Wayne Cubed

I posted this is another thread: The high percentage only helps the NFL. They sell there entire percentage not just individual cities.

Actually Toronto isn't considered part of the Buffalo market. If it was, that would put it 4th among the league.

Haha, it would have been really close.

Yes, and you are still all over the place. Did I say anywhere in my post whether the Toronto series was a success or failure? Nope. I wasn't even talking about it's merits. I'll repeat it one last time, then I give up: You denied that there was 7-10 million people within 100 miles of Buffalo. You are wrong. You then jumped on Buffalo saying there was no way Buffalo could tap that market if they already hadn't. Again, your premise was wrong. Buffalo was not able to even advertise there until recently, so there was no way they could tap that market. As you can see no where in my post have I said whether that marketing has been successful or not. That's a debatable point. What isn't is that there are 7-10 million people within 100 miles of Buffalo AND the Bills until recently weren't allowed to advertise in Toronto.

And the NFL was left with egg on it's face after the Cleveland debacle. Why do you think they awarded Cleveland and Houston teams, both who were relocated, when a Los Angeles team was put forward at the same time? They chose Cleveland and Houston over a Los Angeles.

Wow. You are all over the place. First, you questioned another poster that there were 7-10 million people within 100 miles of Buffalo. I showed you that in fact, there are that many, in Toronto. Second, you made a point that Toronto has been near Buffalo for ages and alluded to the fact that the Bills haven't tapped that market so they never will. To which I again showed you that Buffalo is not allowed to and only recently has been allowed to advertise there. Bringing back to the original point that a poster, who you responded to, was trying to make is there are 7-10 million people within 100 miles of Buffalo that the NFL won't consider to be part of Buffalo's market. If they would, it would put the Bills as the 4th highest TV market in the NFL. And the Bills have got the ball rolling in trying to market towards Toronto, uh hello Toronto series.

Great points Kirby! I think another point that seems to be lost is that PSL are a one time purchase. These aren't being sold year in and year out. They are to recoup the debt incurred when building a stadium. In the end if it's a 65,000 seat stadium and 47,000 need to be sold it doesn't matter if it's in LA or Buffalo or Toronto, only 47,000 are going to be sold. Sure LA could charge more for PSL but then, a stadium in LA would cost more. This is why the PSL's in Dallas/SF/NY are higher, the market can bare it. You can have it one of 2 ways: have PSL's and keep ticket prices relatively low and not have to share the PSL revenue and get out of debt from the stadium faster OR not have PSL's and raise ticket prices. Indy decided not to go PSL route and average ticket prices went from $103 to $180 and that revenue is shared.

Except Toronto has never been consider part of Buffalo's market, even though it's that close. It falls under NFL Canada and does not figure into Buffalo's numbers. And until recently Buffalo was unable to even market themselves in Toronto, because again, it fell under NFL Canada.

Toronto...

Over the weekend I happened to catch A Football Life: 1995 Cleveland Browns. Very interesting for those who haven't seen it. I don't think the NFL want's to see what played out their happen again in Buffalo, just my opinion though. Also, there's this: http://www.sfvbj.com/news/2014/may/27/nfl-team-not-going-downtown/ LA has officially given up on the downtown stadium. No team is going to move to LA with out a firm stadium plan in place, which they can't even get right.

To your point, without doing more digging, I wouldn't know how the NFL perceives it's ratings as that wasn't released. Games are sometimes only televised in a local market. Sometimes they are televised nationally. Then you have the NFL Sunday Ticket which means they are available just about everywhere except local market. . If I had to guess, I would assume this rating takes all of that into account and says "where this game is available to watch, this % of people watched it" or something like that. Just look at the coverage maps for Week 17 last year. Buffalo/NE was televised pretty much the entire east coast and as far west as Indiana. So, it would be a lot more than just local eyes in WNY watching that game. http://fansided.com/...week-17/#!TAKmw Anyways, I was just trying to help out the poster who couldn't remember the figure he quoted. EDIT: If we go by the numbers listed in TaskersGhost and it's just local TV market, the higher percentage only helps. If I do the percentages against what is considered local(Toronoto is not unfortunatley) the Bills had more eyes watching in WNY than Arizona, Tampa Bay, Miami, Jacksonville and St. Louis all of which have much higher viewing populations. Not to mention they beat everyone who was below, except New Orleans. All of this on the end of a 6-10 record and not including a hugh metro area like Toronto. It moves them much higher on the list.

Actually what I think the poster was trying to say was that Bills had the 11th best TV rating in the NFL last season, despite being the 4th smallest market. In 2012 they ranked 9th. http://www.bizjourna...gs.html?ana=twt And as much as these other places might be "ripe" as you say, it's hard to argue with the fact they finished 11th last season and top 10 the season before. People watch the Bills.

