Rocky Landing
-
Posts
6,731 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rocky Landing
-
-
DON'T trade up. Maybe trade down for a good price. Then, BOPA. Not convinced that would be Ebron at #9. Martin, perhaps?
-
Speaking for myself:1) Because if the Bills played any one of their up-coming regular season match-ups today, they would be considered underdogs in all but four of them.Underdogs win all the time
Actually, underdogs win some of the time. It's not an enviable position.
2) EJ did not show me nearly enough to think he could be successful, if he stays healthy. For a rookie he showed enough
Enough? What he showed was inconsistency- when he was on the field.
3) Our weakest position was at QB, and we have not improved that position. Wrong it was LG then RT.
Our QB situation last season was horrific! How could anyone say differently?
4) One knee injury could, perhaps, be bad luck. It's hard to look at three knee injuries as bad luck. One year out of all the years he's played, I'd call it a fluke not a trend.
One year out of... ONE YEAR. Fluke?
5) The best thing about our team last season was our defense. Then we lost our DC, and our pro-bowl safety. Wrong #2 rushing offense, both RBs are back.
I will agree that our rushing offense was the best thing about our offense!
6) I haven't seen enough improvements in the offseason to warrant that large of a shift in our record. Plenty of talent added this offseason.
Plenty? As another poster pointed out, the acceptance of mediocrity by Bills fans is disturbing. Some good talent, sure. Plenty? How much is plenty? Enough to bring us back to the playoffs and out from under the bottom of our division?
I appreciate the optimism. But, I'll stick with pessimism and hope to be pleasantly surprised.
-
As I was watching yet another NFL draft preview show, a thought occurred to me.
For the first time since Bledsoe was quarterbacking this offense, I feel relatively certain that the Buffalo Bills are going to make the playoffs this season.
I (personally) saw enough from EJ last year to think that not only can he succeed if he stays healthy, but him not staying healthy this previous year was due to bad luck.
The defense was stout, the kicking was solid, and offensively they looked like a young team loaded with weapons.
To me, this year, anything less than 9-7 would be an abject failure, and would absolutely shock me.
Hell, even the schedule is balanced and fair compared to years past.
But yet, I can't help but feeling that the majority of Bills fans thinks the team finishes 7-9 or worse this year. Why is that?
Speaking for myself:
1) Because if the Bills played any one of their up-coming regular season match-ups today, they would be considered underdogs in all but four of them.
2) EJ did not show me nearly enough to think he could be successful, if he stays healthy.
3) Our weakest position was at QB, and we have not improved that position.
4) One knee injury could, perhaps, be bad luck. It's hard to look at three knee injuries as bad luck.
5) The best thing about our team last season was our defense. Then we lost our DC, and our pro-bowl safety.
6) I haven't seen enough improvements in the offseason to warrant that large of a shift in our record.
-
My opinion is that we should go for best offensive player on the board, at nine. Pretty much against trading up, unless it is dirt cheap- which it won't be. Hoping Jake Mathews is there at nine.
-
I'm sure that this has been said in this thread, already. but this is VERY GOOD NEWS. I believe that the sooner they are sold, the more likely it is that they will be staying. Logistically, lining up the ducks to move the team would be an enormous task, and much of that would have to be done before investors would make the purchase. I have little doubt that out-of-state prospects are number-crunching right now. An early sale would head that off.
-
I think there has been some misperception on how "forced" the new owner's hand will be. I think "incentive" will be a better approach.The resistance lies not in keeping the Bills in Buffalo but to pretty much forcing the hand of the next owner
-
I have no doubt that it was Ralph Wilson's desire to keep the Bills in Buffalo. I did not know that there was league resistance to the lease agreement. Honestly, that doesn't make me feel any better. My hope is that what RW was able to work into the lease will be enough to keep the team in Buffalo. As I have stated previously, my fear is that the Bills will be sold to the highest bidder, the highest bidder will want the highest ROI, and the highest ROI will not be in Buffalo.Much to my (pleasant)surprise, I heard that Littman (and Russ) were the ones that talked the NFL into allowing the Bills to sign the lease with these particular clauses that are favorable to the Bills staying in Buffalo. There were owners who did not want to approve these.
I have to believe that it was Ralph's desire that the team stay in Buffalo given these clauses. Certainly, the executor of the estate would be familiar with the intent. It is now up to Bills fans, the County, and the State to do what we can to make sure the team stays in Buffalo. I presume that there are enough people that want to keep the team in Buffalo who also have the money to buy the team.
