a business expense, and the players treat it like a business too, it's only the fans that don't treat it that way. We'll see, and no doubt much of this is simply offseason media filler type tripe, but the premise for now is valid at least.

Well, to be fair I'm critical of his play. He's exciting, but his passing leaves much to be desired, but we were talking about recongizability and that kinda thing, eh. We'll see. As with everyone else I'm hopeful, but unlike most others I'm simply not seeing it right now. For example, while that play that I referred to was off-the-charts exciting, if any one of those three other defenders after Barr had been a little closer, close enough to have leveled Allen in the air it could have sent him to the bench with a completely different outcome. We were up 17-0 at that point and Minny hadn't done anything at all up to that point, it was beyond clear that they had come in flat. He's gotta protect himself more than that. That's stuff's fine in college but it's going to get him killed in the NFL if he keeps it up. Either way, excitement doesn't always translate to winning or sound offensive performance, ... as last season bore out.

If he could play in the playoffs he would have extended his career. Mark Rypien was no more mobile than Bledsoe, perhaps even less, but at least he could pass well against good teams. Bledsoe sucked moose weenie when it came to playoffs passing. The Pats never won a playoff game because of him, only in spite of him. I was so miffed when he got hurt and they traded him to us. We were a Bledsoe injury away from Brady having left the Pats like so many other late-round pick QBs over the years. Here are Bledsoe's playoff stats over 7 playoff games, all with NE; 1,335 Yards, 51.2%, 6 TDs, 12 INTs, a rating of 54.9, 17 sacks, a YPA of 5.30 and an AYPA of 3.63. That's a per-game average of less than 1 TD, 1.7 INTs, 191 Yards, 2.4 sacks. The Pats' O average 18.4 PPG in those games. 40% of the paltry 129 points in those 7 games came from D/STs (28) and FGs (24). The offense was only responsible for 77 points (11 PPG) and only 42 of those points were Bledsoe TD passes. The other 35 were rushing TDs. Those are entirely pathetic numbers.

Indeed, Allen 's one of the more charismatic players in the league, one would have to be living in a hole to not know who he is, eh. Play for play he was arguably right up there with several of the most exciting plays in the entire league last season. It was only a 10-yard gaine but I'd put that play of Allen hurdling Anthony Barr (who's good) on 3rd-and-10 for the 1st-down right up there.

We're getting numbers from different places, I'll defer to yours. My point was that the "stadium credits" is not new, it's been in there since 2011. It is currently 1.5% (or so). As you said, there's a huge disparity between individual team revenues, but the aggregate, let's call it "league" revenue, aka the shared revenue, comes from the teams and is predicated upon how much money those teams bring in in certain areas. I'm no specialist and don't claim to have researched these things to that extent. However, it stands to reason that if a team brings in more that they have more to share, which is the point here. If you were a player or owner, it would benefit you to have a team in a locale that brings in more rather than less for the shared pot "league" revenue as it were. So it's pretty simple in that regard, if your money is going to fund a stadium for a locale, it would make the most sense to have it be where the greatest "league"/shared profits can be had. Unfortunately, and for however it works out, Buffalo is not one of those locales. That's what Florio's point was. One doesn't have to be an expert in CBA or the league's revenue structure to understand that, again, it's pretty simple economics/finance. Who knows to what extent the "stadium credits" plays out in the next CBA, but one thing's for sure, if McBeane and "The Process"/Allen don't pan out, there will be a combination of that and whatever the new CBA does bring that won't be a good tandem. We may overcome it, but IMO it won't be good. Not to mention that we'll be back at the proverbial square-one.

I'm pretty sure that the last CBA (2011) was around 48% for the players. There actually was a stadium credit" already in it, I can't tell exactly what it was but it appears to be 5% or so with half taken from each side. I believe that the 48% (or whatever it is around there) is after that. Either way, it'll be a bargaining chip, but the point the Florio makes, whether people like him or not, agree with him or not, think he hates the Bills or not, all being irrelevant, is that if that ends up being the case, that the "stadium credits" increases, obviously the total pie of the league revenue becomes greater in locales and stadiums that contribute more to the revenue pie. Since we don't know what those figures are and have to go off of rumors, speculation, etc., it's a very reasonable assumption that there would be other locales/stadiums that would contribute more as such than Buffalo. What Florio's saying is that if it's their (the players') money just as much as it is the owners' money, then they too should have a say in where those locales/stadiums end up being, much in the same way that shareholders have a certain say in corporate matters. Not saying it will or won't happen, just saying that it makes sense that if they're money is being used to fund stadiums that will impact how much the league and therefore as a percentage of that "pie" is, that they have at least some say. That's perfectly reasonable. Think about it, if someone were forcing all of the employees of a company to pay into fund that was to benefit them, it would make sense that they have some choice(s) in the matter of how best to invest and multiply that money.