K-9

Who was the draft pundit who said we would trade back with Carolina and then take McConkey at 33? If Beane was speaking truth when he said he didn’t have first round grades on 28 players and all the players he did have first round grades on were gone, then he’s gonna find some value on days two and three. I have a hunch he’s gonna acquire a third pick in the 2nd round as well. While Worthy has boom or bust written all over him and I’m glad we didn’t take him, it just sucks to make that deal with KC.

Told ya.

Beane might trade back further still.

Latu is gonna be a great player in this league. Was hoping we’d get him if not one of the top receivers.

Predictable Harbaugh pick.

I no longer want Malik Nabers simply because of his taste in neckwear bling.

I agree that the demolition clause is absurd, but it’s in there none the less. Same with the clause pertaining to Erie county being the only venue allowed for adjudication. At the very least, it’s a speed bump that will cost potential litigants time and money to appeal if it ever comes to that. Like I said earlier, nothing is ever ironclad, but the roadblocks have to be navigated. My memory of past lawsuits regarding NFL team relocations may be a bit foggy, but if I recall, most of them reached settlement agreements before the courts decided one way or the other (Colts, Browns, Rams). Oakland is the only one I recall that was decided by the courts and, ironically, they weren’t seeking to prevent the move itself, they only wanted monetary compensation. Personally, I think their case was weak as they cited antitrust violations by the NFL and the Raiders. Imo, it had little chance given some of the antitrust exemptions the league enjoys.

Is Bradbury commenting only on the dollars involved and the fact that they start to decline after year 15? I ask because the cost of demolishing the stadium also needs to be factored and added to that dollar value. But yeah, there’s no such thing as ironclad; only varying degrees of difficulty.

There were two stipulations that I found interesting: 1.) Any lawsuit brought relating to relocation must be adjudicated in Erie County. I know I wouldn’t want to be the judge that found in favor of relocation. 2.) Any owner, the Pegulas or somebody else, must also pay for the cost of the demolition of the stadium. Not exactly a low cost exercise. But you’re right in that ultimately money talks.

Apparently, it’s not just a question of paying back the money as there are other stipulations. I’ll get around to reading the entire relocation clause eventually, but this article in the news a few weeks ago is a good outline. https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/language-in-bills-stadium-deal-makes-relocation-unlikely-for-30-years-but-not-impossible/article_89ba2bec-ce4f-11ed-9c9b-976c2e6b1613.html

Well, the lease for the new stadium ties them here for 30 years. So there’s that. But I haven’t read the “out” clause if there is one, so perhaps they can break it earlier.

Awesome video, but I wish them luck convincing the taxpayers to foot half of the $4.6b cost. And we thought $850m was too much? Pocket change compared to $2.3b in public funding.

None of those three could hold a candle to John Hummer!

I was gonna say something similar but then I realized that context seldom matters to some people.

Thanks for the edification. I had no idea that the Bills were only acting as agents for the ECSC and that they, the ECSC, are actually the sole owner of the right to sell the PSLs. With that thought in mind, I wonder why Polencarz voiced his displeasure at the reported costs of the PSLs recently when the county owns the right to sell them in the first place. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to dig that up. I’m gonna be reading the entire PSL Sales and Marketing Agreement to see what else I just took for granted.

The Bills are contractually bound for $350m plus cost overruns and while everyone knows that PSL revenues will be used to cover a portion of that cost, there is no precise contractual language that I’m aware that says they must use those revenues to cover their obligation, so technically, they don’t have to expressly dedicate those funds for that purpose. It wouldn’t make good business sense because it’s found money anyway, but if Pegula wanted, he could use funds from any source he chooses to cover his obligation.

What? No option to choose Tommy O’Connell, our first ever QB?

As we all know, in the NFL there is shared and unshared revenue. If sales from PSLs are not subject to revenue sharing, which they aren’t, then how is that “hiding/avoiding revenue sharing?” If Pegula was misrepresenting to the league the amount of revenue generated by ticket sales, which every team is obligated to share on a 60/40 basis with the league, then yeah, he would be hiding and avoiding revenue sharing. But it is virtually impossible to fudge the numbers on ticket sales so that isn’t gonna happen.

Technically, the Bills can use PSL revenues for whatever they wanna use them for, but it makes sense to put it towards their share of the construction costs. The only point I was trying to make is that unlike revenues generated from ticket sales, which are shared 60/40 between the team/league, PSL revenues are not subject to revenue sharing so it’s not like the Bills are “hiding” anything from the league as was suggested in the post I responded to initially. I have no idea why you’d say that as it seemed you weren’t sure when you suggested to @Kirby Jackson that Pegula was avoiding revenue sharing by hiding something and I only sought to clarify the issue for you. I have no idea how that’s talking past you, but yeah, that’s okay.

The Bills aren’t avoiding revenue sharing in the least because revenues from the sale of PSLs are not subject to sharing with the league. The league still gets their 40% share of the gate revenue for any particular game just like it’s been for decades.

I didn’t read the article, but thanks. The 20,000 number came from @Einstein, but the fact it was actually less than half that amount suggests the PSL sales for the Jets were actually pretty good.

I appreciate the info and the effort to furnish it, but it doesn’t answer the two questions I asked. But again, it’s simple economic dynamics at play: reduce prices to increase demand. It will be interesting to see what percentage of seats the Bills end up lowering the PSL prices on and if they will be the same type of cheaper seats as the Jets ended up lowering. If so, that would indicate that sales of the premiums will have gone just fine.

Simple economic dynamics. What percentage of total PSLs sold did that 20,000 represent? Did the lowering of those 20,000 PSL prices cause the Jets to lose revenue or simply not generate as much as they wanted? The team wasn’t hurt in the least from what I can gather.

Sometimes capitalism can be a b.i.t.c.h. I guess. I’ve been lamenting the pricing out of the middle class for years now, but that genie is out of the bottle and there’s no putting it back unless the consumer market forces economic changes. And we just aren’t dissatisfied enough to do that currently.