-
I assume that the executor of the estate is going to sell the team to the highest bidder, who meets the terms of the lease agreement.You honestly believe that Littman, the executor of the estate, is going to sell to someone who he thinks is going to move the team? Doubt it. Doubly doubt that Erie County would sign off on it even if they tried.
You don't go through all this effort and energy to then say "Oh, well he said he won't move the team till after the lease is up, its cool". Also I'm pretty sure they would thoroughly search through any potential owners and find out their true intentions before selling.
-
I think that there has been some misinterpretation on the part of some posters that the Non Relocation Agreement states that the Bills can't sell to someone that they know is planning on moving the Bills. That simply isn't the case. They can't sell to someone who is planning to move the Bills during the Non Relocation Term. Some people think this is a deal-breaker, anyway. Who would want to buy a team that they can't move for seven years at the earliest? I think this is misguided reasoning. It could take two years just to secure ownership. In Los Angeles (where I live, and have been following the stadium situation fairly closely), the contract for building a new stadium hinges on there being a team to move there. Once there is a team, the stadium will be built. The most likely place for a LA stadium would be at a location called Farmer's Field. That contract is already pending with an extension likely to be signed this October. Should it be built, it will be a logistical nightmare and will take years. Seven years from now might just time out perfectly.nothing can stop an owner from moving the team past 2022. that whole article is mis-leading. It only ensures that the team cannot be moved during the life of the lease. Nothing really new here... An owner can say he won't relocate the team ever, and then turn around on 1/1/2023 and pack the bags... sorry but that's all that the terms of the lease can do.
Currently, most people consider the Rams the front-runners for a move to Los Angeles, with the Raiders in second. Jax, and SD are essentially out of the running. But, if people in Buffalo don't think that moving to LA isn't a distinct possibility, I would say they are wrong. There's a lot of money in LA, and I have no doubt that the owners of some of that money are looking at Buffalo right now.
-
This is actually a really misleading article. It even goes as far as to quote the Non Relocation Agreement without finishing the quote. Specifically, "the club shall not “sell, assign or otherwise transfer the team to any person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, has an intention to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the team …”" The full quote, reiterated several times in sections 3 and 4, state that the Bills may not "enter into any contract or agreement to sell, assign or otherwise transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, intends to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." Note that there is no comma in the phrase, "...transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." In other words, there is no language in the Non-Relocation Agreement barring the Bills from selling the team to a person who intends to relocate the Bills after the Non-Relocation Term.
Now, nine years may seem like a long time, but I hardly think it's a deal-breaker. In fact, (and this is my fear), it could time out very nicely for a prospective owner to plan a move to a city with a much higher ROI.
-
I think the FJ/CJ duo has been a top three tandem for as long as the two of them have shared the field.
-
We should bring Incognito in to help keep Mike Williams in line.
-
What I fear most: The Bills will go to the highest bidder. The highest bidder will want the highest ROI they can get. The highest ROI will not be in Buffalo.
-
Pretty well answers my half-hearted, rhetorical question posted above- "Why not."People arguing about whether he is a racist or not miss the point. The point is he is a bully, with a willingness to pick on the weakness of an individual, consistently and remorselessly until he breaks that individual down. That's not a person who any NFL team, especially one with a young impressionable roster is ever going to take a chance on. The Wells report was pretty clear, Martin was far from Incognito's first target, this a repeating pattern of behaviour,
The guy is done in the NFL. In my view, rightly so. Someone like that has no place on a team in an environment that should be about pulling for one another, not pulling one another apart.
And before anyone comes with the "oh you don't know what it's like in a locker room" etc... I've played and coached semi-professional soccer for the last 15 years. I know the two sports are not identical but I refuse to accept that the locker room culture is so different. Young, competitive guys are the same in whatever sport and every locker room has its banter, its jokes, its recurring themes.... but if a guy is going to the stage where it is hurting others it immediately hurts your team. I've seen it happen and I've always as a coach got rid of that personality immediately. Any team is only as strong as its weakest member... if you have a team member so destroyed by your own side..... well you are beaten before you start.
-
I know that this topic has been commented on in just about every thread in the last month, or more. But, I don't feel like I have seen an actual consensus on what our needs are. So, TWB, I challenge you: What are our top five player needs in order of importance, and WHY?
Why seems especially important because I am hoping (and expecting) that most of you will have very strong opinions on the subject. I am also expecting (and hoping) that about 50% of your opinions will be malarkey. But, as with most threads, it should really only take a few sentences, or so, to figure out who is rational, who is full of a-word-the-mods-would-strike, and who should be locked up. And, no, I don't think those three classifications are mutually exclusive. But, the one thing that pretty much every single person posting on this sight (especially this time of year), has in common is: You're all football junkies!