Except PSL's aren't part of shared revenue. Ticket sales yes, PSL's no. So why would the other 31 teams care about maximizing PSL's in another city? PSL's are purely to offset the debt incurred when building a stadium. Making the people that use the stadium pay for some of it, not just the taxpayers, although they still end up paying some anyways. It's a one time fee for the team, once someone buys a PSL and 10 years later they decide to sell it they pocket the money, not the team. The team can't make anymore money on it, once they sell it, unless someone defaults on paying or something. The 31 other owners care about TV revenue, ticket sales and merchandise, oh and probably the NFL brand. That's whats shared. They don't care if you do or don't use PSL's (Lucas Oil Field didn't use PSL's to pay debt). There are 17 other teams who don't use PSL's.

I don't see it being stupid money, they'll get over a billion in total, but not billions. They currently get $20 million per game from Fox. Lakers currently get about $200 million with their new deal. Figure the Clippers have a 1/3 of the viewership, which they do, and that put's them probably between $60-$80 a game over 20-25 years for a new deal with Fox. Just over a billion on the low end. EDIT: As far as moving to the Honda Center, they are locked into the Staple Center until 2023/24 season.

I think some posters are confusing places like Dallas and NY who have PSL's as high as $150,000. Minnesota's new stadium will see PSL's at a maximum of $9,500(btw, those have sold out already in Minnesota) and as low as $500 for 47,500 seats. 80 percent of those will be below $3,000. The average price is $2,500 per seat. I think that's probably the prices you'll see if/when Buffalo get's a new stadium and I don't see fans having any problem with paying it.

Hmmm that's tough I agree with your list, but here's 3 I always enjoy: 1. The Thing 2. Donnie Darko 3. The Fifth Element

I just don't see them getting that much in TV revenue. The Lakers, when they aren't horrible, were averaging about 300,000 viewers pure game. Last season, when they sucked, that dipped down to 199,000 per game average. The Dodgers average about 300,000 as well and hit peaks of 600,000 on some games. For all the surge in popularity, the Clippers hit about 100,000 per game last season. About a 1/3 of the viewers. The fact that the Lakers viewership went down 49% in one season and that the Dodgers are off to a crappy viewership start this year (37,000 avg) because they can't settle on a price cost with TWC, I think the TV deals in LA may cool off a bit. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/04/04/Media/Dodgers.aspx They won't get half, they might get a 1/3 of that deal if Ballmer can work some magic AND the Clippers can remain relevant.

I've seen you mention this in a couple threads and have done nothing to research why that could be. The Clemson offense ran lot's of short passes and screens to Watkins because that's what the defense gave them. They gave Watkins a cushion so the offense got the ball into the hands of their top playmaker and let him go to work. A number of people have pointed that out. Watkins is weak at running routes? That's patently false. The worse I've seen is that his routes could use some polishing. That's it. Go watch his freshman year. Ya know, the one where he set all sorts of records. He was torching teams running routes, hence why defense's switched how they would defend him. A bunch of teams, not draft pundits, had him rated number 1 on their boards. As for draft pundits, they say he can be a generational talent.

And sign Khalil Mack too!!!

That's the way I see it too.

So you think somehow in 3 weeks time Ballmer realized that NBA/sports teams values were sky rocketing and he should outbid everyone else by $400 million on the Clippers? And that his purchase will somehow change the value of an NFL team?

Except it's not the going rate, I just pointed you to the article about the Milwaukee Bucks who were just sold 3 weeks ago. $550 million. Valued around $400 before the sale. Ballmer even bid on them and it wasn't for $2 billion. The value of the NBA brand and owning a team didn't just suddenly sky rocket in 3 weeks.

I hear what you are saying, but your doing a better job of explaining why the Clippers bid was so high as opposed to how it'll effect the Bills. NBA teams can secure their own local TV deals like you said, NFL teams can't. That makes the Clippers worth a lot of money when that deal happens. Ballmer isn't going to make any money off this deal, he paid way too much and the sale didn't even include a stadium/venue. But that doesn't explain how that would effect the Bills price. The Bills can't bargain with local TV, that price is set. So their isn't some other money making scheme out their for the Bills besides a new stadium which will cost a new owner a hefty chunk of money on top of the sale price. The value of an NFL team has gone up since the Browns sale, so I'm saying between $1.1 and $1.2 billion. We shall see.

Except market means everything... Look no further than the fact that the Milwaukee Bucks sold for $550 million not more than a month ago. And they were valued at around $400 million. Why weren't they sold for 3 times their value? It's now being reported that Ballmer and a partner made a bid at the Bucks and guess what, it wasn't for $2 billion. Why is that? Because the Milwaukee market isn't worth $2 billion. It was for $650 million and he was turned down. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11005695/seattle-bid-nba-team-dealt-blow-steve-ballmer-agrees-purchase-los-angeles-clippers Plan and simple, this $2 billion bid was an overbid. A flex of his financial wealth. With many interested parties Ballmer wanted to make sure he would get the team so he made an offer that couldn't be refused. This won't drive the Bills value up. Could some crazy billionaire do the same and overbid? Sure. But with the Bills needing a new stadium in the near future, whether they stay or move, in my opinion I don't think that'll happen.

You mean $400,000,000. But I agree. This was a "look at how much money I have" bid.