GG

This headline needs no further explanation: Three power plays, only three shots It was infuriating to see the constant perimeter passing on PP for 2 straight games

C'mon, one more draft and FA period will fix it

Or lighting up a blunt.

Let's see how tomorrow's event turns out too

Again, you're trying to bring intent into a legal discussion. Just like in the example yesterday, the law doesn't much care about intent. Trump's intent may have very well been to harm Biden. But it doesn't matter because he didn't break the law. You're following Schiff's reasoning to a tee, which is really a political argument best saved for the election. It should have zero relevance on the impeachment.

It would be awesome if the can do a partial cover that Dolphins did for their stadium, but I'm not sure that the bowl design can easily accommodate that.

After 9 pages of discussion of a 2nd hand source, let's put Roger's full comments in here, because there's a lot more there than PFT fire drill note. (Emphasis below is mine) About a year ago, the ownership of the Buffalo Bills commissioned a study about what to do with its stadium situation, either new construction or another upgrade of the circa-1973 New Era Field. What’s your understanding, the league’s understanding, of where that stands from the study, if you could shed light on that, and also, what is your and the league’s position on what should the next steps be for a facility in Buffalo? “Well, as you know, I’ve been involved with negotiations in Buffalo going back into the ’90s. Consistently through that time period, we have focused on the stadium and the importance of the stadium in the context of that, and the need to continue to renovate and/or look to see whether a new stadium is a better answer for the long term. This has been contemplated in the leases right up until, I think, the most recent one, which I believe was 2016, but that is coming to a close. At that point in time, I am hoping that it will continue, and I expect that it will continue to be a collaborative process between the public sector and obviously the Bills. We all want the Buffalo Bills to continue to be in Buffalo, to be successful. A stadium that is going to be competitive with other stadiums around the league is going to be important in that context, and I think everyone is committed to that, whether it is new, significant renovation or whether it is a completely new facility in a new location. I think those are things that the group has to settle collectively and to address over the next several months, if not sooner.”

I was more opposed to Farage's tactics than to the effect of the vote.

On the 12th

What the hell is this all about?

Have a hunch that this will turn out much better for UK than it will for the EU. And this is coming from someone who believes in global trade.

It would have been better if they tried to claim that Trump wouldn't know what a crane is. As an aside, the lefties probably don't know that the oldest Trump kids used to spend summers in Czechoslovakia, so it's more than likely that Trumpster knows the East European layout.

He totally contradicts himself. How can he be scarred by the trade when he was admitted that at that point in his life he didn’t want to be in Buffalo and was traded a week later? He was scarred by getting his wish?

I think @Deranged Rhino needs to comment on this.

Considering Bills have the cheapest ticket prices in the NFL, I’ll let you answer the question. And I don’t think Chargers are playing in a soccer stadium next year

Does this go here or in the refugees thread? Record-long drug-smuggling tunnel found from Mexico to San Diego Authorities are revealing what they called "the longest illicit cross-border tunnel" from Mexico to the San Diego area. The tunnel, which begins in Tijuana, Mexico, was located in an industrial area a half-mile from the Otay Mesa Port of Entry and was concealed by a small industrial building, according to a Wednesday news release by the U.S. Border Patrol San Diego sector and its partners.

Don't know why I'm responding but.... If it was a non-story, Goodell would have left it alone. By specifically mentioning a competitive stadium means the league won't be happy if Bills simply extend the lease, which is usually the first option for anyone who has an expiring lease and no other place to go to. If it was a non-story, Pegulas wouldn't have needed to issue a subsequent statement about how close they are to an announcement about their stadium plans.

I take it you missed this key part of the non-story? On Wednesday, Goodell said the NFL wants the Bills to be in Buffalo and be successful while adding that it is important for the team to have a stadium that is “competitive” with others in the league. He also said that the decision about which route to pursue is something the Bills and the local government have to hammer out in the near future.