-
At first blush, I thought, abso-frikkin-lutely NOT. But, then I got to thinking'...
a) He'd be cheap. We'd get him for a song.
b) We really DO need an LG.
c) He'd be on his BESTEST behavior.
d) He was a Dolphin. And they ARE our division rivals.
e) He'd play with one helluva chip on his shoulder-- especially against said Dolphins.
Why not?
-
So you know, I have lived in Los Angeles for 23 years, now (born and raised in Rochester), and the negotiations for a Los Angeles NFL stadium have been hinging on the availability of an NFL franchise for a few years, now. Los Angeles has already signed a plan with AEG that includes renovations to Staples Center and the LA Convention Center and would build a new stadium at a site called Farmer's Field. The $1.4 billion contract includes $290mil in public financing. All of the public hurdles have been accomplished, and the only one remaining is the lack of an NFL team. The contract expires in October, and will likely be extended, and rewritten to start the Staples Center/Convention Center renovations without the Farmer's Field build, pending the availability of an NFL team. As it stands, the current favorite is the Rams, although, I fear that the recent availability of the Bills might move them up in the running. Indeed, the timing of the Non-Relocation Agreement might even time out perfectly for such a deal. Be that as it may, both the City of Los Angeles, and Roger Goodell and the NFL have expressed a commitment to getting an NFL team back in Los Angeles.Where is this guarantee of public funding? It is harder than ever (and rightfully so) to get public dollars allocated toward a stadium project. If LA wanted this, it could have happened many times in the past 20 years; hell, go further back than that when Al D and co. were griping about the Mausoleum.
-
Unfortunately, ROI in a market like Los Angeles or Toronto is a lot higher than keeping the team in Buffalo. I don't know about Toronto, but in Los Angeles, a new stadium would be publicly funded, and if someone had a team to bring to LA, would be as good as built.Look up the TV contracts for NFL football. It is nearly impossible to lose money. Now, making back your investment will take a heck of a lot of time, but considering $400M penalty, legal fees, NFL relocation fees + a share of a billion dollars for a stadium in another locality, that's way more than a billion to make back...
-
Actually, the economic impact of an NFL franchise is much greater than you are describing (especially for a small city like Buffalo), and goes far beyond "8 days a year." Besides the income generated by fan based activities, there are hundreds of jobs from coaches all the way down to janitors. Even a venue like RWS gets constant upgrades and maintenance which is largely paid for by the Bills-- plumbing contractors, carpenters, electricians, etc. A certain amount of the substantial television revenue gets reinvested locally. And, if there were a new stadium project, Buffalo would be looking at literally thousands of well-paying jobs. A substantial amount of the incomes from these jobs would be pumped right back into the local economy. A couple years ago, I was in Miami on business and was given a tour of the new Marlins stadium as it was being built, and the number of jobs that were created for that project was in the tens of thousands.A big blow? It's 8 days a year. 2 preseason games that really don't count. Decent teams might get a playoff game and good teams get multiple. Buffalo has had none for 15 years. Even if those businesses showed a HUGE increase on game days, there are simply too few of them to make a significant difference to any store or shops bottom line for the year. And if by some miracle some business did show a significant impact on their bottom line from those few days, they would be insignificant compared to all the businesses in the Buffalo area.
A NFL team is a "nice to have" for the minority of people who are hard core fans, but certainly not a big blow to a city.
-
As there has been some confusion-- even in the press-- about what a new Bills owner may, or may not plan for the future of the Bills, I finally just went and found an online copy of the Non-Relocation Agreement and read it for myself. (Here is the link: http://www2.erie.gov...n Agreement.pdf )I obviously disagree. Any city building a new stadium for the relocated Bills would have to do so without even a tentative deal from the team, as the lease forbids the team from even planning a relocation during the lease term. Or do you think an out of town owner will easily win a court battle with Erie County, then pay the $400 M in damages and then get a stadium built? Seems like a bridge too far to me.
Schumer's relationship with Goodell and his position on the Senate Finance Committee puts him in a position to threaten the NFL's tax exempt status. Don't you think that that tax exempt status is worth more to the NFL than any revenue deficiency caused by a Buffalo-based team? The NFL knows where it's bread is buttered. And we've not even discussed any provisions of the Wilson estate which could favor a local owner.
But I guess I'm not as imaginative as you are, Code.
