Rocky Landing

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. 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."

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.

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.

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.

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 )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. 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'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. 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.

I absolutely agree with this. BOPA.

What'd I miss? Is something going our way?

Who knows? Maybe he'll operate the team at a loss and use it as a tax deduction.

I haven't read through this thread, so I'm sure I'm probably the fiftieth person to say this, but: I can't believe we're in a position where I'm hoping that Donald Trump buys the Bills. I think this is more true of investment groups that would be likely to move the Bills out of WNY. If a potential buyer is serious about keeping them in WNY (as the Donald says he is), then the press coverage would help the sale. In fact, I will guess that whoever buys the Bills (whether they plan to keep them in WNY or not) will express their desire to keep them in Buffalo-- right up until the time that they don't. I should stop posting on this subject. I'm getting to be a real downer.

It would be easier to ignore if it had only been one injury, and only one knee.

You're kind of making my point for me regarding operating margin. There are several franchises worth much more than the Bills with lower margins (again, expressed as a ratio). Neither operating margins nor operating income are tied to valuation, and indeed, these figures can vary dramatically from year to year, depending on variable costs, business plans, etc, as well as market trends. I'm not sure what you mean by, "operating income is as close to margin as they get." Regarding Los Angeles, you may be right that "the business plan of building a stadium as a landlord only is doomed." But, that's not really what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about the future owners of the Bills. And, quite possibly, the timing of the lease, and the amount of time it would take for an LA stadium to be built (and, no, the AEG/Farmers Field plan is not dead) could work out perfectly for an investment group to buy the Bills with the intention of moving them to LA. This seems obvious to me. (And, despite his current platitudes regarding keeping the Bills in WNY, I believe Goodell, and the NFL would be on board.) The fact that the Bills- the third lowest valued team- has a decent operating margin, makes them more attractive to such a scheme, not less.

First of all, you didn't say "operating income." You said "operating margin." A very different beast. Operating margin is expressed as a ratio. I could literally operate a lemon aid stand with a higher operating margin than the Cowboys (currently, the highest valued team in the league). Be that as it may, I don't follow teams like the 49ers closely enough to know why their operating income this year would be as low as it is. But, I will bet that if you look at the numbers for the operating income of a team like the Cowboys, it would vary greatly from year to year, especially in relation to their operating margin. Operating income is not an indicator of valuation. As for the plans for an LA stadium, neither the Grand Crossing plan, nor the AEG plan are "belly up." The evidence for this is easy to find, but I offer up the following link: http://nfl.si.com/20...es-nfl-stadium/ Here's another one that's downright amusing: http://www.losangele...m/location.html Truly, that an NFL team will find its way to Los Angeles is a near certainty. And, any Buffalo fan that doesn't think that the Bills are in jeopardy of being moved to LA is in denial.

I've read those statements as well, but I'm not sure that I trust what comes out of his mouth. They read to me more like vague platitudes designed to keep everyone calm. I don't believe he really cares if the Bills stay in Buffalo. I do know that he wants a team in LA. I would assume that any concrete plans to move the Bills would not be made public until the last, possible moment. It's fine to air speculation. But, imagine how badly ticket prices would fall if everyone knew that the Bills would be gone in seven years.

The desire to get a football team back in Los Angeles is very real-- not just on the part of the numerous, deep-pocketed investors in Los Angeles, but by the NFL, and Roger Goodell, as well. And, in fact, the timing of the lease agreement may fit into the entire scenario all too well. I should note that I live in Los Angeles (born and raised in Rochester), and that an NFL team will eventually be in Los Angeles is almost a certainty. And, while much hay has been made of Buffalo's "viability" as a market, it should be pointed out that in 2012 (according to Forbes) the only two teams less profitable than the Bills were the Jags, and the Raiders. But, make no mistake-- Los Angeles is going to get an NFL team. The links below do not represent mere pipe dreams. http://www.losangelesfootballstadium.com/location.html http://nfl.si.com/2014/02/05/los-angeles-nfl-stadium/