Careful with those numbers, the #18 place is under Forbes' definition of operating income. Bills revenue was about $386 mil, which was at the bottom, with Lions & Bengals. Thanks to the CBA deal, NFL franchise revenues are clustered closed together than any other major professional league. But it doesn't mean that it will stay that way forever. It's hard to get indepth into Forbes' numbers because a lot of needed information is missing, so you have to back into their numbers. Let's compare Bills & 49ers. We can use Bills as the NFL floor for revenues because they have the cheapest ticket prices, don't sell PSLs, don't bring in huge parking fees, and local radio contracts are not big. They earned $386m in revenues in 2018, while 49ers took in $492m. Subtracting player costs of about $200m from each team will give the profit after player salaries for each team, and by adding all other expenses in Forbes' analysis gets us to "operating profit" of $82m for Bills and $93m for 49ers. Backing into these numbers would indicate that 49ers spent about $100m more on operations and debt service than Buffalo. Only a portion of that can be attributed to the higher cost of business in Silicon Valley vs WNY, and most of the difference is debt service. Thus, from 49ers standpoint, they are not getting the proper return on their investment to build a new stadium. They may have been ok with the last CBA to keep labor piece, but every franchise has more operating and debt service costs now, and I don't think they will be as generous as before, especially if one franchise isn't keeping up. Look around the league, which franchise is still playing in a stadium that was built in 1973 (or hasn't been significantly renovated). Vikings and Lions are in their third home since Rich Stadium opened. Even if current revenue sharing remains in place, Bills can lose if future streams are not subject to sharing, like gambling. Imagine each team getting a cut on any bet of its games. Do you think Buffalo would be in the top or bottom of that action? What if extreme owners propose eliminating the salary cap, with full support of the NFLPA? Pegulas aren't stupid and know the game they need to play. They just need to find the cheapest and best money to move forward. The only thing the fans know for certain is that ticket prices will be much higher in a few years, in whatever new stadium is built. Hopefully it will be in Buffalo

Good luck with that! Forbes is the only public source, but you have to pick through the numbers to get the real story. If anything, the Forbes numbers prove the point that high revenue, big market teams will play hard ball in the next round of negotiations because now they are bringing in much less money home than the teams they are subsidizing.

The major revenues are from TV contracts- Direct TV, CBS, NBC, FOX & ESPN, followed by SiriusXM and other national radio - That's about $10 billion for the league as a whole and is shared equally. If this changes, then yeah, Bills will be subject to the scheduling devil, which won't be kind. Then come the new digital revenues, international & merch and licensing. Those are the big ticket items, followed by stadium revenues, which are also split among gate receipts, concessions, parking, suites and PSLs. These are not shared equally. Bills have the lowest ticket prices, which are $30 below the NFL average, meaning visiting teams on average "lose" $3 million in lost revenue opportunity each time they play in Buffalo. Conversely, Bills get a subsidy by playing away games in stadiums with higher ticket prices. Merchandising is another area where Bills are lagging. Right now that revenue is shared. But how many Allen jerseys are sold around the world compared to the stars? The point I'm trying to get across is that the current revenue sharing deals aren't permanent. The high revenue teams in big markets all upgraded their facilities recently, have pretty big debt payments and are subsidizing the smaller market teams. The Forbes article that Lurker links is totally misleading about teams' finances. I've always had a problem with Ozanian's methodology, starting from the basics that he's redefining accounting terms - Operating Income is not EBITDA, and it's certainly not inclusive of debt service costs. That's why you see crazy low "operating income" numbers for Jets, Giants, Bears and Rams. These teams have crazy expenses now because they all upgraded their facilities. I don't think it will sit well for Terry to come in and tell them to go pound sand after they just poured billions of their own money into new stadiums. Like it or not, Buffalo is subsidized by the big NFL teams. All they want is for Pegula to try to keep up. This chart is completely misleading as to the actual operating income and finances.

This is a very good parallel to the Athletic story about Buffalo's attraction for free agents. Let's say the league goes to a prortional model based on ratings and merch sales. Buffalo could easily lose $30 million in annual revenues and run at a loss every year. How long would Pegulas be willing to subsidize that loss, compounded by the potential of a new franchise 100 miles to the north in a market 4 times it's size? We don't like it as Bills fans, but it doesn't change the reality.

You have to keep in mind the other owners position in this and how much they dislike the revenue sharing deal. Right now all major national revenues are equally shared. But what contributes to the revenues, tv ratings and licenses, are not really equal. The major franchises have higher ratings and blow Bills out of the water. So tell me what leverage Pegulas have over Jerruh, who spent billions of his own money on his Taj Mahal, and is partially subsidizing Buffalo's and Cincys operations? If Pegulas don't take ANY steps to increase the revenue contributions, there will be equally strong incentive by Jones , Kroenke, etc to hold a firmer line to drastically change the sharing formula. You continue to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of what the other owners can do to the Buffalo franchise.

It's formula set in the CBA, based on revenues that are shared and unshared. I haven't looked up the latest formula recently. But roughly, the major media contacts and I think merch from NFL.com licensed sales are shared. Gate receipts are shared 60/40. The rest isn't shared. The Bills are at or near the bottom of shared revenue contributions, and the big owners always resented Ralph because he never invested enough to increase revenues in Orchard Park. Telling Pegulas to hold firm is silly, because it won't work with the majority owners who control the vote. He doesn't have any leverage outside pounding on the table.

There was less than subtle pressure on the lower revenue teams from Jerruh & Kraft in previous CBA discussions. They certainly hold more sway in owners' meetings and can force major changes to the overall revenue sharing formulas, which will kill Bufalo & Cincy. Remember, last time the big guys didn't like the formula at all. Pegulas have very little negotiating leverage.