Unfortunately, I think you are wrong regarding the building of a stadium to which the Bills would be relocated. Sections 3, and 4 deal with this issue. The agreement states that the Bills may not "enter into any contract or agreement to sell, assign or otherwise transfer the Team to any Person who, to the Bills’ knowledge, intends to relocate, transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." That phrase, "during the Non-Relocation Term" is reiterated several times in sections 3, and 4. Note that there is no comma in the phrase, "...transfer or otherwise move the Team during the Non-Relocation Term to a location other than the Stadium." In other words, there is no language in the Non-Relocation Agreement barring the Bills from selling the team to a person who intends to relocate the Bills after the Non-Relocation Term. That's how I read it.
-
Perhaps you didn't read the article. Not dead.Could it?---Jeez, someone started a second thread to rehash this exact topic and it's still on the top half of TSW page 1! Yes itcould.
And thanks for supplying more links describing the AEG stadium plan as dead. IN fact, the only thing more dead is the Roski City of industry plan.
Stan Kroemke is the ONLY guy with the motive and the means to get his team to LA in a stadium of his own.
Not many outside of the Brown's fan club (PBS, The Atlantic, etc) believe that bugdet is sound or balanced. The "balanced" budget deosn't include unfunded civil pensions and health care (combined 400 billion and growing)---oops! And then thorw in the totally wacky high speed rail fetish project that no one wants but has to be built..
Now, since you have asked me for published evidence of my assertions (which I certainly have), perhaps you could provide some evidence that the Bills current lease bars them from considering any future plans beyond the terms of the lease.
And, regarding the budget, that is why I included the parenthetical "arguably."
-
California has just balanced its budget (arguably), and the money for an NFL stadium is already there.I just don't see a publicly funded stadium being built in LA. CA has been broke for the last decade. My money is on St. Louis moving at some point. Just a guess like everyone else.
Toronto concerns me more as the Bon Jovi group has a principle investor who is worth at least 2 billion. The NFL doesn't like investor groups, but if one of the principles has that kind of capital, we could be in trouble. They could say they are keeping it in Buffalo, while they build a Toronto stadium, the NFL regionalizes more with the first Canadian team, and they start playing a couple of games in Toronto. After 2020, they move into their new stadium and become the Toronto Bills or even change the last name.
That to me seems viable and a nightmare. I'm done with the Bills and can hate Mrs. Wilson just like when you bring up the name Modell in Cleveland.
-
I'm not sure how a lease could prevent an investment group from building a stadium in a different state, regardless of its intended purposes. Nor do I see how a lease could dictate the future intentions of an entity renting a space. I certainly haven't read the lease, but does it (or even could it) really dictate that the Bills cannot decide future plans beyond the terms of the lease until the lease is expired? That doesn't make any sense to me.Can you share your new info on the AEG field plan? The NFL says it's dead. The owner of AEG just tried to sell the company 2 months ago, then fired his CEO--and abruptly took the company off the market. Why do you insist it's not a dead plan?
As far as I understand, the lease prohibits any plans for moving (like...building a new stadium out of town) until 2020.
Be that as it may:
This article was actually posted today.
]http://www.ladowntow...19bb2963f4.html
Considering the amount of time that it would take for AEG to bring in an NFL team, Farmer's Field may be a non-starter. A quote from the article: "Though AEG continues to pursue a stadium and a deal with the NFL, city officials recognize that they can no longer rely solely on that vision." Of course, the crux of this article is that the Farmer's Field portion of AEG's contract with the city of LA is due to expire, and the city would like to move on with the rest of it. But, I think that the city of LA is very much on board with the notion of building Farmer's Field.
This is AEG's current website: http://www.farmersfield.com
The strongest alternative to Farmer's Field is the City of Industry plan called "Grand Crossing." http://www.losangele...ballstadium.com
It's really not as crazy as it sounds. The acreage, logistics, parking, area of SoCal it would serve, and traffic issues all make it a better choice. The one thing that the AEG/Farmer's Field plan has going for it is the gung-ho support of the city of Los Angeles.
For the record: I am not predicting that the Bills are going to move to Los Angeles, and I would be very depressed if they did. I think that Both the Rams, and Raiders are more likely outcomes. But, I do think that it is a distinct possibility, and I also think that the timing of the lease agreement (assuming it doesn't contain the poison pill you suggest), and the Bills impending sale (which could easily be two years away) just might increase the odds of it happening.
-
This is delusional thinking. Their is a low chance Trump would move the team.There's a 0% chance he would move the team.
Go on record. Who do you want?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted